Obama and Welfare: No, this is not your typical Obama thread

[volinbham]

I can't really speak for that: obviously, nothing like a notion of nationalized healthcare (or even healthcare insurance) had ever come their way. It's unfair for me to say for certain that some of them would support Obama on this, but I also think it's unlikely that none of them would be completely opposed to this if they were living in the 21st Century (which is one of the reasons I don't pay as much heed to them as some do, simply because they couldn't possibly speak for all time in the late1700s- early 1800s). They set up the Constitution as a living document, which is to say that they at least realized they were historically limited.

What are the examples of government programs they advocated to help specific individuals? I can think of none. National defense is just about the only thing but that is not for individuals, it is for the entire entity.

Sure the document is a living document - it has to be but to suggest that means we just don't know what they would have been for or against ignores the way they wrote the thing - specifically enumerating what the Fed can do.

 

[PKT_VOL]

1) I don't see anything remotely racist about that ad. I have been hearing that a lot, yet to see it.

Theory vs. Reality

2) Theory first. Do I think in a perfect world that Obama would want to have people who are not disabled on non-temporary welfare? No. In a perfect world, most everyone would have decent middle class jobs and good benefits. The rich people, very few in number, would pay a good bit more in taxes to help out the disabled, the old, the few (hopefully) hard on their luck, and extended periods of time for women to raise their kids.

3) Reality. Reality is this is an election cycle. He is quite obviously is a socialist. That's fine. The problem is that he needs to get elected. The poor and middle class in the country are hurting badly. There are many in that demographic which voted for him the first time that are in a worse off position. Those already on the dole, don't want it to run out or have it threatened to be suspended. He needs their votes; that is part of the equation. There is no two ways about that. But then again that is politics. Both parties are smoothing things over with their bases. Don't be naive to think that this was just a coincidence of being in August in a reelection year. Same with his sudden support of the Dream Act.

 

[hog88]

With all the anti-Obama threads on here, I figured I'd start one that calls into question his attackers. First of all, however, let me say that I am not so naive to believe that he has done everything perfectly; his term has had numerous flaws. Furthermore, I don't know if he is the man to get our economy back on track. However, if someone were to just read this forum and nothing else, they'd likely come away with the impression that not only did Obama get us into this mess in the first place but that he also stands against everything American and simply wishes for people to collect checks all day. I know many of you are fair, but this seems to be the impression that I often get when reading this forum. So here goes: I couldn't find a direct link to just the ad itself, but I did find a critique from The Young Turks that incorporates a full showing of the ad. (Yes, I know The Young Turks are progressive, but that should not subtract from their critique here.) And before I get 10-15 posts asking me this or that, I'll just go ahead and say that the vast majority of critics have found the Romney claims bogus at best. That's all. Obama is not the best, but he isn't the American-tanking prez he's made out to be either.

I don't know that I agree fully with his critique, but I think it's safe to say that Romney has an ace-in-the-hole as well, and not just Obama, when it comes time to voting bases.

Romney's Welfare Attack On Obama - YouTube

First, I don't fault you for your beliefs but I highlighted a couple points.

1- After 3 years of BO's policy I think it is proven he is not the man, neither is the Dem leadership in the Senate. It would be one thing if BO, Reid and the others truly believed in their positions such as ACA, clean energy ext. I don't believe they believe in their own rhetoric, on the face it appears to be about vote buying and power. Lining pockets, mostly their own.

BO's run at the POTUS and his whole politcal life IMHO is about $$$$. He will leave the office a wealthy man.

Where as MR, he's already wealthy so $$ isn't his driving force, it's ego in my view.

2- Do I think BO wants to tank the country, no! Do I think his policies are tanking the country, HE!! yes! Again it's power and money and the best way for the Dems to line their pockets and stay in power is to play nanny.

Do the Repubs covet power and money, absolutley it's just their way of going about it seems to hurt me less.

 

[Volst53]

A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circlue of our felicities.

Thomas Jefferson

 

[BigPapaVol]

A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circlue of our felicities.

Thomas Jefferson

I'm a TJ guy, but to be fair, he wasn't the lone founding father. He was the philosophical giant among them, but he wasn't the only framer.

As an aside, my dog is named TJ.

 

[TennxxVol]

I'm sure this will go over well.

Let's look at what the Obama administration is doing financially.

Reduced down to individual figures that we can comprehend.

Let's say your annual income is $22,000.

Let's say your annual expenditures are $38,000.

Let's say your debt is $161,000.

How long do you think you can continue in such a manner?

You say you don't think Obama is the America tanking president he is made out to be.

Well, then when he says he wants to 'fundamentally change' America, what do you think he means?

 

[PKT_VOL]

Let's look at what the Obama administration is doing financially.

Reduced down to individual figures that we can comprehend.

Let's say your annual income is $22,000.

Let's say your annual expenditures are $38,000.

Let's say your debt is $161,000.

How long do you think you can continue in such a manner?

You say you don't think Obama is the America tanking president he is made out to be.

Well, then when he says he wants to 'fundamentally change' America, what do you think he means?

In fairness, the last four years of Bush was a financial disaster. The problem is bipartisan.

 

[TennxxVol]

In fairness, the last four years of Bush was a financial disaster. The problem is bipartisan.

Bipartisan only MUCH worse with this administration.

The Democrat controled Senate hasn't passed a budget in four years and isn't likely to bring up a budget for a vote this year either.

Thankfully the Democrats won't be in control of the Senate next year.

Are you really in South Korea?

If so you may be out of touch with what is going on here in America.

You might want to see if you can get a copy of the book 'Fool Me Twice' by Elliot and Klein that outlines Obama's plan for the next four years.

Also there is a movie playing in theaters here called '2016, Obama's America', it was third highest grossing film last weekend.

’2016: Obama’s America’ Was Third Highest Grossing Film At The Box Office This Weekend [video]

The producer also produced 'Schlindler's List', 'Jurassic Park' and 'Rain Man' so the film has automatic credibility.

Obama's rhetoric and his real intentions are two completely different animals.

Remember, some animals are more equal than others on the Animal Farm.

 

[govols09]

I know we've disagreed elsewhere before about the Founding Fathers, but the Fathers were fairly conflicted. The debates going on today actually don't differ all that much from the debates going on then concerning Federalism vs. Democrat-Republicanism, or Republicanism (or whatever historians want to call it.) There were some Founding Fathers that might stand beside Obama today and some that obviously wouldn't.

Your last sentence destroyed all credibility. No founding father would stand near W or Obama

 

[PKT_VOL]

Bipartisan only MUCH worse with this administration.

Don't kid yourself. Neither party is fiscally responsible.

The Democrat controled Senate hasn't passed a budget in four years and isn't likely to bring up a budget for a vote this year either.

1201 days. Which is three years and three months. Not four years.

Thankfully the Democrats won't be in control of the Senate next year.

We don't know that yet.

Are you really in South Korea?

I was, I am back in Atlanta now.

If so you may be out of touch with what is going on here in America.

You might want to see if you can get a copy of the book 'Fool Me Twice' by Elliot and Klein that outlines Obama's plan for the next four years.

Also there is a movie playing in theaters here called '2016, Obama's America', it was third highest grossing film last weekend.

’2016: Obama’s America’ Was Third Highest Grossing Film At The Box Office This Weekend [video]

The producer also produced 'Schlindler's List', 'Jurassic Park' and 'Rain Man' so the film has automatic credibility.

Obama's rhetoric and his real intentions are two completely different animals.

Remember, some animals are more equal than others on the Animal Farm.

I am very much in-touch with politics here. I didn't know about that movie. Then again, I don't frequent the movie theater.

 

[volprof]

Your last sentence destroyed all credibility. No founding father would stand near W or Obama

You might be right.

 

[theFallGuy]

“I have never understood why it is "greed" to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else's money.”


― Thomas Sowell

 

[Volst53]

I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.

Benjamin Franklin

 

[utvolpj]

"Do we go forward towards a new vision of an America in which prosperity is shared?" Obama asked.

what exactly is shared prosperity?

"I believe we have to keep working to create an America where no matter who you are, no matter what you look like, no matter where you come from, no matter what your last name is, no matter who you love, you can make it here if you try.

and what about those who don't try Mr Pres?

 

[bamawriter]

and what about those who don't try Mr Pres?

It seems like most of his policies encourage people to stop trying.

 

[VolsNSkinsFan]

Wowzers

Obama: "A New Vision Of An America In Which Prosperity Is Shared" | RealClearPolitics

"Do we go forward towards a new vision of an America in which prosperity is shared?"

 

[TruthIsOutThere]

I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.

Benjamin Franklin

Did you see the herpes sores on that hooker?

Benjamin Frainklin

 

[TennxxVol]

1. Don't kid yourself. Neither party is fiscally responsible.



2. 1201 days. Which is three years and three months. Not four years.



3. We don't know that yet.



4. I was, I am back in Atlanta now.



5. I am very much in-touch with politics here. I didn't know about that movie. Then again, I don't frequent the movie theater.

1. Incumbent rinos are falling right and left to tea party candidates, expect some responsibility in the next session of congress.

2. The democrat senate didn't pass a budget in 2008 for fiscal year 2009, 2010, 2011 or 2012.

That's FOUR years bucko.

They won't for 2013 either, not only is that irresponsible, it's unconstitutional.

3. Care to wager on it?

4. You have my sympathy, Atlanta is a good place to be from, far away from.

5. You should watch it, not sure if it's playing in Atlanta but it is playing at two theaters in Nashville.

As Kengor writes, "nonetheless, whatever our biases, reality is reality, history is history, truth is truth."

Read more: Articles: Sanitizing Obama's Radical Past

If voters want to vote for a dyed in the wool marxist, then fine, that's the way they should vote but I personally think that each voter at least owes himself the right to be informed as about the candidate for whom he is voting.