It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

House Dem: Unemployed Will Vote For Obama To Keep "Their Benefits"

page: 1
7

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 02:04 AM
link   
House Dem: Unemployed Will Vote For Obama To Keep "Their Benefits"


"We're headed in the right direction. Unemployment continues to drop and those people who are unemployed, they're not going to be voting for the party who wants to cut their benefits, cut access to food stamps, cut job training," Rep. Chaka Fattah (D-PA) said on MSNBC's Al Sharpton program.


Click link for remainder of article.


edit on 26-4-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 02:04 AM
link   
I dont even know where to begin with this one. When you have people making the above comments, advocating for a welfare / nanny state, it makes one wonder just how out of touch our leaders are.

People will vote for Obama to continue to receive their benefiets / government assistance....

Im at a loss for words...

Thoughts?
edit on 26-4-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 02:12 AM
link   
Of course they will. The great unwashed masses with empty hands always vote for the person that will fill them with your money.

/TOA



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 02:13 AM
link   
Well ya!
Would any of you vote for someone that is going to make you homeless?
no, you wouldn't.

Save your tinkle down economics for someone that likes getting pissed on.
it really is as simple as that. (Not a partisan remark, just logic)



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 02:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Old American
Of course they will. The great unwashed masses with empty hands always vote for the person that will fill them with your money.

/TOA


Your idea of money is rather rudimentary.
e.g. bill gates has a billion dollars. But no one man can ever
do enough labor to represent that sum of money. Therefor
he didn't earn most of that, he pilfered it off the backs
of the workers who supported him.

I find your remarks about the "unwashed masses" to be in poor taste
and smelling of arrogance and classist indignation.



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 02:25 AM
link   
Then who will the millions who have already been cut off vote for?

lol what a bunch of losers counting on people going through hard times.

Just sickening dembot crap.



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 03:12 AM
link   
To me it goes along with their class warfare strategy...

How I wish we could recall members of Congress.



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 03:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Strawman argument. The second paragragh is about helping to move the economy in the proper direction, and how the "unemployed" view republicans as hurtful to there cause. (this is a large misrepresentation though since being unemployed dosen't make you a Dem automaticly) Have a nice day



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 03:32 AM
link   
This economy is in a great recession because the government did nothing to prevent the meltdown of Wall St. It would seem that some on here would like to punish the common man by removing support from his family, as if the common man were to blame for being unemployed. Please think again. We put lifeboats on ships in case the ship sinks. The passengers on the ship have nothing to do with the sinking of the ship, they are just along for the ride. So it is in our economy. The common man expects his elected officials to do their job.

Does it make sense to put lifeboats on ships?

Does it make sense to preserve the lives of the common man and his family until this disaster is over?

Can you really be against benefits for those who have yet to find a job when there are no jobs available for them?



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 05:15 AM
link   
Well if it were me...and my choice was to vote between two strangers...and I was poor...I'd vote for the one keeping food on my table. It's about survival for some. Don't hate, I applaud those who tout they have been poor as dirt and never used social services, but for some people it is absolutely necessary.



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 05:22 AM
link   
This is where we've gone wrong.

America used to be about people helping themselves.

We used to vote for whomever would best represent us.

Now we vote for whomever helps us the most.

There's been a subtle shift in the thinking that it is governments job to help people if they need it. I don't know when it happened.
But it did.

We used to be independant. Self-reliant. Individuals.

Now we're a country of whiners with their hands out.

*Beezzer storms off, disgusted*



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 05:38 AM
link   
Yeah well Obama REPRESENTS food on some people's tables and Romny REPRESENTS starvation for some. Seriously, everyone on social services is not evil and I can't stand this class tension on ATS about it.



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 05:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by ValentineWiggin
Yeah well Obama REPRESENTS food on some people's tables and Romny REPRESENTS starvation for some. Seriously, everyone on social services is not evil and I can't stand this class tension on ATS about it.


Hey! If you're happy with the nanny state, as so many are, then vote for more. Vote for someone that remove the horrible burden of being a damned grownup!

I could give a damn at this point about who is the fracking president!

Just leave me alone!!!



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 08:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Al Sharpton has his own show?

*facepalm*



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 08:44 AM
link   
the fact that they keep saying unemployment is dropping, should be a clear indicator of how deceitful they are.



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 12:14 PM
link   
When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.

Ben Franklin .....over two hundred years ago he died in 1790



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ValentineWiggin
Well if it were me...and my choice was to vote between two strangers...and I was poor...I'd vote for the one keeping food on my table. It's about survival for some. Don't hate, I applaud those who tout they have been poor as dirt and never used social services, but for some people it is absolutely necessary.


Neither of these two characters gives a squat about putting food on your table. Both parties have been doing their level best to bring us to a point one day, where we'll have to decide whether to spend the few meager dollars we hold in our hands, on either food, gasoline, or toilet paper.

Rather than vote for the guy handing you your daily fish, look for the one willing to teach you how to fish.

It's been almost 50 years since we've had a leader of that persuasion.



new topics

top topics



 
7

log in

join