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

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by Whereweheaded

 

It just pisses me off when people try to paint the homeless as lazy panhandlers with a big broad brush, when I know it is not true. I met many that where there because of serious psychological problems, and a good chunk of them were vets that the VA failed miserably.

edit on Wed, 13 Apr 2011 14:41:38 -0500 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)

Okay, get the homeless with severe psychological problems some help. Instead of painting a broad brush where the majority of welfare money is wasted on the lazy.

John Stossel showed how by panhandling he could make a hundred bucks a day sitting on the street with a sign...that's tax free money.

reply to post by TKDRL


Oh I understand what your saying, and I dont disagree. I think our vets ( considering I am a vet ) need to be taken care of. I was simply suggesting a scenario to outkastsearcher, who believes without a doubt, that all unfortunate people are entitled to security when they clearly are not.

Should we the tax payer pay for some woman, who chose to stay home, watching re-runs of Oprah, and cant keep her legs closed, because she knows the more mouths she has to feed guarantee her more money from the state.

The answer is unemphatically no! People like that, abuse the system and take what they can away from those who desperately need it. And that was my point that I was trying to suggest.

Originally posted by dreamseeker
reply to post by fredvcall

 

By the way it is not the social programs that are failing but our monterial system. All these programs are dependent on MONEY! The wealthy elite controls most of the money. We need to end the wealthy elites rule!

Yeah, there you go again. Looking for a homeless person on welfare to give you a job. Strange that you don't see the contradiction. We call that a 'paradox.'

By the way, Obama is getting wealthier by the day.

reply to post by Whereweheaded


I think you are misunderstanding me. These programs that Obama was talking about are not hand outs at all. Everyone pays into the system but anyone can get back when they need it.
People came here to try to obtain a better standard of living which the USA has if we cut these social programs are standard of living goes down drastically.
We basically kill off millions of americans. I refuse to see that happen in my country. I am for helping people who need help not giving free money to every single person in the USA. It is better that the poor,the weak and elderly be given at least a basic living as opposed to dying early due to health problems of living on the streets.
I am sure you will agree with me on that very humane point.

Originally posted by dreamseeker
reply to post by Whereweheaded

 

No these are progams are not unconstitutional programs. FDR got out us of the great depression how is that NOT an accomplishment? His second bill of rights would have given everyone housing, a job and the freedom from the control of monopolies. How is that not a good thing? This is the vision of america to give everyone an equal oppurnity to live a decent life. This is why so many people came over from different countries and why many people still come. We at least attempt to take care of our own and help others who want to become citzens.
What is wrong with being for life and happiness. That is in the consitution. We need a bill that gives everyone the right to be free from extreme poverty!

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

No. FDR extended the Depression. World War Two got us out of the Depression.

And people on welfare are never happy. No matter how much you plunge into your personal vault of guilt, enabling does not make a human being happier.

Originally posted by fredvcall
You did notice that Obama didn't dare try to quote Reagan during this speech.

Anyway, Obama is right now making a campaign speech....which has absolutely nothing to do with reducing the deficit.........where he subliminally/supraliminally promises that if re-elected in 2012, he will continue to push for everything he believes has made America great: which is more welfare.

Hmmmm. So far all the welfare programs are failing. Including FDR's social security programs. It's taken a while, but Socialism is failing BIG time in America.

Entrepreneurs and industrialists are taking their talents to other countries. There are fewer and fewer jobs in America.

Welfare is balancing on Monopoly money. You can pass GO all you want, cause two hundred dollars in Monopoly money won't get you much.

In the Obama/Soros plan, the rich get richer, while the poor get poorer.

nothing of what you say Obama said in his speech is correct. why?, because i watched and listened to it, and i'm able to understand simple english.

reply to post by fredvcall


I am not sure what you mean?
I am just for human decency and love.
Forget the politics and just think of the human apect than you will understand.

Originally posted by dreamseeker
reply to post by Whereweheaded

 

I think you are misunderstanding me. These programs that Obama was talking about our not hand outs at all. People came here to try to obtain a better standard of living which the USA has if we cut these social programs are standard of living goes down drastically.
We basically kill off millions of americans. I refuse to see that happen in my country. I am for helping people who need help not giving free money to every single person in the USA. It is better that the poor,the weak and elderly be given at least a basic living as opposed to dying early due to health problems of living on the streets.
I am sure you will agree with me on that very humane point.

Regardless of who is POTUS, social programs are Unconstitutional..period. There is nothing in the Constitution that grants powers to Congress to give handouts. Check out Article 1 section 8 of the Constitution. There is nothing that grants powers to establish social programs...

The standard of living would only increase, because the social programs implemented would no longer be a burden on the tax payer. Its simple math dreamseeker. Maybe that's the problem, your in a dream like state, and are unwilling to face reality. The bottom line is the amount of money spent annually for social welfare is paid by whom? the USG?...No, the Fed reserve? No....but by the people! Remove that expenditure, and watch as households begin to recover and show small signs of financial recovery.

reply to post by Whereweheaded


Yeah, it's hard to tell sometimes I guess which is which. It is embarrassing to admit, two of my aunts are welfare slobs, they don't even have kids. Yet all their lives they have managed to be able to suck up state and welfare aid...
Meanwhile a woman I know, works her ass off at a crap factory job, and can use just a bit of help, and doesn't qualify. Seems messed up to me

Originally posted by fredvcall

Originally posted by dreamseeker
reply to post by Whereweheaded

 

No these are progams are not unconstitutional programs. FDR got out us of the great depression how is that NOT an accomplishment? His second bill of rights would have given everyone housing, a job and the freedom from the control of monopolies. How is that not a good thing? This is the vision of america to give everyone an equal oppurnity to live a decent life. This is why so many people came over from different countries and why many people still come. We at least attempt to take care of our own and help others who want to become citzens.
What is wrong with being for life and happiness. That is in the consitution. We need a bill that gives everyone the right to be free from extreme poverty!

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

No. FDR extended the Depression. World War Two got us out of the Depression.

And people on welfare are never happy. No matter how much you plunge into your personal vault of guilt, enabling does not make a human being happier.

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

As I stated from previous pages. Thanks again~

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

Just so I understand you?, So if you work 80 hours a week, made a good living for yourself, you should give a percentage to the homeless guy that lives in the gutter all because he chose to be homeless, and is deserving, or entitled to your paycheck?

Yes, I have no problem helping out those that, for whatever reason, may not be doing well in life.

Not because he is "entitled" to my paycheck...but the country I live in will be a better place if that person has a place to sleep, a little something to eat, and can get some basic free healthcare if he is sick.

I gladly give a percentage of my paycheck to make that happen...I would much rather have a little less so they can have a little more...I will take that over seeing dead people in the streets because some people didn't think they were "deserving" enough to be helped out.

Originally posted by Shenon
Just something to consider for you Guys:

Question: Why do Ron and Rand Paul get away with what they are saying all the Time? Why are they still alive?

Answer: Because it doesn´t matter anymore.

If they were around ,say 4 Years ago,talking like today,they would have died in an Accident already. You know how it works.

No, actually we don't know how it works...not the way you are saying it. That's pretty vague. Who'd kill them, and what have they said that would get them killed?

Are you saying that the people on welfare would get together to hire an assassin? Not sure where you were going with this one.

Originally posted by dreamseeker
reply to post by fredvcall

 

I am not sure what you mean?
I am just for human decency and love.
Forget the politics and just think of the human apect than you will understand.

Human decency and love didn't build this country nor does it solve issues. Love and decency is a feeling or emotion, and there lies the problem.

reply to post by fredvcall


fdrs stealing gold from fort knox had a little to do with that not to mention confiscating american citizens gold

reply to post by fredvcall


How it that enabling a blind man who no one will hire just to give him comfort or someone in a wheelchair. What about the elderly; they have worked their fair share they should be able to take it easy for a few years! These programs are about helping people reach their potential.
Section 8 has self sufficancy programs such as home ownership and voc rehab. Social Security has their ticket to work programs that helps people who are disabled work. It is better than just saying to a vet who was injuried or someone who is elderly,'you need to better yourself". How? Sometimes people need guidance and sometimes they just should be allowed to live. What kind of government would we have if we allowed our weak,elderly and disabled just to die? Hmm maybe a third world nation? It is the people of the USA who make america great not the government or big business.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

I gladly give a percentage of my paycheck to make that happen...I would much rather have a little less so they can have a little more...I will take that over seeing dead people in the streets because some people didn't think they were "deserving" enough to be helped out.

Well in that case, I do accept pay pal, and I think 10% of your pay should cover my costs of living~

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
reply to post by TKDRL

 

Oh I understand what your saying, and I dont disagree. I think our vets ( considering I am a vet ) need to be taken care of. I was simply suggesting a scenario to outkastsearcher, who believes without a doubt, that all unfortunate people are entitled to security when they clearly are not.

Should we the tax payer pay for some woman, who chose to stay home, watching re-runs of Oprah, and cant keep her legs closed, because she knows the more mouths she has to feed guarantee her more money from the state.

The answer is unemphatically no! People like that, abuse the system and take what they can away from those who desperately need it. And that was my point that I was trying to suggest.

deleted response

reply to post by Whereweheaded


Well human decency and love is all we have to save ourselves now. Without that wars will continue,people will continue to starve,be homeless and our country will go to c rap.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by fredvcall

 

fdrs stealing gold from fort knox had a little to do with that not to mention confiscating american citizens gold

True, True. And that's just one reason we were taken off the gold standard and put on the air standard. It's easier to steal gold, and there's a lot less gold than there is air. Except now we are printing money on air.

Originally posted by Chance321
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

Right obama should know about layoffs. Unemployment's been at or above record highs during his rein. But I also noticed that he failed to include himself in creating record debt in his first two years.

Yes...and jobs are coming back and the economy is recovering. People can deny it all they want...but it is the truth.

And he did include himself in creating the debt...he acknowledged the spending that needed to take place to keep the economy from failing completely.

www.businessinsider.com...

When I took office, our projected deficit was more than $1 trillion. On top of that, we faced a terrible financial crisis and a recession that, like most recessions, led us to temporarily borrow even more. In this case, we took a series of emergency steps that saved millions of jobs, kept credit flowing, and provided working families extra money in their pockets. It was the right thing to do, but these steps were expensive, and added to our deficits in the short term.

Let's stick with the facts.