It's hard to find any evidence that would indicate he isn't.
Is Obama creating a Welfare Society?(30 posts)
Posted on January 27, 2012 - 11:39 AM #
The more we have a dependent society, the more the Democrats have a lock on their power and wealth.Posted on January 27, 2012 - 11:42 AM #
What would you guys have to bitch about otherwise?Posted on January 27, 2012 - 11:44 AM #
The Liberal Democrats want people on government handouts. That way they can thump their chests and say "See what a great job we are doing."Posted on January 27, 2012 - 11:45 AM #
Sure there is evidence he isn't.
The huge increase in public assistance is directly related to our toxic economic policy.
Hard liners believe people should just grovel in the mess, dying, living homeless, whatever. I think that's unrealistic and way beneath us as a nation. We have enough to enable people to live modest, healthy lives. That they aren't isn't their fault.
I'm not there at all. If the entitlements / safety nets are being strained, that is a clear indicator that investment in the people is needed. The GOP spends all their time saying NO to that, leaving people few choices.
Obama is protecting the people economically, and it's expensive. In the end, doing that is more expensive than empowering them is. What do people expect him to do?
Get up there and pull a Cain? "Blame yourself?"
Fuck that. Shit policy leaves people without means, and they either suffer, or it costs us. Economic policy that enables people to take care of their own costs much less and the safety nets are there for those that really need them, no worries.
Obama is simply holding our elected leaders to task. It's not morally supportable to deny people opportunity, enriching the wealthy and expect them to just live shit lives so those wealthy people feel better about it all.
Invest in those people, and it will pay back more than just taking care of the wealthy does.
Blame the GOP. They are the ones pushing hard for us to go down that road, "make him fail", "hope he fails" style.
Had they actually done what the President asked them to do, we would not be having this discussion. Most of the people get this too, and I expect a blood bath this coming election. A Congress that is actually working for the American people will make a huge difference.Posted on January 27, 2012 - 11:47 AM #
Of course. Obummer is never at fault.Posted on January 27, 2012 - 11:51 AM #
Likewise, I'm pretty sure that he's also not responsible for every ill in the world, as you seem to claim that he is.Posted on January 27, 2012 - 11:53 AM #
Deane fully explained: http://news.yahoo.com/low-iq-conservative-beliefs-linked-prejudice-180403506.htmlPosted on January 27, 2012 - 11:57 AM #
The facts and hard data appear to show that it's the RED states who benefit the most from government welfare.Posted on January 27, 2012 - 12:05 PM #
He's not at fault!
You all saw the percentage of favorable opinion about the SOTU. Obama has been pushing for investments in the people THE WHOLE TIME. The GOP has been denying that THE WHOLE TIME, still clinging to the trickle down idea.
The choice is clear. Oligarchy, or Democracy. Obama is aligned with the people, the GOP with the wealthy. End of story.
It isn't Obama's problem, and there isn't any rational way to pin the cost issues on him right now. Thank Congress, and the GOP "make him fail" for that in particular.
They made their bed, now they lie in it. Simple as that.Posted on January 27, 2012 - 12:09 PM #
Want to blame Obama? Implement his vision, like we did with a whole string of regressive asses, and when it actually does fail, blame him for it.
Until then, this isn't his problem.Posted on January 27, 2012 - 12:10 PM #
+1 Missing!Posted on January 27, 2012 - 12:28 PM #
>>>"Implement his vision"<<<
What is his vision?Posted on January 27, 2012 - 12:46 PM #
Deane, is there any evidence Mitt Romney doesn't want to put poor people in concentration camps and gas them? Why do you Republicans hate poor people?Posted on January 27, 2012 - 12:58 PM #
"Likewise, I'm pretty sure that he's also not responsible for every ill in the world, as you seem to claim that he is."
He's not. Haven't you been reading all the posts here? He's not at fault at all. It's ALL Bush's fault.Posted on January 27, 2012 - 01:25 PM #
It's hard to look at this graph and come to any conclusion but "It's ALL Bush's fault."Posted on January 27, 2012 - 01:40 PM #
Ignore! Ignore! Ignore! It's a liberal media conspriacy!Posted on January 27, 2012 - 01:42 PM #
@Deane: You did watch SOTU right?
Obama outlined it clearly, and in basic, general terms. Not hard.Posted on January 27, 2012 - 06:20 PM #
>>>"@Deane: You did watch SOTU right?"<<<
I did not. I no longer believe anything he says.Posted on January 27, 2012 - 07:03 PM #
"I no longer believe anything he says."
I believe what he says is honest, but he's not a dictator who can just impose his will on everyone. It takes a Congress to pass bills to send to him for his signature, and that just hasn't happened.
He's followed through on a lot, considering the obstructionist GOP trying their best to ruin the economy so Obama can be a one termer.
Too bad the majority of Americans see through the BS.Posted on January 27, 2012 - 07:08 PM #
>>>"so Obama can be a one termer"<<<
Hopefully, the good Lord will take pity on the U.S. and make this come true.Posted on January 27, 2012 - 07:18 PM #
When your dream doesn't come true, let it be another example that the lord thinks your side sucks.Posted on January 27, 2012 - 07:24 PM #
I always find it interesting that in a system of government where the government consists of a legislative branch (Senate and House) and a separate executive branch that one can "blame" one branch or another for public policy. The policies that have gotten us here are the result of a legislative branch devising poor public policy and a complicit executive neglecting to veto poor public policy.
I don't blame Bush for this mess and I don't blame Obama for its continuation... it is the fault of the combination of the legislative and executive...
I would like to see less discussion of blame and more discussion of what public policy steps would result in a better outcome of the majority of people. I am not sure that it is either what the Republicans are peddling or what the Democrats are pushing.Posted on January 27, 2012 - 07:37 PM #
The Liberal Democrats want people on government handouts. That way they can thump their chests and say "See what a great job we are doing."
EXTREME RADICAL RIGHT WINGers want everyone poor and undereducated so they can rule with an iron fist. Say no to 8 more years like 2000 to 2008! SAY FUCK NO!!!!!!!!!Posted on January 27, 2012 - 07:52 PM #
"I no longer believe anything he says."
I never believed anything he said or will say.
Two reasons; 1-He's a politician. 2-He's a Democrat.Posted on January 27, 2012 - 09:39 PM #
">>>"Implement his vision"<<<
What is his vision?"
Lots of overpaid union government workers. Bailouts for failing corporations. Crony capitalism. More and more government involvement in as much of the economy as possible and less freedom for all.
Control of the masses by making them dependent upon handouts, government jobs, or special privileges to some because of government coercion.
The vision is that the non productive and underproductive outnumber the productive, and that they can call the shots via legislation, and always have geese to squeeze for their golden eggs.
What is sad is that there would be more for all if instead freedom would reign.Posted on January 27, 2012 - 09:47 PM #
Skybill:"Two reasons; 1-He's a politician. 2-He's a Democrat."
Admit it, Bill - you're an anarchist. According to your theory, once an elected representative takes office, they become corrupt and cannot and should not be trusted. Government is by nature corrupt, there is no form of government that can limit, control, or stem that corruption, so government must be abolished.
That's your basic message almost every post.
Honestly, is there any system of government where you would trust government action? Any system that would reign in people's natural tendencies toward corruption when handed power? Whaddaya thinking, direct democracy or something? That's pretty utopian.Posted on January 27, 2012 - 10:03 PM #
"once an elected representative takes office, they become corrupt and cannot and should not be trusted."
Oh hell no. It happens long before that.
"Government is by nature corrupt, there is no form of government that can limit, control, or stem that corruption, so government must be abolished."
No it's not. It has become that way over the last however many decades.
If politicians could not take huge bribes (pronounced; campaign contributions) then that would go a long way to cleaning things up. That and put an end to career politicians. 2 terms max, just like the president.
Make the maximum campaign contribution $50 or $100 from any one person or corporation would be a good place to start. Doing away with all PAC's and lobbyists would also help.
The next step would be to do away with the retirement plan and health plan that the politicians get. If Socialist Insecurity and Obummercare is good enough for the people of the United States then it’s good enough for the elected people too. Why should they get special plans that we the people have to fund?
The system is so corrupt now that they only way to fix it might be just to vote ALL incumbents out and start over.Posted on January 27, 2012 - 10:18 PM #
Bill, how about NO outside money? Just give each candidate a block sum of money to run a short campaign (from taxes - sorry, but that's the only way this will work) tiered to the level of government. For example, A mayoral candidate gets $5000, the president gets $5 million. Then they run a short campaign (can't legally run until Labor Day, election in November), then they serve one term or a limited number of terms. That would strip out a lot of the bribes and corruption. Would a plan like this work for you?
Because I think you are saying that it's not having political power that makes elected officials corrupt, it's bribes and influence peddling. So let's make bribing illegal, and that only way to do that is to make campaign contributions illegal.Posted on January 27, 2012 - 10:26 PM #
"Would a plan like this work for you?"
Yeah, it might. Giving them a small block of tax money would probably net the taxpayers a huge savings in "paybacks".
I think 2 terms would be fine. That's what we have in place for the president so why not for everyone.
"So let's make bribing illegal,"
I'm pretty sure it already is illegal. Doesn't mean it's not happening though!
A big sore point for me is the "special" treatment they get. They need to abide by the same rules, programs and laws that they pass for the rest of the country.
The President and some others do need Secret Service protection, but that's not the special treatment I'm talking about. No special medical plan, they get Obamacare just like the rest of the country (they of course can purchase additional insurance just like we have to), no special retirement plan. They get to participate in Social Security just like we have to. Again, they can do their own investing in a 401K or something else if they wish, just like we have to.
They are public servants, elected by us. They need to start acting like it.
Edit Add: The added benefit to the smallar campaign war chests and shorter time frame is that there would be far fewer of the stupid political commercials on TV!!! That in itself should be justification for it!Posted on January 27, 2012 - 11:37 PM #
You must log in to post.