With Friends like the gubment I don't need any enemy's. Story by Charles Blow (he needed the money ).

Quote:We learned this week that not only are there more poor people in America than had been previously reported, but that the only thing keeping millions more out of poverty are the very same social safety net programs that many Republicans despise

So More Poor than Previously reported, does that mean Obama's economic programs have made the poor and by making the poor they now depend on the gubment to feed and clothe them?

Quote:Obama’s stimulus package may not have provided the jolt to the economy that the country wanted and needed, but it no doubt kept a jobs and poverty crisis from becoming a catastrophe. The administration’s inability to effectively convey that point is its own catastrophe.

So the success of Obama's stimulus package was created more gubment dependents? You can put lipstick on the Stimulus pig all you want, it was and IS a failure.

Let's redistribute some wealth

(11-12-2011 10:01 AM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  Story by Charles Blow (he needed the money ).

Quote:Obama’s stimulus package may not have provided the jolt to the economy that the country wanted and needed, but it no doubt kept a jobs and poverty crisis from becoming a catastrophe. The administration’s inability to effectively convey that point is its own catastrophe.

Let's redistribute some wealth

No it didn't prevent a crisis from becoming a catastrophe. The great recession of 2008 was bottoming out on its own before any of Obama's policies had any meaningful effect. What Obama's policies have done is kept us at or near that bottom by disincentivizing recovery.

The reason that administration in unable to convey the idea that "stimulus" prevented an unspeakable crisis is because it is simply not true, and the American people know better. You can fool some of the people all of the time, and you can fool all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.

The Obama strategy, that you can fool enough of the people long enough, starts to unravel when you actually have to DO anything.

I dont care what anyone says, there are many poor people who don't know anything else other than being poor and many, many more who won't lift a finger to stay out of poverty. Why am i responsible for them?

And if we lifted every poor person out of poverty we'd see inflation and that would only create a new breed of poor people.

(11-12-2011 10:01 AM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  With Friends like the gubment I don't need any enemy's. Story by Charles Blow (he needed the money ).

Quote:We learned this week that not only are there more poor people in America than had been previously reported, but that the only thing keeping millions more out of poverty are the very same social safety net programs that many Republicans despise

So More Poor than Previously reported, does that mean Obama's economic programs have made the poor and by making the poor they now depend on the gubment to feed and clothe them?

Quote:Obama’s stimulus package may not have provided the jolt to the economy that the country wanted and needed, but it no doubt kept a jobs and poverty crisis from becoming a catastrophe. The administration’s inability to effectively convey that point is its own catastrophe.

So the success of Obama's stimulus package was created more gubment dependents? You can put lipstick on the Stimulus pig all you want, it was and IS a failure.

Let's redistribute some wealth

Shouldn't you be getting back to work at Lowes trying to figure out how they can stop losing money? Maybe they can lay off the dead weight that is bloating their expenses and fire your sorry butt.

(11-12-2011 11:39 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-12-2011 10:01 AM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  Story by Charles Blow (he needed the money ).

Quote:Obama’s stimulus package may not have provided the jolt to the economy that the country wanted and needed, but it no doubt kept a jobs and poverty crisis from becoming a catastrophe. The administration’s inability to effectively convey that point is its own catastrophe.

Let's redistribute some wealth

No it didn't prevent a crisis from becoming a catastrophe. The great recession of 2008 was bottoming out on its own before any of Obama's policies had any meaningful effect. What Obama's policies have done is kept us at or near that bottom by disincentivizing recovery.

The reason that administration in unable to convey the idea that "stimulus" prevented an unspeakable crisis is because it is simply not true, and the American people know better. You can fool some of the people all of the time, and you can fool all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.

The Obama strategy, that you can fool enough of the people long enough, starts to unravel when you actually have to DO anything.

If you keep repeating it over and over you start believing your own stupidity.

(11-12-2011 12:45 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  I dont care what anyone says, there are many poor people who don't know anything else other than being poor and many, many more who won't lift a finger to stay out of poverty. Why am i responsible for them?

And if we lifted every poor person out of poverty we'd see inflation and that would only create a new breed of poor people.

So what you are saying is that if you are born poor, you should just remain that way and be happy?

(11-12-2011 06:48 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(11-12-2011 12:45 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  I dont care what anyone says, there are many poor people who don't know anything else other than being poor and many, many more who won't lift a finger to stay out of poverty. Why am i responsible for them?
And if we lifted every poor person out of poverty we'd see inflation and that would only create a new breed of poor people.

So what you are saying is that if you are born poor, you should just remain that way and be happy?

This is where I have a problem with the republicans. Comments like this one make them look heartless and uncaring.

What republicans should be saying instead is that we do care about the poor, and we believe the best way to help them is not by giving them more handouts but by restructuring things so that it is much easier for them to climb out of poverty and escape the need for handouts.

In reality, it is the policies instituted primarily by the democrats that encourage the poor to remain that way and be happy. Republicans could have a better way and offer it, if only they would, and in the long run that would be a much better way for them to go.

(11-12-2011 08:46 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-12-2011 06:48 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(11-12-2011 12:45 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  I dont care what anyone says, there are many poor people who don't know anything else other than being poor and many, many more who won't lift a finger to stay out of poverty. Why am i responsible for them?
And if we lifted every poor person out of poverty we'd see inflation and that would only create a new breed of poor people.

So what you are saying is that if you are born poor, you should just remain that way and be happy?

This is where I have a problem with the republicans. Comments like this one make them look heartless and uncaring.

What republicans should be saying instead is that we do care about the poor, and we believe the best way to help them is not by giving them more handouts but by restructuring things so that it is much easier for them to climb out of poverty and escape the need for handouts.

In reality, it is the policies instituted primarily by the democrats that encourage the poor to remain that way and be happy. Republicans could have a better way and offer it, if only they would, and in the long run that would be a much better way for them to go.

Maybe they look that way because they ARE heartless and uncaring? As for your solution, lets just give the rich more and have it trickle down to the poor and bring them out of poverty. Problem is, most of the money isn't trickled down to the poor. The corps actually try to lower wages and benefits keeping the poor poor(and actually creating more poor with the low wages thus increasing the need for help from government or other institutions) thus increasing profits and increasing the CEO's pay not to mention bringing the middle class pay down making more of them rely on "hand outs". Listen, most people aren't looking for CEO's to make the same as janitors, Wal-Mart cashiers, etc. What they are looking for is to get paid enough so that they don't HAVE to rely on those "handouts".

That's why Republicans give far more to charity than phony bleeding heart libs Robert. Conservative actually help people. Libs want to steal from these same givers and make them help even more while doing nothing themselves-except steal.

(11-12-2011 09:45 PM)Paul M Wrote:  That's why Republicans give far more to charity than phony bleeding heart libs Robert. Conservative actually help people. Libs want to steal from these same givers and make them help even more while doing nothing themselves-except steal.

Yes we know. The Republicans tend to give 10% of their income to the church.

No, they give more to charity. Short, easy to grasp sentence.

(11-12-2011 10:03 PM)Paul M Wrote:  No, they give more to charity. Short, easy to grasp sentence.

Isn't that what I just got through saying?

(11-12-2011 09:59 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(11-12-2011 09:45 PM)Paul M Wrote:  That's why Republicans give far more to charity than phony bleeding heart libs Robert. Conservative actually help people. Libs want to steal from these same givers and make them help even more while doing nothing themselves-except steal.

Yes we know. The Republicans tend to give 10% of their income to the church.

As opposed to the local United Way. Local United way has been caught in more finanical scandals than local churches (per capita).

Well, Robert... you just can't help yourself can you?

More Republicans give freely of their gifts than Democrats... that's a documented fact... and involuntary contributions (taxes) are based on income rather than political affiliation...

There is nothing "altruistic" about being a democrat and nothing "evil" about being a Republican. You yourself are proof of that, for few on here are more vitrolic than you.

There is nothing "evil" about expecting efficient government. There is nothing "greedy" about wanting to help those that need it, but expecting those who CAN work, TO work. The Republican party is, afterall, made up of much more than a few wealthy CEOs

Conversely, there is absolutely something "greedy" about wanting to give people who COULD work somebody elses hard earned money. You are free to give them your own, but you'd rather give them mine. You ARE what you accuse others of being. I suspect there are many more people on welfare who don't need to be than there are these evil wealthy CEOs making millions. If you don't believe me, go spend a little time talking to people about the "hoops" they jump through to get benefits. If they applied that ingenuity and effort to a real job, they might not make any more... but they would cost the rest of us less. This is not their fault... but the fault of our system... which makes it infinitely better for many people to AVOID working and losing their benefits. You'd rather demonize a group of predominantly good and hard working people rather than admit that there could be flaws in the system that should be fixed.

(11-13-2011 08:10 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Well, Robert... you just can't help yourself can you?

More Republicans give freely of their gifts than Democrats... that's a documented fact... and involuntary contributions (taxes) are based on income rather than political affiliation...

There is nothing "altruistic" about being a democrat and nothing "evil" about being a Republican. You yourself are proof of that, for few on here are more vitrolic than you.

There is nothing "evil" about expecting efficient government. There is nothing "greedy" about wanting to help those that need it, but expecting those who CAN work, TO work. The Republican party is, afterall, made up of much more than a few wealthy CEOs

Conversely, there is absolutely something "greedy" about wanting to give people who COULD work somebody elses hard earned money. You are free to give them your own, but you'd rather give them mine. You ARE what you accuse others of being. I suspect there are many more people on welfare who don't need to be than there are these evil wealthy CEOs making millions. If you don't believe me, go spend a little time talking to people about the "hoops" they jump through to get benefits. If they applied that ingenuity and effort to a real job, they might not make any more... but they would cost the rest of us less. This is not their fault... but the fault of our system... which makes it infinitely better for many people to AVOID working and losing their benefits. You'd rather demonize a group of predominantly good and hard working people rather than admit that there could be flaws in the system that should be fixed.

Was it Al Gore's tax return that showed charitable contributions of $50? I guess democrats would prefer gubment redistribute wealth and create gubment dependents than allow charities to deliver compassionate assistance to those in need.

(11-12-2011 09:45 PM)Paul M Wrote:  That's why Republicans give far more to charity than phony bleeding heart libs Robert. Conservative actually help people. Libs want to steal from these same givers and make them help even more while doing nothing themselves-except steal.

The reason for that is obvious...Liberals believe it is the governments JOB to take care of the poor and they are not further responsible.