Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The democratic party plantation house boy nigga has spoken.........
Nigga? Sunni are you drunk?
I'd be interested in your take on poet's comments above.
Careful. He TDM is lurking.
Nigga? Sunni are you drunk?
I'd be interested in your take on poet's comments above.
Careful. He TDM is lurking.
I'll have to read all these posts he sounds pretty upset, but it looks like PC has handled herself rather well.
I'd be interested in your take on poet's comments above.
Careful. He TDM is lurking.
I'll have to read all these posts he sounds pretty upset, but it looks like PC has handled herself rather well.
What a cop out.
Just admit you don't want to criticize a brother.
I'll have to read all these posts he sounds pretty upset, but it looks like PC has handled herself rather well.
What a cop out.
Just admit you don't want to criticize a brother.
Bullshit, I just wanted to read more of this post history before I said anything. Looking at this poet pretty much did nothing but cuss at her and act very defensive in that post.
this is the perfect act - Political Chic calls blacks unthinking, stuck on the plantation, dont want to do better, hates responsibility so on and so on and then pretends to be shocked that someone may take offense to being called a slave. BUT THATS NOT ALL...Then she translates that person being offended into hating black conservatives.
You say its the message...she hears hate. You show her the message you're offended by...she hears hate. You point at specifics...and why it's offensive...she hears hate. Then she goes right back to calling people slaves
Smear merchant? Take responsibility for your own postings, bitch. You brought all my diss onto yourself. You claimed to be my better? Prove that shit. Problem is you can't. Moving on.
I don't just claim to be better than you....I am better.
Very simply proven: you fabricate smears and attempted besmirchment of my character as some sort of attack.....
....while I quote you to prove what an ignorant, low-life you are.
If you had an actual defense...you wouldn't have to pretend and use vile name calling.
Nothing makes the defeat of mental midgets such as you more evident than the attempt to suggest things about women that you, probably, wouldn't say about your mothers or sisters....
What could be more clear?
Clear? Yep, more evidence that you (rather we) suffer from your Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
Had enough of me putting you in your place?
OK....Time for you to go home and set up the Slip and Slide so it ends in the knife. drawer.
Have a wonderful day.
b. " On July 12, the [Obama] administration unilaterally weakened the federally mandated work requirements for welfare recipients. Since welfare reform was passed by Congress and signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1996, the states have been required to have at least half of adult welfare recipients in qualified "work activities"actual jobs, or participation in education or training programs. Now, however, Mr. Obama's Department of Health and Human Services has announced that the agency will issue waivers to the federal work requirement." Ibid.
That is a huge lie PC. Why do you always have to push false right wing propaganda? Is it because you have no ethics, scruples or honesty? Or are you just so partisan that propaganda is a tool?
So where did the notion of a major welfare reform overhaul come from?
Where it didn't come from is Washington but rather from Utah, Nevada, California, Connecticut and Minnesota.
These states, some with Republican governors, asked the federal government for more flexibility in how they hand out welfare dollars. Their purpose was to spend less time on federal paperwork and more time experimenting with ways to connect welfare recipients with jobs.
The Obama administration cooperated, granting waivers to some states from some of the existing rules.
The waivers gave "those states some flexibility in how they manage their welfare rolls as long as it produced 20% increases in the number of people getting work."
In some small way, the waivers might change precisely how work is calculated but the essential goal of pushing welfare recipients to work -- something both Democrats and Republicans agreed to in the 1990s -- remains the same.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TANF-ACF-IM-2012-03 (Guidance concerning waiver and expenditure authority under Section 1115) | Office of Family Assistance | Administration for Children and Families
The text of the memorandum states that HHS will only consider approving waivers relating to the work participation requirements that make changes intended to lead to more effective means of meeting the work goals of the legislation. States that fail to meet interim outcome targets will be required to develop an improvement plan and can face termination of the waiver project, the memo added.
b. " On July 12, the [Obama] administration unilaterally weakened the federally mandated work requirements for welfare recipients. Since welfare reform was passed by Congress and signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1996, the states have been required to have at least half of adult welfare recipients in qualified "work activities"—actual jobs, or participation in education or training programs. Now, however, Mr. Obama's Department of Health and Human Services has announced that the agency will issue waivers to the federal work requirement." Ibid.
That is a huge lie PC. Why do you always have to push false right wing propaganda? Is it because you have no ethics, scruples or honesty? Or are you just so partisan that propaganda is a tool?
So where did the notion of a major welfare reform overhaul come from?
Where it didn't come from is Washington but rather from Utah, Nevada, California, Connecticut and Minnesota.
These states, some with Republican governors, asked the federal government for more flexibility in how they hand out welfare dollars. Their purpose was to spend less time on federal paperwork and more time experimenting with ways to connect welfare recipients with jobs.
The Obama administration cooperated, granting waivers to some states from some of the existing rules.
The waivers gave "those states some flexibility in how they manage their welfare rolls as long as it produced 20% increases in the number of people getting work."
In some small way, the waivers might change precisely how work is calculated but the essential goal of pushing welfare recipients to work -- something both Democrats and Republicans agreed to in the 1990s -- remains the same.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TANF-ACF-IM-2012-03 (Guidance concerning waiver and expenditure authority under Section 1115) | Office of Family Assistance | Administration for Children and Families
The text of the memorandum states that HHS “will only consider approving waivers relating to the work participation requirements that make changes intended to lead to more effective means of meeting the work goals” of the legislation. “States that fail to meet interim outcome targets will be required to develop an improvement plan and can face termination of the waiver project,” the memo added.
" HHS “will only consider approving waivers relating to the work participation requirements that make changes intended to lead to more effective means of meeting the work goals” of the legislation."
You don't capiche the lingo?
Seriously?
Everyone is entitled to have some blind spots....but you abuse the privilege.
Does it make any sense to try to de-duncifiy you?
1. " In fact, since
President Obama took office, federal welfare
spending has increased by 41 percent, more
than $193 billion per year. Despite this government largess, more than 46 million Americans continue to live in poverty. Despite nearly $15
trillion in total welfare spending since Lyndon
Johnson declared war on poverty in 1964, the
poverty rate is perilously close to where we began more than 40 years ago.
Throwing money at the problem has neither
reduced poverty nor made the poor self-sufficient...
….the dramatically larger increase also suggests that part
of the program’s growth is due to conscious
policy choices by this administration to ease
eligibility rules and expand caseloads…."
Scribd
2." Obama kills welfare reform
By Dick Morris - 07/17/12 06:07 PM ET
Determined to destroy Bill Clinton’s signature achievement, President Obama’s administration has opened a loophole in the 1996 welfare reform legislation big enough to make the law ineffective. Its work requirement — the central feature of the legislation — has been diluted beyond recognition by the bureaucrats at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). "
Obama kills welfare reform - The Hill
I never lie: learn it, love it, live it.
That is a huge lie PC. Why do you always have to push false right wing propaganda? Is it because you have no ethics, scruples or honesty? Or are you just so partisan that propaganda is a tool?
So where did the notion of a major welfare reform overhaul come from?
Where it didn't come from is Washington but rather from Utah, Nevada, California, Connecticut and Minnesota.
These states, some with Republican governors, asked the federal government for more flexibility in how they hand out welfare dollars. Their purpose was to spend less time on federal paperwork and more time experimenting with ways to connect welfare recipients with jobs.
The Obama administration cooperated, granting waivers to some states from some of the existing rules.
The waivers gave "those states some flexibility in how they manage their welfare rolls as long as it produced 20% increases in the number of people getting work."
In some small way, the waivers might change precisely how work is calculated but the essential goal of pushing welfare recipients to work -- something both Democrats and Republicans agreed to in the 1990s -- remains the same.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TANF-ACF-IM-2012-03 (Guidance concerning waiver and expenditure authority under Section 1115) | Office of Family Assistance | Administration for Children and Families
The text of the memorandum states that HHS will only consider approving waivers relating to the work participation requirements that make changes intended to lead to more effective means of meeting the work goals of the legislation. States that fail to meet interim outcome targets will be required to develop an improvement plan and can face termination of the waiver project, the memo added.
" HHS will only consider approving waivers relating to the work participation requirements that make changes intended to lead to more effective means of meeting the work goals of the legislation."
You don't capiche the lingo?
Seriously?
Everyone is entitled to have some blind spots....but you abuse the privilege.
Does it make any sense to try to de-duncifiy you?
1. " In fact, since
President Obama took office, federal welfare
spending has increased by 41 percent, more
than $193 billion per year. Despite this government largess, more than 46 million Americans continue to live in poverty. Despite nearly $15
trillion in total welfare spending since Lyndon
Johnson declared war on poverty in 1964, the
poverty rate is perilously close to where we began more than 40 years ago.
Throwing money at the problem has neither
reduced poverty nor made the poor self-sufficient...
.the dramatically larger increase also suggests that part
of the programs growth is due to conscious
policy choices by this administration to ease
eligibility rules and expand caseloads ."
Scribd
2." Obama kills welfare reform
By Dick Morris - 07/17/12 06:07 PM ET
Determined to destroy Bill Clintons signature achievement, President Obamas administration has opened a loophole in the 1996 welfare reform legislation big enough to make the law ineffective. Its work requirement the central feature of the legislation has been diluted beyond recognition by the bureaucrats at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). "
Obama kills welfare reform - The Hill
I never lie: learn it, love it, live it.
Then you are simply obtuse. If you would prefer stupid over deceitful, you now own it. Can your little tiny mind come up with any reason(s) other than (bogus) policy why federal welfare spending would increase? Do you need any hints?
For the kind of (bogus) policy change you and toe sucking out of a job Morris are accusing the President of, Congress would have to have major involvement, and the Rand Pauls and Ted Cruzs would be on Fox 24/7 yelling at the top of their lungs.
BTW, I posted the letter HHS sent to the states who requested the federal government give them more flexibility in how they hand out welfare dollars. Their purpose (the states) was to spend less time on federal paperwork and more time experimenting with ways to connect welfare recipients with jobs.
Please read the HHS letter and bring back the wording that says people can get welfare without the work requirement? I HAS to be in there if you and toe sucking out of a job Morris say so.
And those states have a lot of nerve! How dare they ask the feds to allow their state the ability to better administer a program. Next thing they will be expecting is states right!!!
I LOVE IT!!!
I identify you as a smear merchant....and you go out of your way to prove it!!!!
What a dim-wit!!!
Smear merchant? Take responsibility for your own postings, bitch. You brought all my diss onto yourself. You claimed to be my better? Prove that shit. Problem is you can't. Moving on.
I don't just claim to be better than you....I am better.
Very simply proven: you fabricate smears and attempted besmirchment of my character as some sort of attack.....
....while I quote you to prove what an ignorant, low-life you are.
If you had an actual defense...you wouldn't have to pretend and use vile name calling.
Nothing makes the defeat of mental midgets such as you more evident than the attempt to suggest things about women that you, probably, wouldn't say about your mothers or sisters....
What could be more clear?
Had enough of me putting you in your place?
OK....Time for you to go home and set up the Slip and Slide so it ends in the knife. drawer.
Strange that the poet hasn't posted on this thread since 0922. (CDT)
He has been around the board until well past noon.
Could it be butthurt from all the ass kicking?
Bitch, you're white trailer trash...
Smear merchant? Take responsibility for your own postings, bitch. You brought all my diss onto yourself. You claimed to be my better? Prove that shit. Problem is you can't. Moving on.
I don't just claim to be better than you....I am better.
Very simply proven: you fabricate smears and attempted besmirchment of my character as some sort of attack.....
....while I quote you to prove what an ignorant, low-life you are.
If you had an actual defense...you wouldn't have to pretend and use vile name calling.
Nothing makes the defeat of mental midgets such as you more evident than the attempt to suggest things about women that you, probably, wouldn't say about your mothers or sisters....
What could be more clear?
Had enough of me putting you in your place?
OK....Time for you to go home and set up the Slip and Slide so it ends in the knife. drawer.
Lord, could you be more "puerile" and juvenile?
Bitch, you're white trailer trash, with a superiority complex, coming from where, who knows.
The name calling was initiated by you, and finished by me. Thank you....no sense in whining now...now that you've been embarrassed beyond reproach.
You're easy...in more ways the one, obviously. You've been manhandled (not your first time at the rodeo) and neatly put in a box, that you cannot extricate yourself from. Go play with children your own age. There is nothing for you here.
the republican party could improve their voting average amoung black voters if they stopped cheating them out of their votes to win elections.
You see black people would be more attracted to a party that didnt have to cheat them to win.
Try actually making a sound argument for why your policies might work.
Quit blaming EVERYONE else for why peopel of color hate your party and take some responibility for what you have done for decades.
The court records are clear and full of the evidence of why blacks hate your party.
YOU work to keep black people from voting WHEREVER you can get away with it.
This might be of interest:
" On Monday, the U.S senate passed a non-binding resolution to apologize for its failure to enact anti-lynching legislation. The resolution states that the Senate "expresses the deepest sympathies and most solemn regrets of the Senate to the descendants of victims of lynching, the ancestors of whom were deprived of life, human dignity and the constitutional protections accorded all citizens of the United States."
More than 200 anti —lynching bills were introduced in congress in the first part of the century and the House of Representatives passed anti-lynching bills three times. However, the legislation was repeatedly blocked by [Democrat] Senators from the South and almost 5,000 people -— mostly African-Americans — were lynched between 1882 and 1968."
Senate Apologizes For Not Enacting Anti-Lynching Legislation, A Look at Journalist and Anti-Lynching Crusader Ida B. Wells
"During the early years of the Wilson administration (1913-1917), the Democratic Representatives submitted more racist legislation than had been introduced to any previous Congress....Southern Democrats regularly blocked the efforts of a few liberal Congressmen to pass protective legislation for blacks."
The Rise and Fall of Jim Crow | PBS
"However, the unstated causes that created the facts set forth in the resolution indisputably demonstrate that there is a specific group directly responsible for the Senate's egregious failure to pass an anti-lynching law. That group should join with the Senate and offer its deepest regret and humblest heartfelt apology to the families of lynching victims. Which group? The Democrat Party."
Why The Democratic Party Should Apologize To The Families of Lynching Victims | Worldview Weekend
__________________
Bill Text - 109th Congress (2005-2006) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)
WHEREAS THE CRIME OF LYNCHING SUCCEEDED SLAVERY AS THE ULTIMATE EXPRESSION OF RACISM IN THE UNITED STATES FOLLOWING RECONSTRUCTION;
 Indisputably, the Ku Klux Klan was the primary domestic terrorist group responsible for racial lynchings during and following Reconstruction.
 The Ku Klux Klan was formed by the Democrat Party in 1866-1867 as part of their efforts against Reconstruction. [1]
 In 1871, as lynchings were escalating in the nation, a bill was passed in Congress to punish Klan violence; not one Democrat in the House or Senate voted for that bill. [2]
The Democratic Party you're referring to, is now known as The Republican Party. The parties switched ideologies, and therefore, legacies, during the late 60's through 1980.
",.......
Before Lincoln's election in fact, nearly every President had been a slave-owner or come from a slave state. And nearly every Supreme Court Chief Justice, as well as Senate and Congressional leader had come from the South as well. So, after the Grant administration (Republican) gave up on southern Reconstruction and withdrew Federal troops in 1877, when the rest of the nation had grown tired of struggle and turned its attentions elsewhere, these same boll weevils who had worn grey, flown the stars and bars, and waged treasonous war against their own nation and flag, proceeded by hook and by crook to wrap themselves in both that flag and the trappings of patriotism, in order to take over the governments of their southern states once again, regaining their seats in Congress and on the courts, and after waiting more than a century until President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act in 1964, they 'flip-flopped' and become Republicans.
It was during that century, when the American "picture" continued its long, complicated process of "turning upside down", and the entire historical landscape appears to flip politically and geographically-- that the previous analogy of an object being viewed through a magnifying glass that suddenly emerges completely inverted as the glass is moved further away from the eye, should perhaps be replaced by the more apt analogy of a tornado, which roars through a neighborhood, ripping the roofs off of houses, blowing entire buildings off their foundations, and so completely destroying the order that had gone before that not a thing that existed in that previous time is discernable in the chaos that results. For in many ways this period resembles just such a storm.
Fueled by war-time production and Lincoln's economic programs, northern industry began to grow furiously in the years after the war, giving rise to the early labor union movement and the first waves of consumerism. Swollen by the huge numbers of ethnic immigrants pouring through Ellis Island from southern and eastern Europe after 1880, who began their existence on the bottom rung of the new economic ladder, this labor movement found that by supporting the Democratic Party and being supported by it created some degree of counter-weight to the growing economic might of the so-called Robber Barons, mostly Republicans, who with their attempts at achieving monopolies in agricultural commodities and industrial raw materials along with their growing system of largely unregulated factories and hellish working conditions were methodically destroying Lincoln's dream of a rebirth of freedom. Having lost none of its racist underpinnings in the meantime, the Democratic Party embraced this new labor movement in northern industrial cities while insisting on the continued opposition of most early organized labor unions to opening their ranks to black membership, thereby turning and keeping blacks into a permanent, un-represented under-class of cheap labor, North and South, agricultural and industrial-- in many ways really no better off than the slaves they had once been.
After decades of such Republican economic policies succeeded in pushing the country over the brink into the Great Depression after 1929-- a cataclysm nearly repeated more recently by three similar decades of post-Reagan Republican policies which led to the Great Recession of 2008 (in which many economists believe a second Great Depression was only narrowly averted by a massive government bailout of the financial "industry" with an infusion of at least a trillion dollars)-- FDR was elected. Though he had typical racist sentiments himself, as did most white Americans to one degree or another at the time, but especially the leadership and the rank and file pro-segregationist Democratic party in the South-- Roosevelt's wife Eleanor was a social and economic progressive as were growing numbers of Democrats in the North and South as well as increasing numbers within the labor movement, and as the roots of the Civil Rights struggle began to grow, so did demands for many of the other great socio-economic reforms that were enacted during Roosevelt's three terms in office.
Harry S. Truman, who became President after FDR's death in early 1945-- finally and fully de-segregated the armed forces in the years before the Korean War-- and besides opening the floodgates of the Civil Rights movement this also resulted in the so-called Dixiecrat rebellion of southern Democrats against his run for president in 1948, although he was able to win without them, later going down in defeat in 1952, largely due to the intractable Korean War. During both of Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower's subsequent terms as President the Republican platform became increasingly pro-segregationist in an attempt to court these increasingly disgruntled southern Democrats, even as most northern Democrats began to realize that civil rights were going to have to be enacted in this country-- along with sustained programs to battle poverty, racism, and class disparities in the US-- if we were not to lose all credibility in the world as a bastion of freedom and democracy in our increasingly dangerous hot and cold struggles with the Soviet Union and Red China in varioius hot spots around the world.
And so in 1964, in the wake of the assassination of John F. Kennedy and amidst growing racial unrest in America's northern industrial cities and across the South, Kennedy's successor Lyndon Baines Johnson signed into law the first Civil Rights Act, guaranteeing federal protections for millions of black Americans across the country to begin enjoying the basic rights accorded citizens of the United States, and in reaction millions of southern Democrats became Republicans overnight. Progressive Republicans in the north had already been switching en masse to the Democrats since at least the Great Depression-- many in fact had begun leaving that party as early as the Bull Moose campaign of Teddy Roosevelt in 1910. And many progressive Democrats in the south were beginning to sympathize with the plight of African Americans as well-- who had supported the Republican party during the generations after Lincoln, while suffering horribly under the Democrats and Jim Crow laws when Reconstruction was abandoned, finally leaving the south by the millions seeking better lives and jobs in the north during and after WWI-- all of which set the stage for the two major parties to emerge from this period as nearly the ideological and geographical mirror images of what and where they had been in 1865.
Similarly, Republicans west of the Mississippi early on remained loyal to the party during this transition period when eastern Republicans were becoming Democrats mostly because the Democratic party continued to represent to those regions the party of the hated Confederacy until WWI, when this opposition began morphing through various stages-- first as the Democrats came to represent the party of immigrant unionism, painted by the Republican elites as creeping socialism and communism; then becoming the face of urban corruption and graft as the effects of the 18th amendment saw an increase in America's major cities of shocking levels of organized crime and governmental cooptation by criminal syndicates; and finally becoming the boogeyman of full-blown Red hysteria when Roosevelt's programs were framed as Big Government dictatorship along Stalinist lines during the crisis years of the Great Depression-- not much different from the Tea Party movement's contemporary attempts to paint the Democrats as both Communists and Fascists at the same time.
When all of these currents merged with the primal fears unleashed in the aftermath of WWII and the advent of nuclear weaponry, when the rising tide of the Cold War without and McCarthyism within began to lead to a national political dialogue characterized by increasing levels of hysteria and paranoia, these various strands of thought were welded together into the boilerplate by which the unholy marriage between the Military/Industrial Complex centered on Wall Street and the ideological remnants of the old aristocratic South were joined as one, wherein racism could be cloaked as states' rights, reluctance to bear a commensurate share of federal spending could be concealed as noble belief in small government, and oppositon to taxation became a mantra for the promotion of the general welfare a la such absurdities as the Laffer Curve and Trickle Down Economics (which would be called Voodoo Economics in 1980 by soon-to-be Republican President George H. W. Bush), even as the social upheavals of the Civil Rights era and increasing levels of popular opposition to the Vietnam War during the 1960s fueled Richard M. Nixon's paranoid law-and-order anti-communist movement, culminating in his Southern Strategy-engineered Presidential campaign in 1968-- a strategy we are still seeing the Republicans exploiting with excellent results despite its numerous logical contradictions today.
This great national/political party flip-flop is not well understood-- not only because tracing its course is a complicated process that encompasses well over half of our national history-- but also because many aspects of it, a few of which have been outlined here, are embarrassing to both parties. However, if Americans were to understand this process, it could well become the key to turning our nation around. The blue states used to be Republican, the red states used to be Democratic. Only the names have been changed-- not the geography-- and this was not to protect the innocent. Despite the name switch, the philosophies have stayed much the same-- even taking into account the massive levels of industrialization, urbanization, internal and external immigration, and technological transformation which have transpired in the interim. Lincoln, the first Republican President, was a tax-and-spender, a Keynesian before Keynes, who would today probably be ridiculed as a liberal, or probably much worse, by his stalwart successors in the GOP. A believer in government of the people, by the people, and for the people, Lincoln was not afraid to spend money to prime the economic pump of the national economy to help promote growth in the long run-- a thing which is well understood by the average farmer but has become anathema to the elitist Republican leadership of today. The southern Democrats (now Republicans) of Lincoln's day ridiculed his northern Republican party (now Democrats) as being the party of those whose honest work with their own backs and hands brought them home dirty or filthy at night, home from playing small potatoes with their own small businesses, or from grubbing in the dirt on their own small farms, rather than having enjoyed the leisure of being part of a ruling aristocracy, as the Republican elites do.
And in their arrogance, those landed-aristocrats in the 19th century were exactly right. With this enlightened tax and spend policy, Lincoln paved the way for the US economy to enter an era of unprecedented growth and for this nation to become a world superpower, for better or for worse. The southern Planter class of aristocrats is long gone, but the wealthy heirs of the Robber Barons have replaced them just the same. By first coopting, then undercutting, and finally villifying his policies althogether this new wave aristocracy has ensured that Lincoln-hatred in the South has been kept well-nourished-- fooling enough of the people there and elsewhere enough of the time to maintain their slight hold on the reins of political and economic power. But that the South is now the heartland of the Republican base is an irony that even honest old Abe Lincoln would have been hard-pressed to easily explain with a folksey joke.
Yet now, almost a century-and-a-half since his assassination, this new corporatocracy of finance, Wall Street, K Street, and Madison Avenue has taken us again nearly to the brink of economic ruin, by continually exploiting fear and hatred, winning every election by 3 points, claiming in such miniscule margins that they have won sweeping mandates to cut taxes for the rich, reduce federal expenditures, dismantle or privatize programs like Medicare, and undercut any and all social safety nets, all the while obscenely enriching themselves at the rest of society's expense. If our nation is to survive, then these policies have to be stopped, as similar forces were stopped in Lincoln's time. The Democrats of today are far from perfect, and have many serious problems with their own political goals and especially in their understanding of human nature. But whatever the case, it is imperative that some political and economic methodology be discovered which can exploit the deep cultural and philosophical differences which still exist between most people living in the Midwestern Red states-- inhabited by the descendants of those hard-working Republican homesteaders Lincoln sent west over his railroads, equipped with the latest research coming out of his USDA and Land Grant Colleges to increase their yields, and spread national wealth-- so that rebirth of freedom that he so eloquently called for in the wake of that bloody Battle of Gettysburg, the dream of which died with his assassination, can finally come to fruitiion......."
There. Now you've been enlightened, bitch. Don't ever say I didn't give you intellectual "cum'.
" HHS will only consider approving waivers relating to the work participation requirements that make changes intended to lead to more effective means of meeting the work goals of the legislation."
You don't capiche the lingo?
Seriously?
Everyone is entitled to have some blind spots....but you abuse the privilege.
Does it make any sense to try to de-duncifiy you?
1. " In fact, since
President Obama took office, federal welfare
spending has increased by 41 percent, more
than $193 billion per year. Despite this government largess, more than 46 million Americans continue to live in poverty. Despite nearly $15
trillion in total welfare spending since Lyndon
Johnson declared war on poverty in 1964, the
poverty rate is perilously close to where we began more than 40 years ago.
Throwing money at the problem has neither
reduced poverty nor made the poor self-sufficient...
.the dramatically larger increase also suggests that part
of the programs growth is due to conscious
policy choices by this administration to ease
eligibility rules and expand caseloads ."
Scribd
2." Obama kills welfare reform
By Dick Morris - 07/17/12 06:07 PM ET
Determined to destroy Bill Clintons signature achievement, President Obamas administration has opened a loophole in the 1996 welfare reform legislation big enough to make the law ineffective. Its work requirement the central feature of the legislation has been diluted beyond recognition by the bureaucrats at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). "
Obama kills welfare reform - The Hill
I never lie: learn it, love it, live it.
Then you are simply obtuse. If you would prefer stupid over deceitful, you now own it. Can your little tiny mind come up with any reason(s) other than (bogus) policy why federal welfare spending would increase? Do you need any hints?
For the kind of (bogus) policy change you and toe sucking out of a job Morris are accusing the President of, Congress would have to have major involvement, and the Rand Pauls and Ted Cruzs would be on Fox 24/7 yelling at the top of their lungs.
BTW, I posted the letter HHS sent to the states who requested the federal government give them more flexibility in how they hand out welfare dollars. Their purpose (the states) was to spend less time on federal paperwork and more time experimenting with ways to connect welfare recipients with jobs.
Please read the HHS letter and bring back the wording that says people can get welfare without the work requirement? I HAS to be in there if you and toe sucking out of a job Morris say so.
And those states have a lot of nerve! How dare they ask the feds to allow their state the ability to better administer a program. Next thing they will be expecting is states right!!!
Welfare reform was a law.
Passed by a legislative body.
Signed by a rapist....er, President.
The malfeasance-in-chief decided he didn't have to enforce this law....in fact, that he'd obviate same.
And you admit it, here:
"And those states have a lot of nerve! How dare they ask the feds to allow their state the ability to better administer a program. Next thing they will be expecting is states right!!!"
I provided the dots for you to connect, but you decided to keep a blind eye to the attempts to produce a welfare-dependent nation by the Liberals.
Spin altering the truth without altering the facts.
It's time for you to put a little sign in each ear:
"Space for rent."
Then you are simply obtuse. If you would prefer stupid over deceitful, you now own it. Can your little tiny mind come up with any reason(s) other than (bogus) policy why federal welfare spending would increase? Do you need any hints?
For the kind of (bogus) policy change you and toe sucking out of a job Morris are accusing the President of, Congress would have to have major involvement, and the Rand Pauls and Ted Cruzs would be on Fox 24/7 yelling at the top of their lungs.
BTW, I posted the letter HHS sent to the states who requested the federal government give them more flexibility in how they hand out welfare dollars. Their purpose (the states) was to spend less time on federal paperwork and more time experimenting with ways to connect welfare recipients with jobs.
Please read the HHS letter and bring back the wording that says people can get welfare without the work requirement? I HAS to be in there if you and toe sucking out of a job Morris say so.
And those states have a lot of nerve! How dare they ask the feds to allow their state the ability to better administer a program. Next thing they will be expecting is states right!!!
Welfare reform was a law.
Passed by a legislative body.
Signed by a rapist....er, President.
The malfeasance-in-chief decided he didn't have to enforce this law....in fact, that he'd obviate same.
And you admit it, here:
"And those states have a lot of nerve! How dare they ask the feds to allow their state the ability to better administer a program. Next thing they will be expecting is states right!!!"
I provided the dots for you to connect, but you decided to keep a blind eye to the attempts to produce a welfare-dependent nation by the Liberals.
Spin altering the truth without altering the facts.
It's time for you to put a little sign in each ear:
"Space for rent."
The waivers gave "those states some flexibility in how they manage their welfare rolls as long as it produced 20% increases in the number of people getting work."
SO, the focus should not be on increasing in the number of people getting work. It should be on partisan attacks and creating bogus agendas. Because Obama is evil, and conservatives are all good.
Welfare reform was a law.
Passed by a legislative body.
Signed by a rapist....er, President.
The malfeasance-in-chief decided he didn't have to enforce this law....in fact, that he'd obviate same.
And you admit it, here:
"And those states have a lot of nerve! How dare they ask the feds to allow their state the ability to better administer a program. Next thing they will be expecting is states right!!!"
I provided the dots for you to connect, but you decided to keep a blind eye to the attempts to produce a welfare-dependent nation by the Liberals.
Spin altering the truth without altering the facts.
It's time for you to put a little sign in each ear:
"Space for rent."
The waivers gave "those states some flexibility in how they manage their welfare rolls as long as it produced 20% increases in the number of people getting work."
SO, the focus should not be on increasing in the number of people getting work. It should be on partisan attacks and creating bogus agendas. Because Obama is evil, and conservatives are all good.
Is liberty good? If yes then you're a conservative
The only beating that is going to take place is that of your pudenda, that I'm going to give it.I don't just claim to be better than you....I am better.
Very simply proven: you fabricate smears and attempted besmirchment of my character as some sort of attack.....
....while I quote you to prove what an ignorant, low-life you are.
If you had an actual defense...you wouldn't have to pretend and use vile name calling.
Nothing makes the defeat of mental midgets such as you more evident than the attempt to suggest things about women that you, probably, wouldn't say about your mothers or sisters....
What could be more clear?
Had enough of me putting you in your place?
OK....Time for you to go home and set up the Slip and Slide so it ends in the knife. drawer.
Lord, could you be more "puerile" and juvenile?
Bitch, you're white trailer trash, with a superiority complex, coming from where, who knows.
The name calling was initiated by you, and finished by me. Thank you....no sense in whining now...now that you've been embarrassed beyond reproach.
You're easy...in more ways the one, obviously. You've been manhandled (not your first time at the rodeo) and neatly put in a box, that you cannot extricate yourself from. Go play with children your own age. There is nothing for you here.
"... with a superiority complex,..."
It's not a complex, m'man.
Now, I have a busy day today....but have no doubt, I'll be around to give you another beating in the future.....
Let's remember:
....you're just another flash in the bedpan.
The waivers gave "those states some flexibility in how they manage their welfare rolls as long as it produced 20% increases in the number of people getting work."
SO, the focus should not be on increasing in the number of people getting work. It should be on partisan attacks and creating bogus agendas. Because Obama is evil, and conservatives are all good.
Is liberty good? If yes then you're a conservative
Oh yea, liberty. For WHOM? Certainly not for women, the poor, gays, immigrants or minorities. Liberty for the opulent, corporations, Wall Street and polluters.
