Obama folds to Conservative Anti-Humanism--Cuts Energy aid to Poor

reply to post by projectvxn


My point was that Republicans today are even far worst than those of yerterday.

reply to post by SeesFar


All your wordy defense of the anti-human Republicans can be easily refuted by the fact that when they were in power Under the second Bush they didn’t offer any kind of universal health care.

reply to post by daddyroo45


No one wants to give to freeloaders.

I have worked over forty years and when I was too young to work borrowed my brother’s ss# so I could go to work.
Any thing will have its degree of fraud. We can use modern methods to route that out but believe me this modern economy needs aasssistance for the poor.

Such is the price we pay for decades of writing checks our ass can't cash......

Originally posted by Fractured.Facade
Well they wanted to send grandma home to die with no treatments in the health care bill.. This way she can die at home from exposure to extreme heat or cold.

The republicans can kill granny cheaper. Obama is a wise man.

If i'm misunderstanding your post, i apologize; however, it is Obama who is proposing to cut the funding to LIHEAP:

Straight from the very progressive liberal Huffington Post (www.huffingtonpost.com...):

Less than two months after signing tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans into law, President Barack Obama proposed a spending plan to Congress that cuts funding to programs that assist the working poor, help the needy heat their homes, and expand access to graduate-level education, undermining the kind of community-based organizations that helped Obama launch his political career in Chicago.

And from fellow Democrats (nationaljournal.com...)

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., declared: “The President’s reported proposal to drastically slash LIHEAP funds by more than half would have a severe impact on many of New Hampshire’s most vulnerable citizens and I strongly oppose it." A spokesman for Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., declared similarly: “If these cuts are real, it would be a very disappointing development for millions of families still struggling through a harsh winter.”

show me a POOR Person in the USA that needs help with there heating bill and I'll show you some one with a CELL PHONE, cable tv, and a brand new 52" flate screen tv driving a car thats less than 5 years old.
before any one in the country gets any form of aid they should have to get rid off all the goodies or NO AID !

reply to post by comppwizz


Or at least PROVE that they actually need that aid.

There are 42 million people in this country on food stamps. And the government is looking to INCREASE the number of people receiving food aid.

When we measure the success of a program like this by how many people use it rather than how many DON'T use it, we have a problem. And some around here don't seem to get that.

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by comppwizz

 

Or at least PROVE that they actually need that aid.

There are 42 million people in this country on food stamps. And the government is looking to INCREASE the number of people receiving food aid.

When we measure the success of a program like this by how many people use it rather than how many DON'T use it, we have a problem. And some around here don't seem to get that.

Dr. Thomas Woods has some really good lectures about the welfare state, filled with theory and statistics regarding those on the margin when it comes to this kind of subsidizing of the poor.

Originally posted by green-tree
thinkprogress.org... Ahh the Greedy Old Party. If Ebeneezer Scrooge was a real person he would be in the GOP.

You don't think Scrooge would have taken heat away from the poor and the elderly? Obama wants to do just that. Why do you not judge his action in that as being like Scrooge?

And, speaking of greedy: www.atr.org...# "Obama's FY2012 Budget:
Taxes, Taxes, and More Taxes"

President Obama released his budget this morning. Rather than focusing on Washington’s over-spending problem, the budget calls for higher taxes on families and small businesses to pay for even more government spending. Under the Obama budget, tax revenues will grow from 14.4% of GDP in 2011 to 20% of GDP in 2021. By comparison, the historical average is only 18% of GDP.

Then, in case you missed this jewel: www.washingtontimes.com... "Government Debt to Exceed U.S. Economy"

President Obama‘s budget, released Monday, was conceived as a blueprint for future spending, but it also paints the bleakest picture yet of the current fiscal year, which is on track for a record federal deficit and will see the government’s overall debt surpass the size of the total U.S. economy.

Mr. Obama‘s budget projects that 2011 will see the biggest one-year debt jump in history, or nearly $2 trillion, to reach $15.476 trillion by Sept. 30, the end of the fiscal year. That would be 102.6 percent of GDP - the first time since World War II that dubious figure has been reached.

And the budget projects the government will run a deficit of $1.645 trillion this year, topping 2009’s previous record by more than $230 billion. By contrast, 2007’s deficit was just $160 billion altogether.

Don't you see that the party bickering is amounting to nothing? Neither side can fix this and keep anybody happy. Frankly, neither side can fix this at all. Oh, both sides can and will posture and most Americans will pick a side and posture along with them, but at the end of the day it will be for naught. And the end of the day is coming sooner rather than later.

One side, the Republicans, are giving the appearance of cutting government spending. While the other side, the Democrats (in the form of Obama's FY2012 budget), are giving the appearance of cutting government spending.

The Republicans aren't really cutting much that the American people would like to see cut. But they're attempting to give the impression of making cuts, as promised. Obama isn't really cutting much that the American people would like to see cut; in fact, he's increasing taxes more than he's cutting spending, but he's attempting to give the impression of making cuts, as promised. On both sides of the coin, it's nothing but smoke and mirrors to keep your focus off of what is really going on.

The IMF is calling for replacing the U.S. dollar with a basket of currencies ~ Special Drawing Rights. (money.cnn.com...). France, as the current head of the G20, is pushing HARD for that (www.rte.ie...). China, now the #2 economy in the world, has been pushing hard for it for a long time. In fact, China and Russia got tired of waiting a couple of months ago and now have their own thing going on in an effort to push the rest of the world into dropping the dollar (www.nytimes.com...)

Do you understand what that means? What it REALLY will mean should that actually happen? Do you know that the U.S. is the only Country that can just print money out of thin air? Do you understand what the value of our dollar will be if it is no longer the reserve currency of the world? If not, look at history; the Weimar Republic of Germany just prior to WWII should give you a real good idea.

There are much, much bigger issues at play right now than fighting one side of the political coin against the other side of the same coin.

Neither side has an answer. Neither side can fix this ~ it's gone too far. Yet still Americans bicker and posture, one 'side' against the other 'side.'

The government has NO money. The vast majority of the citizens have NO money. There is NO money; it's just an illusion in the form of coins and bills, debit cards and transaction sheets. All there is is debt. You can bet your last asset that the ultra wealthy have already converted huge amounts of their money into other currencies.

Do you know why our dollar is worth a dollar? It's worth a dollar because we all agree that it's worth a dollar and because, so far, other Countries have been willing to agree that it's worth a dollar. That's about to change.

Rather than posture one side against the virtually identical other side, you might want to begin to consider what we're going to do when our currency loses 75% of its value. It likely won't happen overnight ... but if the IMF replaces the dollar with SDRs it will happen. What will the rhetoric be worth then?

Originally posted by inforeal
reply to post by SeesFar

 

All your wordy defense of the anti-human Republicans can be easily refuted by the fact that when they were in power Under the second Bush they didn’t offer any kind of universal health care.

Go back and read for comprehension.

I said the Republicans offered alternatives to an unConstitutional mandate. And they did. That's fact; not defense.

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by comppwizz

 

Or at least PROVE that they actually need that aid.

There are 42 million people in this country on food stamps. And the government is looking to INCREASE the number of people receiving food aid.

When we measure the success of a program like this by how many people use it rather than how many DON'T use it, we have a problem. And some around here don't seem to get that.

Almost 2,100 years later and we STILL haven't learned:

"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced. If the nation doesn't want to go bankrupt, people must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance." – Marcus Tullius Cicero, 55 BC

reply to post by infolurker


When the Bankers needed money, I did not see them selling yachts, mansions, antiques, Maseratis, and giving back their multi-million dollar bonuses. Did anyone else see that? Why should we expect the poor to give what little they have when the Bankers had it all and wanted more, more, more. They got their bailout which was supposed to go to help the homeowners who needed help with their mortgages. Instead it went to buy more assets for the bank and the homeowners got foreclosed on.

If the bailout money would have gone directly to the homeowners with the stipulation that it be used to pay off their mortgages, then the homeowners would have gotten out of a tight spot, had money to spend to stimulate the economy further, AND THE BANKERS WOULD HAVE STILL GOTTEN THEIR MONEY. Homeowners would have made out and the Bankers would have made out. But the situation was played so only the Bankers made out and homeowners got [color=#FF0000]BOHICA!!!

Originally posted by inforeal
reply to post by SeesFar

 

All your wordy defense of the anti-human Republicans can be easily refuted by the fact that when they were in power Under the second Bush they didn’t offer any kind of universal health care.

What about the anti-human progressives that support bombing Syria and Afghanistan? That support forced sterilization in order to "save" the planet?