Obama Just Said that 'Welfare' Made This Country Great...While Trying to Quote Lincoln...

What kind of welfare are we talking about here?

Welfare for single mothers or welfare for oil companies?
Welfare for handicapped children or welfare for banks?

I need to know which welfare people are referring to so I can undersand a little better.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

reply to post by Janky Red


actually yeah money is crapped out it does come from thin air via the federal reserve

loans are nothing more than your pledge to pay the bank back the amount you borrow plus a fee which everyone knows as interest.

you pay the bank profits and then turns around as does the same thing over and over again this is repeated millions of times everyday in america.

when people pay the bank profits the federal reserve profits when people default the bank isn't out of anything since the cash never existed


i don't understand how loans work? bullcrap

and we all know who created the federal reserve.

reply to post by kro32


While raising children to behave appropriately in society, a parent will reward desirable behaviors and punish undesirable behaviors. Through incentives and disincentives children can be taught the value of hard work, perserverance and responsibility for self and others.

The values that made America great were these values -- hard work, perserverance, personal responsibility. What is currently in place is a system that provides incentives for the converse. Laziness, irresponsibility, and greed are paying off for a great number of people.

I don't think it is fair to tax people who have more at an increased rate. (Personally, I have very little materially myself.) But what I see all around me are people who have learned to work the system (both "wealthy" and "poor"). A system that often rewards irresponsibility and greed.

Resist allowing this debate to become class warfare. Make this a warfare on corruption as it exists equaly in board rooms, mansions or public housing.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher
[You must not have an interaction with alot of the people who you state need government help. You see my screen name , well I have been doing that job for over 20 years. every third day of my life I spend 24hrs dealing with the people you are talking about above. The majority of them dont give a $h!t about them selves or even more so YOU.Totally ungrateful, deserving, entitled to it and are the most dangerous you will ever encounter. Yes there are senior citizens, sick children and the truely working poor. But Im here to tell you, having answered thousands of calls to all races, religions, and all nationallites theres a hell of alot more out there that bleed the system daily all over the county.


Appalling, I cant mention on this site the crap a see daily, I still provide the best service I possibly can, but it is almost impossible to have a positive outlook of the people who bleed and scam the social services locally and nation wide.

reply to post by fredvcall


This proves, without question, that Obama is following NWO/Antichristian protocol

Are you kidding me

The rich are already rich while the decently successful are bone dry.

It's about making the rich richer and those that even do well become poorer... Dead poor..

Don't forget many who have suffered most through this crisis go as far as the upper middle class...

At this point it's a financial war on every American from the poor to the not so poor..... Just those with everything will remain.. everything else must go!!! Sale Sale Sale

Do not re-elect Obama... In fact do not elect just anyone.... I think this is our last chance.. No more...that's it.

I know this must sound like trolling but is anything I've said so far been untrue?

Well, you know it was a good speech when the neocons are up in arms and screaming.



thats all, enjoy your grumpfest

Originally posted by Sinnthia
What kind of welfare are we talking about here?

Welfare for single mothers or welfare for oil companies?
Welfare for handicapped children or welfare for banks?

I need to know which welfare people are referring to so I can undersand a little better.

It's the kind of welfare where you are a babysitter for someone you don't know. That someone you don't know whom you are babysitting might be a drug addict. They might be having their fourteenth baby with never having had a job. They might not even be citizens of the United States who are having their fourteen babies at your babysitting expense.

The difference between babysitting welfare liberal socialists and what you call 'corporate welfare for oil companies' is that these people who you are babysitting, they can't make your automobile run. They won't even push your automobile along a declivitous slope. They can't light your home. Not even a tiny flourescent light by which you can read a book. They can't make your computer run. Your television will sit there dark if you rely on them to provide anything in return for all the money you spend on them. All that these welfare liberals socialists can do is take your hard earned money, without even thanking you, then ask for more. While serving no good purpose to the maintenance of either your family or your country.

While you are babysitting these socialists, they might even burglarize your home. Why? Because they feel entitled to 'spread your wealth.' Which means they might sell your stolen articles in a pawn shop that serves as a fence for stolen goods. Not only have they burglarized your home, you still have to babysit them and give them more of your money that you might otherwise use on your family. Like sending your children to a good school.

After all of this done to you, these welfare liberal socialists want you to apologize for any sins they say that you have committed against them. Even though you have never met them. You pay and pay and pay for them, but you receive no goods and services. Very much unlike if you purchase gasoline, you can drive your automobile to the store to purcahse food and clothing. If you have any money left after babysitting those who don't believe they have to work. And why should they work? You and I are supporting them.

Oh, yeah. One more thing. Most of these welfare liberal socialists really don't care if all the whales in the ocean are killed. All they want is their next free paycheck.

Originally posted by Mr Knowledge
reply to post by fredvcall

 

This proves, without question, that Obama is following NWO/Antichristian protocol

Donald Trump has suggested that Obama's birth certificate says 'Muslim' on it, which is why Obama won't show his birth certificate.

This is just so sad to read some of the replies on here...and of course the misinformation that many people's beliefs are based on. I do agree with a previous commenter here who said the goal of the new right-wing extreme neo-liberals is to decimate this country by looting the middle class and transferring massive amounts of wealth to the top 1%.

I was heartened the other day to see the new WSJ/NBC poll that shows that these Washington "insiders" "elites" "extremists" whatever you want to call them, are hugely out of touch with the average American.

Before I go into some of the known facts about the budget and economy as well as all the misleading information that many of the budget extremists and t-baggers are base their positions on. I want to put this all in perspective by showing what actual Americans want from the government:

A) The majority of respondents, 51%, felt that "the government needs to do more". While 46% thought it should do less (the rest "unsure").

B) Only 29% of respondents considers themselves a "supporter" of the Tea Party Movement, while 61% do NOT support them (the rest "unsure"/"it depends").

C) When asked if it is necessary to cut Medicare in order to "significantly reduce the deficit". Only 18% of respondents said "yes", while a majority of 54% said "no". (the rest "unsure/no opinion"). Similarly for Social Security 49% said "no" and only 22% said "yes".

D) When given a list of various programs of which could be cut, respondents were asked to rate each as totally acceptable, mostly acceptable, mostly unacceptable, and totally unacceptable. Options such as Social Security, Education, Medicare, Medicaid, and Heating to Low income families, were all last on the list (in that order) as being "mostly or totally unacceptable" to cut spending from. A whopping 77% felt it was "mostly or totally unacceptable" to cut Social Security. Medicare, again a whopping 76% felt it was unacceptable to cut the program, with Medicaid being at 67% and Education 77%.

E) Among options that would be "most acceptable" of programs that could be "cut or eliminated" at the top of the list was "Surtax on millionaires" of which a whopping 80% felt would be "mostly or totally acceptable"...80%!!! (only 17% were against it). Next on the list was the "elimination of earmarks" which got 78% "mostly or totally acceptable". Eliminating necessary weapons systems from defense was next at 76% acceptable. "Eliminating tax credits for oil & gas companies" at 74% approval and "phasing out Bush tax cuts for those making over 250,000" was at 68% approval.

And for those who want to dismiss this study by saying something like "they probably asked a bunch of liberals"...well according to the participants. 36% identified as "somewhat or very conservative", 38% as "moderate", and only 24% as "somewhat or very liberal" (with the rest being "not sure").

(Source)

Now I want to talk about the deficit and economy.

One major thing that has bothered me, has been all these assertions that "unions" or "welfare queens" or "lazy unemployed americans" have been the ones to cause the big deficit. That is simply not true. The deficits are a result of the recent economic crisis, and partly a reduction in tax revenues. Spending is not as important as most are claiming it to be, because often times, spending money now, has the effect of saving money in the future. Sure it doesn't hurt to cut wasteful programs and being a "smart investor" are all good things, however any economist will tell you that it's just bad policy to cut government spending in times of economic downturns. You cut spending in times of economic prosperity. Government spending should increase, however, during recessions in order to pick up the slack lost by the private sector.

Two years ago, faced with soaring unemployment and large budget deficits -- both the consequences of a severe financial crisis -- most advanced-country leaders (Europe) seemingly understood that the problems had to be tackled in sequence, with an immediate focus on creating jobs combined with a long-run strategy of deficit reduction.

Why not slash deficits immediately? Because tax increases and cuts in government spending would depress economies further, worsening unemployment. And cutting spending in a deeply depressed economy is largely self-defeating even in purely fiscal terms: any savings achieved at the front end are partly offset by lower revenue, as the economy shrinks.

So jobs now, deficits later was and is the right strategy. Unfortunately, it's a strategy that has been abandoned in the face of phantom risks and delusional hopes.

(Source).
Now considering that all the greed and corruption on Wall Street was a major cause of this economic downturn, this is why people find it especially vexing, and just plain cruel, that draconian austerity measures are being applied to everyone else, except this class of wealthy elite money-grubbers that caused the tanking of the economy in the first place. As Paul Krugman put it:

"the poor must accept big cuts in Medicaid and food stamps; the middle class must accept big cuts in Medicare (actually a dismantling of the whole program); and corporations and the rich must accept big cuts in the taxes they have to pay. Shared sacrifice! "

Either way, it seems the entire washington beltway, has simply chosen to ignore the fact that these deficits are also a function of the recession, and perhaps better way would be to expand the economy first and create more jobs...and then go after certain wasteful spending after the economy returns to health. From the CBO:

Since last August, the outlook for the ten-year budget deficit has deteriorated by $1.4 trillion (see Table A-1 on pages 106-7). Note that more than 100% of the deterioration is due to revenue losses; projected federal revenues over the (fiscal years) 2011-20 period declined by $1.9 trillion–a net $713 billion due to recent legislation (the lame-duck deficit-financed tax cuts), but a larger $958 billion due to negative revisions to the economic forecast and the interaction of those economic changes with our less-than-adequately-robust-or-resilient income tax base.

Source Source
What baffles my mind, is that republicans are proposing yet even MORE tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy (and austerity for everyone else). The Ryan plan calls for cutting the top marginal rate to 25 percent — lower than it has been at any time in the past 80 years. Let's look at how those Bush tax cuts stack up against the deficit.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/285035de987d.gif[/atsimg]
Contrary to what some believe, tax cuts are not "deficit neutral"...nor do they "pay for themselves". Here's another couple interesting charts. Here's a trend showing decreasing tax rates with increasing debt and an inverse relationship (again tax cuts = less revenue = increased debt)
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5afec63ba631.jpg[/atsimg]

the claim that lower taxes mean higher revenue — is still very much there. The Heritage Foundation projection has large tax cuts actually increasing revenue by almost $600 billion over the next 10 years.

A more sober assessment from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office tells a different story. It finds that a large part of the supposed savings from spending cuts would go, not to reduce the deficit, but to pay for tax cuts. In fact, the budget office finds that over the next decade the plan would lead to bigger deficits and more debt than current law.

Source

And where do these savings mostly come from in the "Ryan Plan":
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6bcda93b6f36.jpg[/atsimg]
Ah, Of course, the poor and working class. I can't help but think that this has nothing to do with the budget, and all about cutting programs that the new T-party Republicans don't like. Literally what we have is a transfer of wealth to the top...of course it's been happening for the past 30 years, since the implementation of all these "free trade deals", "NATFA", "regressive tax policy" and "neo-liberal economic policies" The vast middle class that made this country so great, is being decimated before our eyes. It's the coming Plutocracy.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/911a7d740438.jpg[/atsimg]
While I can post plenty of charts, and show trends, and how corporations have highjacked our government and manipulated policies towards their own end, by the rich, for the rich...what I understand the least, is how some Americans, middle class Americans, can support this type of policy, against their own economic interest. How they can defend the decimation of the middle class. How they can defend the feckless corporate plutocracy. How can they hate the middle class so much? How can they call American workers "self-entitled, lazy, whiners" when American's have the longest work week of any country in the entire first world, along with least amount of vacation and fewest benefits (if they get benefits as all, since most don't). Of course the corporate class is, I'm sure, happy about this demonization of working Americans, as it plays towards their end goal, a race to the bottom for the rest of us, in which an American worker is forced to compete with factory workers making pennies on the dollar in 3rd world countries like Malaysia and the Philippines. It's a logic that says T-baggers and folks on the radical right would rather this country looked more like Pakistan or Africa because those "evil nazi socialist" European states like Sweden and France, where people live longer and can afford homes and can see doctors when they get sick, are all probably such "horrible" places to live. How did we get here? Anyone care to explain?

[note: I'm sure I'll have to come back and add on to what I've said here, as I'm sure there will be a lot of "accusations" thrown at me for daring to question the almighty rich and wealthy elite]

Originally posted by Janky Red

Originally posted by neo96

Rich people deal in other peoples money to mitigate risk and maximize potential gains, I am studying to
be rich.

edit on 13-4-2011 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)

That's one of the best comments of the day: I am studying to be rich.

What kind of person would study to be poor? Except those on welfare who are raking in big bucks.

Panhandling used to be for the homeless. Now panhandling is a profession for people with mortgages to pay, but they are too lazy to go look for a job. Make a hundred dollars a day sitting on a street corner with a sign.

Oh, yeah...the hundred or so a day....IT'S TAX FREE!!

Why work?? Let the Chinese do the work!! Let the illegal Mexicans do the work!! FREELOAD. BECOME A PROFESSIONAL PANHANDLER.............

In Fox News Special Called Freeloaders, John Stossel Dresses Up Like A "Beggar" And Panhandles For Change
mediamatters.org...


Freeloaders with John Stossel (1of3
www.dailymotion.com...

No surprise with the speech.
Raise taxes, so more jobs can be lost. No reduction in spending. So we can go into the tank quicker.

Typical Cloward-Piven strategy.

The Cloward–Piven strategy is a political strategy outlined by Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, then both sociologists and political activists at the Columbia University School of Social Work, in a 1966 article in The Nation entitled "The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty".[1] The two were critical of the public welfare system, and their strategy called for overloading that system to force a different set of policies to address poverty. They stated that many Americans who were eligible for welfare were not receiving benefits, and that a welfare enrollment drive would strain local budgets, precipitating a crisis at the state and local levels that would be a wake-up call for the federal government, particularly the Democratic Party, thus forcing it to implement a national solution to poverty. Cloward and Piven wrote that “the ultimate objective of this strategy [would be] to wipe out poverty by establishing a guaranteed annual income...”[2] There would also be side consequences of this strategy, according to Cloward and Piven. These would include: easing the plight of the poor in the short-term (through their participation in the welfare system); shoring up support for the national Democratic Party then-splintered by pluralist interests (through its cultivation of poor and minority constituencies by implementing a national solution to poverty); relieving local governments of the financially and politically onerous burdens of public welfare (through a national solution to poverty).

en.wikipedia.org...

They are going to raise the debt ceiling, raise taxes, spend more, create a new welfare state, Soros is going to sell the dollar short . . . . .

And everyone who had their hands out waiting for that "free Obama money" are going to be wondering where their next meal is coming from.

Every week, I light a candle and say a prayer for our country.

Obama represents the worst in America, the communities of entitlement and handouts.

Obama is trying to wear the disguise of Reagan who dismantled much fraud and excess in the welfare system. But Obama is trying to recreate a welfare nation. Certainly is the manchurian president in the era of '1984' doublespeak.

It's like saying the TSA supports liberty and the constitution while they molest your kids and fine you if you protest or call the cops.

If welfare is so great why arent you all on it?

Second he didn't say welfare made this country great. Tipical republicans taking things out of context and putting words in peoples mouths. If you ask me you are F-n delusional. Look up delusional if your don't know what it means. It fits some of you to a T.

3rd Maybe if the Bush tax cuts were never put into practice we might not have such a buget crissis. That ding dong set this country back 30 years

It would only work if they did mandatory drug tests Thats just my opinion

Originally posted by wantsome
If welfare is so great why arent you all on it?

Second he didn't say welfare made this country great. Tipical republicans taking things out of context and putting words in peoples mouths. If you ask me you are F-n delusional. Look up delusional if your don't know what it means. It fits some of you to a T.

3rd Maybe if the Bush tax cuts were never put into practice we might not have such a buget crissis. That ding dong set this country back 30 years

edit on 13-4-2011 by wantsome because: (no reason given)

Possibly but it was also the housing policies set up by Barney Frank and his bunch that contributed also. More likely that both sides have enough blame to keep them warm in hell for quite awhile.

I live in a western country, Australia, that many things going for it that the US doesn't:
1) We have unemployment pay (money not stamps) or welfare as you call it. It is for as long as needed, anyone unemployed can get it. If your sacked you get on it immediately if you quit your job you have to wait 13 weeks. You must actively look for work but it never stops till you get work. Its enough to live on just.
2) We have Medicare which means government may for all or most of your medical needs (doctor, hospital visits etc) We have private insurance too which gives you things like choice of surgeons and private hospital care which is not necessarily better but more comfortable
3) Most medication (generic brands if available) is set at a flat rate of $5 a script for the low income
5) We have some of the highest advances in medicine when compared per capita.
6) We have a highly respected military on the world stage
7) The global financial crisis was mostly avoided by our governments past and reactive response.
8) We have mostly they same freedoms as USA and a similar democratic government system
9) We have a non profit student loan system that allows everyone to go to University if they want

Ok admittedly we don't have 1000+ national security organisations or the sheer amount of money (billions) going into the black budget military industrial complex. Also our politicians don't need massive political donations and therefore don't have to appease lobbyists and big business

So I ask, why is the USA doing such a bad job financially/politically? I ask this seriously

Originally posted by fredvcall

Originally posted by Janky Red

Originally posted by neo96

Rich people deal in other peoples money to mitigate risk and maximize potential gains, I am studying to
be rich.

edit on 13-4-2011 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)

That's one of the best comments of the day: I am studying to be rich.

What kind of person would study to be poor? Except those on welfare who are raking in big bucks.

Panhandling used to be for the homeless. Now panhandling is a profession for people with mortgages to pay, but they are too lazy to go look for a job. Make a hundred dollars a day sitting on a street corner with a sign.

Oh, yeah...the hundred or so a day....IT'S TAX FREE!!

Why work?? Let the Chinese do the work!! Let the illegal Mexicans do the work!! FREELOAD. BECOME A PROFESSIONAL PANHANDLER.............

In Fox News Special Called Freeloaders, John Stossel Dresses Up Like A "Beggar" And Panhandles For Change
mediamatters.org...


Freeloaders with John Stossel (1of3
www.dailymotion.com...

I suppose you enjoy being programed to think that there is no such thing as a legitimate homeless person.
It is very NAZIesque, dehumanize the undesirables and equate the entire group with the bad apples.

Its a good way to program the workers to eliminate the freeloaders once the corporatocracy is in place.

It is also nice to see a FOX news parrot roll onto ATS and make like an independent thinker, who is infected by group think


EAD

The PTB once again have everyone arguing about the wrong things.

We should be arguing why we have to go into debt or rely on people to pay taxes in order to help those who are needy in the first place. I envision a system where the government and social programs are funded by simply printing money rather than borrowing it or taxing the population for it. To control the inflationary effects this may have, you simply adjust bank leverage requirements accordingly.

So how about it? If we could eliminate taxes, federal debt, and not have inflation, how many of you would be in favor of it? How many of you would be more willing to keep social programs if it didn't effect your bottom line or saddle future generations??