Jill and Michelle ‘Would Not Have Any Chance’ Without Govt.

Vice President Joe Biden said Tuesday that his wife, as well as the wife of President Barack Obama, would have had “no chance” in life had it not been for government help. According to vice presidential pool reports

“I know, literally, Barack and I talk about it. Neither one of us would have had any shot,” Biden said. “The same with our wives. Both wives are smarter than both of us. Literally, these very accomplished women would not have any chance without some help.”

freebeacon.com...

First off I would not call a lifetime career choice of living off the people a raging success, and then I would not call making a lifetime comittment of screwing over people over for their own personal gain a raging success either.

As to the wifey's well how accomplished can a person be if they "need help" ?

Oh and then considering the power duo and how like "totally awesome" they are that they would still need government to take care of their every need.

They scream equality and all that jazz and yet women seem to need more help to be "accomplished" to me that sounds rather sexist and demeaning that those fellas are stuck in the 50's.

Of course that is just my opinion of this so what is yours ATS?

reply to post by neo96


Honestly, when I read that article, I just chuckled and shook my head.......How belittleing for that drunken idiot to even compare his wife and the big O's to ordinary women in this country! Maybe they were at one point in their life ordinary, however, it appears they forgot where they came from! I will zip it at that................sigh

I certainly hope the wives of the Executive branch officers are smart enough to know Biden is using the word "literally" inappropriately. Ironically, in this definition of literally, this example is used:

Usage Note: For more than a hundred years, critics have remarked on the incoherency of using literally in a way that suggests the exact opposite of its primary sense of "in a manner that accords with the literal sense of the words." In 1926, for example, H.W. Fowler cited the example "The 300,000 Unionists ... will be literally thrown to the wolves." The practice does not stem from a change in the meaning of literally itself

--if it did, the word would long since have come to mean "virtually" or "figuratively"but from a natural tendency to use the word as a general intensive, as in They had literally no help from the government on the project, where no contrast with the figurative sense of the words is intended.

I read that and was "literally" beside myself with amusement. Okay not literally, not even actually which I suspect is what Biden meant to say but what can you expect from people who wouldn't be anywhere if it weren't for government?

This article is so vague you can't even argue it. What kind of help? Did they get 100's of thousands for college? Were they rescued by social services from bad home lives? I know goverment has a place. We pay taxes for a reasons. Roads,schools, defense of our country. Thats never been the issue. Its the overwhelming over reach and the blatant disreguard of the peoples wishes is the question.

"Help" is fine. I'm not against the government using my tax dollars to help people that are truly in need (especially children and the elderly). Usually that's all someone needs to get going on their own.

But the help the government gives is in perpetuity. Hardly anyone gets off welfare, and the government doesn't make them get off. How about term limits for welfare? That's not too much to ask.

/TOA

What I find most denigrating is the term "any chance."

What's that saying? That Jill and Michelle are SO stupid that without government help they would be homeless?

Or does he mean "any chance" at being married to the VP and POTUS?

Maybe he means is that he and Barry ARE the government help. Literally.

Or maybe there is literally just no limit to the dumb stuff he says.

reply to post by UltimateSkeptic1


Given the context of Biden's remarks presumably he is talking about government funded financial aid for college tuition.

OP, your comments are unnecessary.

Michelle Obama was a VERY accomplished lawyer before she was first lady. She was hardly "living off the people her entire life"

Obama was a senator for ONE term, A one term Senator who was also a very accomplished lawyer before being a senator, also hardly "living off the people his entire life"

Joe Biden was a long term Senator, but Senators work extemely hard for their money. They are usually very effective managers.

Jill obtained bachelor, masters, and doctorate degrees, and was a teacher for many, many years.

HARDLY "living off the people their entire lives".

It's pretty easy to make inflammatory comments from behind the anonymity of the internet. Get your facts before you make unnecessary statements and badly formed threads.

reply to post by babybunnies

OP, your comments are unnecessary.

Sure they are

Michelle Obama was a VERY accomplished lawyer before she was first lady. She was hardly "living off the people her entire life"

A lawyer!

Obama was a senator for ONE term, A one term Senator who was also a very accomplished lawyer before being a senator, also hardly "living off the people his entire life"

A senator that get's a lifetime of pay and benefits for serving even just 1 term.

Joe Biden was a long term Senator, but Senators work extemely hard for their money. They are usually very effective managers.

A Senator working hard

HARDLY "living off the people their entire lives".

The rest of their lives will be paid for by the public via taxation

t's pretty easy to make inflammatory comments from behind the anonymity of the internet. Get your facts before you make unnecessary statements and badly formed threads

And just what is so inflammatory?

If by holding lawyers and congressman in contempt guilty.

Originally posted by babybunnies
OP, your comments are unnecessary.

Actually they are necessary according to T&C here.

Joe Biden was a long term Senator, but Senators work extemely hard for their money. They are usually very effective managers.

Wrong.
They are effective spenders.
Work hard for the money?

Ever see a CONgressman/woman sweat?
Nope.

Because they aren't workers.
They are takers.

reply to post by babybunnies

Joe Biden was a long term Senator, but Senators work extemely hard for their money. They are usually very effective managers.

You should have quit while you were ahead. Your arguments regarding Obama and his wife may have had some validity, but when you made this remark the validity of your argument was taken with a grain of salt.

Here is the tentative schedule for the 112th Congress Senators for 2011:

Take note how hard they worked in January, racking up a full nine days of work. Wow! February these Senators busted their asses of with a total of 15 days of work. Jesus! March these poor Senators were overworked with a full 18 days of work. Oh My God! Thank the Lord that in April the American people were kind enough to cut the Senate a break and ask 11 days of that month out of them. Whew! But in May those poor, poor, pitiful Senators were made to pay for the month of April and were forced to work 20 days out of that month. Goddamn! 20 days? That's like a regular work week for the plebes. WTF?

After May I couldn't stand checking out any more months of 2011. You're right, they work very hard for their pittance of pay and sleight benefits. I'll take your argument with a dash of salt.

Wow guys - if you think your Senators and Congresspeople don't work for their money, you should go try and spend a month doing their job as effectively as most.

Sure, the public face of Congress is as a "do nothing Government", but in reality, your representatives are massively busy most of the time, working long, long hours and travelling all the time in order to meeet needs of their constituents.

According to T&C you should be backing up your "lifetime of public funding" comments against Michelle Obama, Jill Biden with a source.

I went and found out my real facts, why can't you?

reply to post by babybunnies

Sure, the public face of Congress is as a "do nothing Government", but in reality, your representatives are massively busy most of the time, working long, long hours and travelling all the time in order to meeet needs of their constituents.

Yep. You're right again, even though my cholesterol is going through the roof with all this salt. I can't even imagine how difficult it must be as a legislator meeting all those constituents who are constantly demanding: "There ought to be a law against that!" Oh, oh, oh! And of course meeting with all the people who voted for free money, right? Yep those needy constituents can sure take up a lot of time and effort. This is why we need the nanny state, because we're the children and our Senators are our parents, with those wacky Representatives being the crazy aunts and uncles that we only tolerate at Christmas time.

Sigh.

Oh for crying out loud seriously?

First off Lawyers and congressman both get paid by Americans for screwing people over, and secondly that was about the cradle to the grave nanny state.

I thought people would know what that meant:

The Life of Julia of which is what BIden was referencing.

www.cnn.com...

Originally posted by babybunnies
Wow guys - if you think your Senators and Congresspeople don't work for their money, you should go try and spend a month doing their job as effectively as most.

Sure, the public face of Congress is as a "do nothing Government", but in reality, your representatives are massively busy most of the time, working long, long hours and travelling all the time in order to meeet needs of their constituents.

Honestly, I don't think our politicians actually work.
I am extremely disappointed with the whole lot of them, save one or two.
Also, they aren't doing their job(s) effectively because we are broke and losing our grip.
The gov't is a shanty of frivolous spenders with no budgets or ethics.

We, the people, are the hard working individuals who pay the shanty toll(s).

Common sense tells you to stop spending money.
Lobbyists tell them to keep spending money.

Which is right?

reply to post by Tw0Sides

But don't worry, your circle group will come to your defence.

Did you honestly think that remark would prevent someone from pointing to the absurdity of this remark:

Attacking Obama's daughters because their shoes don't match their socks.

Right, because attacking a political figure for insisting that he, the President and their wives would not have succeeded if it weren't for government help is just like making fun of little girls who don't wear matching shoes and socks, and by the way, how is it you know Obama's little girls don't wear socks that match their shoes?

Originally posted by CB328
Maybe people should listen to someone who is in a position to know what he's talking about instead of making obnoxious, immature, useless attacks.

Maybe you're right. Maybe you could find someone who is in a position to know what they're talking about that we could listen to.

Hi neo,

Well I am not much about picking on the gals for gleaning what they could from the taxpayers.
It is the way their husbands have no clue as how to "Return the Favor"
None of the Big Fat Country Club does.
cheers ljb