Hillary Clinton should run for Presid...
First Prev
of 9
Next Last

Level 9

Since: Nov 10

Powellton WV

#180 Feb 15, 2013
Sundog512 wrote:
<quoted text>
100% agreed. And the thing that was most apparent by the look on John Boner's face was that Obama is the adult in the room when it come to a vision for America.
Yes.....the look.

Don't think that wasn't the first thing
we noticed. Along w/the fact that he didn't
stand and clap about certain things that
Everyone should have been clapping about.
Like our wounded warriors.

(my husband said he looked sick and did
pull out a hankie a few times so maybe he
was fighting the flu)
Mia

East Hampton, CT

#181 Feb 15, 2013
Ferrerman wrote:
Golly-^ Talk about ridiculous hyperbole and histrionics!
I couldn't have said it better myself.
Let's do lunch ;-)

Level 8

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#182 Feb 15, 2013
Mia wrote:
<quoted text>
Absolutely not....and nobody said they did.
There have been mistakes made during both adminstrations--can't argue that--only difference is, Bush's mistakes were whoppers!
(In my opinion) ;-)
That war in Iraq was pure folly and all that went along with that, including outing agents and deceiving the American public, was bad. Outside of that one issue (and yes it was a whopper ... you are right) and gay marriage, I don't see much of a difference between the two of them. I actually didn't want a repeat of the Bush years, but in a lot of ways Obama has continued with them.
Mia

East Hampton, CT

#183 Feb 15, 2013
African_shadows wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you for responding Mia.
You are very welcome :)

Level 9

Since: Nov 10

Powellton WV

#184 Feb 15, 2013
Sublime1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I wish it weren't true, but I disagree. These are Obama's own words:
"What I think will re-engage people in politics is if we’re doing significant, serious policy work around what I will label the ‘working poor,’” he said,“although my definition of the working poor is not simply folks making minimum wage, but it’s also families of four who are making $30,000 a year. They are struggling. And to the extent that we are doing research figuring out what kinds of government action would successfully make their lives better, we are then putting together a potential majority coalition to move those agendas forward."
What do you think he meant by government action? I think it's pretty clear given that the only thing the guy has done to make their lives better is more handouts. Don't believe me; ask yourself, what has this guy done of significance to better the lives of people who are struggling, but don't want to live off the government. He's done jack. By creating more and more government handouts, he's created his "majority coalition." That was his goal. He's achieved it.
He's got his majority coalition and it includes a lot of people like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =tpAOwJvTOioXX
Folks like her, Sundog, Ferrerman, and Dem represent his base. They have much in common, including matching IQs. They've united as one to form his "majority coalition. They should be proud ... they are winning and making this nation better. Free phones for folks on welfare ... yay!
<quoted text>
Arctic, very few people are advocating pulling the safety net out from under families in need. It's a matter of degrees. The left often times knows no limit. Obama and the left want ever increasing support, no accountability, and no incentives for people to forgo going on these programs and instead provide for themselves, even if that means working harder. That's what they are all about; don't believe me, look at how they structure their programs to "help" people. These believes are engrained into them. They are not about traditional American values of hard work and self sufficiency. That's very clear.
<quoted text>
Nothing I said was phobic. I personally think as a species we'd be much better off if skin color was homogenous (although even with that I am sure enterprising "activists" would find a way to separate us). The point of my comments were not "white power" racist b.s. I can't stand that shyte.
Rather, the point of my comments were that republicans don't stand a chance given the shift in demographics. Our nation is becoming less white and outside of asians, folks who are not white in this country have much higher rates of welfare enrollment. I don't wish for this to be true. I didn't make this up. It is what it is.
Given this, as they make up more of our population our welfare and usage rates are going to increase (as they have in recent years), this will be good for democrats because the democrats are the party that promises to give more and more handouts to welfare recipients.
You interpreted his speech the same way that Fox
"News" did.
The part about helping the working poor did not
mean...Free Welfare for Everyone!"
It had more to do with making education availabe to
everyone, affordable child care, lessening the financial
burden of injury or illness...ect...

Public assistance these days looks nothing like the
welfare we grew up with.
Everyone on public assistance Has to work. They allow
women w/children to stay home w/their kids until age
5 but then they work just like the men.
There is (and never has been) no free lunch in the U.S.

Since: Jun 09

Location hidden

#185 Feb 15, 2013
arctic wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes.....the look.
Don't think that wasn't the first thing
we noticed. Along w/the fact that he didn't
stand and clap about certain things that
Everyone should have been clapping about.
Like our wounded warriors.
(my husband said he looked sick and did
pull out a hankie a few times so maybe he
was fighting the flu)
Nor did he stand for the 102 year old black woman who stood for 6 hours to vote.

I'm sure some here will spin that to say: "John Boner WILL NOT STAND FOR VOTER SUPPRESSION!".

“Incorrupta fides, nudaque veri”

Level 9

Since: May 07

Vincit qui se vincit

#186 Feb 15, 2013
John Boner WILL NOT STAND FOR VOTER SUPPRESSION!

Level 9

Since: Nov 10

Powellton WV

#187 Feb 15, 2013
Sublime I hate to be the one to
tell you this but the rug was pulled
out from under the middle class a
long time ago.

As for the poor and working poor it
is a matter of degrees. The majority
of ppl these days receiving assistance
Are working.(not a public assist.
job).

We have to be able to balance keeping
ppl off of public assist w/o allowing
children, elderly, and disabled Americans
to fall into starvation and homelessness.

Level 9

Since: Nov 10

Powellton WV

#188 Feb 15, 2013
As far as your objection to giving
poor ppl cell phones...
It would help them check on employment
and also to recieve calls from employeers.

It also comes in handy when there is an
accident or emergency to be able to call
for police or ambulance assist.

I'm wondering why you're not more opposed
to corporate tax breaks.
Where would you rather your tax dollar go?
Help the poor or put More money in the
pocket of the rich?

“<3”

Level 9

Since: Jun 10

Black Rock City, NV

#189 Feb 15, 2013
lollipop

Level 8

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#190 Feb 15, 2013
arctic wrote:
<quoted text>
You interpreted his speech the same way that Fox
"News" did.
The part about helping the working poor did not
mean...Free Welfare for Everyone!"
It had more to do with making education availabe to
everyone, affordable child care, lessening the financial
burden of injury or illness...ect...
Public assistance these days looks nothing like the
welfare we grew up with.
Everyone on public assistance Has to work. They allow
women w/children to stay home w/their kids until age
5 but then they work just like the men.
There is (and never has been) no free lunch in the U.S.
I never said it meant free welfare (although Obamacare is actually free welfare) for everyone. I don’t know where you are getting that from.

My point was that by his own words his goal was to create more government handouts for the poor to encourage these folks to vote for him so that he could create his majority coalition to move his social agenda forward. That’s not fox news saying this … that’s Obama saying this. That’s his agenda … get more folks on government programs so that they will vote for him. I said this, because you initially said he doesn’t want more people on these programs, but by his own words he does. That was his plan to create a majority coalition.

If you don’t fall into that category of people, he offers you nothing, except the bill to pay for his vote buying. I don’t agree that the federal government should focus almost exclusively on dreaming up new spending programs to provide handouts to poor people so that they vote for democrats. I think the federal government should focus on fostering an environment with abundant opportunities for ALL people (WHAT A NOVEL IDEA) to lift themselves up and prosper via their own work and determination. When you are taxing people more to buy votes via handouts, you are by definition making it harder for the folks you tax to prosper. I also say that by definition if you are relying on handouts, you are not prospering, regardless of how well you are living.

Obamacare also has no work requirements. It’s classic free lunch welfare. There is no way around it … if you benefit from Obamacare, you are a welfare recipient whether you wish to acknowledge it or not. You’re no different than a person on food stamps (except there are work requirements for those)

Also while Obamacare helps certain people, it hurts so many others, including many who are working poor and struggling to get by. The person, who has insurance through work, insurance that isn’t so great and has a lot of out of pocket expeneses is f’d over by obamacare, because obamacare limits flex spending accounts and actually imposed a small tax on everyone who has insurance plan through their work. It also made the cost of insurance for a lot of people go through the roof, including that for the working poor. It is predicted that insurance rates will rise by 50, on average (some will even pay more than this) because of Obamacare:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788...

The guy is all about class warfare. Take from others, and give handouts to others, in exchange for votes.

Level 8

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#191 Feb 15, 2013
arctic wrote:
We have to be able to balance keeping
ppl off of public assist w/o allowing
children, elderly, and disabled Americans
to fall into starvation and homelessness.
There is no desire from the left to keep folks off of public assistance. There is no incentive for folks to not use them if they don't absolutely have to and to instead rely on themselves. Try to think of one, and democrats will fight tooth and nail to block your attempt.

Right now if someone is getting 200 in food stamps a month, but they have Saturday nights free and could pick up a night shift somewhere and earn 50 bucks extra a week and buy their own food, there is no incentive for them to do so. Most of these folks feel no shame in being on food stamps ... they are going to be perfectly content enjoying their Saturday nights and free loading off of everyone else when it comes to providing for their own food.

This aspect of our entitlement programs is a serious flaw. There should be built in mechanisms that encourage folks to get off of these things if they don't absolutely need to be on them. That wouldn't be so good, because it might prevent Obama from getting his majority coalition, however.

Level 8

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#192 Feb 15, 2013
arctic wrote:
As far as your objection to giving
poor ppl cell phones...
It would help them check on employment
and also to recieve calls from employeers.
It also comes in handy when there is an
accident or emergency to be able to call
for police or ambulance assist.
I'm wondering why you're not more opposed
to corporate tax breaks.
Where would you rather your tax dollar go?
Help the poor or put More money in the
pocket of the rich?
I'm not for corporate tax breaks. I'm also not for buying people phones. I'm pretty sure 99.999999999% of any calls made by these people are not for employment purposes or emergency situations.

Since: Jun 09

Location hidden

#193 Feb 15, 2013
Ya gotta admit that we save hundreds of millions of dollars by merely saying we are "The Greatest Country In The World!" We're pretty OK but, when you break it down into how we do treat our poor, minorities, veterans, etc. and how some people think we're not nearly brutal enough, well, we're just one fixed election from the whole thing going south.

For example, Walmart is our nations's largest employer yet one third to one half of their employees are on public assistance.

African_shadows

“A perfect world..”

Level 4

Since: Nov 12

Kenya, E.Africa.

#194 Feb 15, 2013
-Persephone- wrote:
lollipop
.... bad for one's health :)

Hello miss Persephone.
For sureFor sure97

Chesapeake, OH

#195 Feb 28, 2013
I don,t think so. Read GOD,S WORD,,please:-)

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 9
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Topix Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Poinciana Crane to Close (Mar '12) 3 min Darhlene 3
Gay Guys SC 2 hr bp19bp19 585
~Last Post~ (Apr '12) 4 hr CJ Rocker 5,087
end of a democracy 8 hr North Mountain 2
Have Any of You Straight Guys Jerked Off With A... 10 hr FireyFellow44 3
Looking for Snapchat girls 10 hr Crazymonkeys42 1
Snapchat 2016 16 hr Dec1016 44
More from around the web