The Lie That Obama Keeps Repeating

[PoliticalChic]

1. If one is an inveterate Liberal, one is relieved of the necessity of actually thinking.
In no area is this more evident than in welfare policy.

Let's, remember, first of all, that Liberalism/Progressivism is centered on the idea that bureaucrats, technocrats, invested with the power of an all knowing central government, are there to do the thinking for the herd, the mob, the 'reliable Democrat voters.'


Their voters never have to consider the function of the welfare system...but let's force the issue:

a. Is the welfare system there to 'offer a hand up, not a hand out,' i.e., to help move folks out of poverty.....
or...
b. to redistribute wealth from earners to takers, an keep the 'poor' feeding at the public trough?

A or B?




2. Two hard facts to offer toward the conclusion:

a. "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."
Scribd


b."This week, the U.S. Census Bureau is scheduled to release its annual poverty report. The report will be notable because this year marks the 50th anniversary of the launch of President Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty. In his January 1964 State of the Union address, Johnson proclaimed, “This administration today, here and now, declares unconditional war on poverty in America.”[1]

Since that time, U.S. taxpayers have spent over $22 trillion on anti-poverty programs (in constant 2012 dollars). Adjusted for inflation, this spending (which does not include Social Security or Medicare) is three times the cost of all military wars in U.S. history since the American Revolution. Despite this mountain of spending, progress against poverty, at least as measured by the government, has been minimal."
War on Poverty After 50 Years Conditions of the Poor in America



So...what do the facts tell you?
a. Is the system there to 'offer a hand up, not a hand out,' i.e., to help move folks out of poverty.....
or...
b. to redistribute wealth from earners to takers, an keep the 'poor' feeding at the public trough?

A or B?


What does Obama say?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Devil's Advocate: Not only should all welfare programs be ended to encourage evolution and survival of the fittest, but any and all public assistance, kindness to the poor, etc. should too. Why help the weak survive and pass on failure-genes only ensuring the problems continues with the next generation? Everytime we send food and money to Africa during famine and hard times, all we do is help weak people go on living long enough to reproduce and multiply the problem.

Let the weak die. Problem solved.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

1. If one is an inveterate Liberal, one is relieved of the necessity of actually thinking.
In no area is this more evident than in welfare policy.

Let's, remember, first of all, that Liberalism/Progressivism is centered on the idea that bureaucrats, technocrats, invested with the power of an all knowing central government, are there to do the thinking for the herd, the mob, the 'reliable Democrat voters.'


Their voters never have to consider the function of the welfare system...but let's force the issue:

a. Is the welfare system there to 'offer a hand up, not a hand out,' i.e., to help move folks out of poverty.....
or...
b. to redistribute wealth from earners to takers, an keep the 'poor' feeding at the public trough?

A or B?




2. Two hard facts to offer toward the conclusion:

a. "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."
Scribd


b."This week, the U.S. Census Bureau is scheduled to release its annual poverty report. The report will be notable because this year marks the 50th anniversary of the launch of President Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty. In his January 1964 State of the Union address, Johnson proclaimed, “This administration today, here and now, declares unconditional war on poverty in America.”[1]

Since that time, U.S. taxpayers have spent over $22 trillion on anti-poverty programs (in constant 2012 dollars). Adjusted for inflation, this spending (which does not include Social Security or Medicare) is three times the cost of all military wars in U.S. history since the American Revolution. Despite this mountain of spending, progress against poverty, at least as measured by the government, has been minimal."
War on Poverty After 50 Years Conditions of the Poor in America



So...what do the facts tell you?
a. Is the system there to 'offer a hand up, not a hand out,' i.e., to help move folks out of poverty.....
or...
b. to redistribute wealth from earners to takers, an keep the 'poor' feeding at the public trough?

A or B?


What does Obama say?

B

 

[Camp]

1. If one is an inveterate Liberal, one is relieved of the necessity of actually thinking.
In no area is this more evident than in welfare policy.

Let's, remember, first of all, that Liberalism/Progressivism is centered on the idea that bureaucrats, technocrats, invested with the power of an all knowing central government, are there to do the thinking for the herd, the mob, the 'reliable Democrat voters.'


Their voters never have to consider the function of the welfare system...but let's force the issue:

a. Is the welfare system there to 'offer a hand up, not a hand out,' i.e., to help move folks out of poverty.....
or...
b. to redistribute wealth from earners to takers, an keep the 'poor' feeding at the public trough?

A or B?

After presenting your opinion you are trying to confirm it is valid by asking loaded and restrictive questions that can only reinforce your fraudulent and misrepresentative views. The reasons for welfare are far more complicated, guantitative and complex than you present. You fail to include what happens when basic assistance is not distributed in some form to masses of poor or destitute people when they become desperate for what they perceive are necessities or genuine factual necessities such as food, clothing and shelter.

 

[Auld Phart]

B

 

[gipper]

1. If one is an inveterate Liberal, one is relieved of the necessity of actually thinking.
In no area is this more evident than in welfare policy.

Let's, remember, first of all, that Liberalism/Progressivism is centered on the idea that bureaucrats, technocrats, invested with the power of an all knowing central government, are there to do the thinking for the herd, the mob, the 'reliable Democrat voters.'


Their voters never have to consider the function of the welfare system...but let's force the issue:

a. Is the welfare system there to 'offer a hand up, not a hand out,' i.e., to help move folks out of poverty.....
or...
b. to redistribute wealth from earners to takers, an keep the 'poor' feeding at the public trough?

A or B?

After presenting your opinion you are trying to confirm it is valid by asking loaded and restrictive questions that can only reinforce your fraudulent and misrepresentative views. The reasons for welfare are far more complicated, guantitative and complex than you present. You fail to include what happens when basic assistance is not distributed in some form to masses of poor or destitute people when they become desperate for what they perceive are necessities or genuine factual necessities such as food, clothing and shelter.

So let's continue doing what we know does not work. Are you INSANE?

Are you the kind of American that concludes that anyone who knows and believes welfare is a failure, must want the poor to die?

We must admit welfare as it is done today, is a terrible failure. How about we try something else?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Devil's Advocate: Not only should all welfare programs be ended to encourage evolution and survival of the fittest, but any and all public assistance, kindness to the poor, etc. should too. Why help the weak survive and pass on failure-genes only ensuring the problems continues with the next generation? Everytime we send food and money to Africa during famine and hard times, all we do is help weak people go on living long enough to reproduce and multiply the problem.

Let the weak die. Problem solved.

Observation: It's interesting that when the subject of evolution arises, the Left without fail supports the theory. Yet when the practical process of it is the issue, they simply refuse to allow the process to function.

Same with endangered species. Thousands of species have and will disappear because of the natural process. In attempting to save certain species because they're pretty or remind Lefties of the Disney movies they grew up with, they may well be stunting the process and screwing up the natural order.

It's not a question of "letting the weak die". It's a matter of being overwhelmed by an insurmountable reality and placing ALL at risk.

Just a thought.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Devil's Advocate: Not only should all welfare programs be ended to encourage evolution and survival of the fittest, but any and all public assistance, kindness to the poor, etc. should too. Why help the weak survive and pass on failure-genes only ensuring the problems continues with the next generation? Everytime we send food and money to Africa during famine and hard times, all we do is help weak people go on living long enough to reproduce and multiply the problem.

Let the weak die. Problem solved.

Observation: It's interesting that when the subject of evolution arises, the Left without fail supports the theory. Yet when the practical process of it is the issue, they simply refuse to allow the process to function.

Same with endangered species. Thousands of species have and will disappear because of the natural process. In attempting to save certain species because they're pretty or remind Lefties of the Disney movies they grew up with, they may well be stunting the process and screwing up the natural order.

It's not a question of "letting the weak die". It's a matter of being overwhelmed by an insurmountable reality and placing ALL at risk.

Just a thought.

Animal mascot of the Republican Party shouldn't be an elephant but a lion. Male lions fight one another for dominance of the pride. And a victorious new male unseating the former will kill all the cubs of the former ruler so his cubs will make up the pride. KIlling the weak, and ensuring only the storngest survive is how lion prides work. And how Republican work too. Elephants are far more communal to say nothing of the females are in charge which is the exact opposite of the Republican model.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Devil's Advocate: Not only should all welfare programs be ended to encourage evolution and survival of the fittest, but any and all public assistance, kindness to the poor, etc. should too. Why help the weak survive and pass on failure-genes only ensuring the problems continues with the next generation? Everytime we send food and money to Africa during famine and hard times, all we do is help weak people go on living long enough to reproduce and multiply the problem.

Let the weak die. Problem solved.

Never mind 'Devil's Advocate'....I'll accept your post at face value.



Your disparagement of the recipients of welfare, in assuming that they cannot do what every other newcomer to the capitalist system has done, duly noted.

What would be the correct description of the view you espouse.....racist, or bigot?

1. "It was the misfortune of black Americans that they were just on the verge of passing through the immigrant experience when damaging ideas about welfare and the lenient attitude about crime took hold. It could have happened to the Italians, Germans, Jews or Irish, but luckily for them, there were no Liberals around to “help” when they arrived." Coulter, "Mugged"

 

[rightwinger]

a. Is the welfare system there to 'offer a hand up, not a hand out,' i.e., to help move folks out of poverty.....
or...
b. to redistribute wealth from earners to takers, an keep the 'poor' feeding at the public trough?A or B?

Actually, our welfare system does both

We want to provide a safety net of food, shelter and healthcare
We also want to provide educational opportunities, jobs programs and incentives for businesses who provide jobs in impoverished areas

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Devil's Advocate: Not only should all welfare programs be ended to encourage evolution and survival of the fittest, but any and all public assistance, kindness to the poor, etc. should too. Why help the weak survive and pass on failure-genes only ensuring the problems continues with the next generation? Everytime we send food and money to Africa during famine and hard times, all we do is help weak people go on living long enough to reproduce and multiply the problem.

Let the weak die. Problem solved.

Never mind 'Devil's Advocate'....I'll accept your post at face value.



Your disparagement of the recipients of welfare, in assuming that they cannot do what every other newcomer to the capitalist system has done, duly noted.

What would be the correct description of the view you espouse.....racist, or bigot?

1. "It was the misfortune of black Americans that they were just on the verge of passing through the immigrant experience when damaging ideas about welfare and the lenient attitude about crime took hold. It could have happened to the Italians, Germans, Jews or Irish, but luckily for them, there were no Liberals around to “help” when they arrived." Coulter, "Mugged"

Realist.

Helping the weak survive puts the strong who don't need such aide at risk. Might be warm n fuzzy to do, but there were only so many lifeboats on the Titanic. Some had to be sacrificed so other could survive. If they'd tried getting everybody into too-few lifeboats, no one would have survived.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Dems have been fighting the "War on Poverty" which was actually a War on the Black male head of household for 50 years and what do we have to show for it?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

KIlling the weak, and ensuring only the storngest survive is how lion prides work.

It's also how evolution works. "Them's the breaks!"

As to killing, point out any instances of Republican interest in killing welfare recipients.

Please also consider the example of the Baltimore Mayor's recent decision have the police stand down and give the rioters "room to destroy". The thinking there has bearing on this issue.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. If one is an inveterate Liberal, one is relieved of the necessity of actually thinking.
In no area is this more evident than in welfare policy.

Let's, remember, first of all, that Liberalism/Progressivism is centered on the idea that bureaucrats, technocrats, invested with the power of an all knowing central government, are there to do the thinking for the herd, the mob, the 'reliable Democrat voters.'


Their voters never have to consider the function of the welfare system...but let's force the issue:

a. Is the welfare system there to 'offer a hand up, not a hand out,' i.e., to help move folks out of poverty.....
or...
b. to redistribute wealth from earners to takers, an keep the 'poor' feeding at the public trough?

A or B?

After presenting your opinion you are trying to confirm it is valid by asking loaded and restrictive questions that can only reinforce your fraudulent and misrepresentative views. The reasons for welfare are far more complicated, guantitative and complex than you present. You fail to include what happens when basic assistance is not distributed in some form to masses of poor or destitute people when they become desperate for what they perceive are necessities or genuine factual necessities such as food, clothing and shelter.

As is my wont, I provided the facts that prove exactly what I intend to prove.

It is enlightening that you have not made any attempt to address said facts.


Let's give you another bone to chew on: poverty, in the classical definition....not the bogus one that you Liberals have cobbled together....
"no home, no heat, no food"....

....does not exist in America.

 

[NYcarbineer]

1. If one is an inveterate Liberal, one is relieved of the necessity of actually thinking.
In no area is this more evident than in welfare policy.

Let's, remember, first of all, that Liberalism/Progressivism is centered on the idea that bureaucrats, technocrats, invested with the power of an all knowing central government, are there to do the thinking for the herd, the mob, the 'reliable Democrat voters.'


Their voters never have to consider the function of the welfare system...but let's force the issue:

a. Is the welfare system there to 'offer a hand up, not a hand out,' i.e., to help move folks out of poverty.....
or...
b. to redistribute wealth from earners to takers, an keep the 'poor' feeding at the public trough?

A or B?




2. Two hard facts to offer toward the conclusion:

a. "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."
Scribd


b."This week, the U.S. Census Bureau is scheduled to release its annual poverty report. The report will be notable because this year marks the 50th anniversary of the launch of President Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty. In his January 1964 State of the Union address, Johnson proclaimed, “This administration today, here and now, declares unconditional war on poverty in America.”[1]

Since that time, U.S. taxpayers have spent over $22 trillion on anti-poverty programs (in constant 2012 dollars). Adjusted for inflation, this spending (which does not include Social Security or Medicare) is three times the cost of all military wars in U.S. history since the American Revolution. Despite this mountain of spending, progress against poverty, at least as measured by the government, has been minimal."
War on Poverty After 50 Years Conditions of the Poor in America



So...what do the facts tell you?
a. Is the system there to 'offer a hand up, not a hand out,' i.e., to help move folks out of poverty.....
or...
b. to redistribute wealth from earners to takers, an keep the 'poor' feeding at the public trough?

A or B?


What does Obama say?

Doesn't a program like Medicaid make the poor less poor?

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. If one is an inveterate Liberal, one is relieved of the necessity of actually thinking.
In no area is this more evident than in welfare policy.

Let's, remember, first of all, that Liberalism/Progressivism is centered on the idea that bureaucrats, technocrats, invested with the power of an all knowing central government, are there to do the thinking for the herd, the mob, the 'reliable Democrat voters.'


Their voters never have to consider the function of the welfare system...but let's force the issue:

a. Is the welfare system there to 'offer a hand up, not a hand out,' i.e., to help move folks out of poverty.....
or...
b. to redistribute wealth from earners to takers, an keep the 'poor' feeding at the public trough?

A or B?

After presenting your opinion you are trying to confirm it is valid by asking loaded and restrictive questions that can only reinforce your fraudulent and misrepresentative views. The reasons for welfare are far more complicated, guantitative and complex than you present. You fail to include what happens when basic assistance is not distributed in some form to masses of poor or destitute people when they become desperate for what they perceive are necessities or genuine factual necessities such as food, clothing and shelter.

So let's continue doing what we know does not work. Are you INSANE?

Are you the kind of American that concludes that anyone who knows and believes welfare is a failure, must want the poor to die?

We must admit welfare as it is done today, is a terrible failure. How about we try something else?

If, by INSANE, you mean 'Liberal,'....

...yeah, he is INSANE.



Liberals have been trained to remove 'thinking', from any analysis.

 

[rightwinger]

Dems have been fighting the "War on Poverty" which was actually a War on the Black male head of household for 50 years and what do we have to show for it?

We have had a Department of Defense for over 200 years and what do we have to show for it?

We still have wars. All that defense spending does not appear to be working

 

[Delta4Embassy]

KIlling the weak, and ensuring only the storngest survive is how lion prides work.

It's also how evolution works. "Them's the breaks!"

As to killing, point out any instances of Republican interest in killing welfare recipients.

Please also consider the example of the Baltimore Mayor's recent decision have the police stand down and give the rioters "room to destroy". The thinking there has bearing on this issue.

Cutting back welfare results in some dying due to malnutrition, or to crime as welfare recipiants formerly fed adequately resort to crime. As in India and Pakistan recently with deaths due to a heat wave even though the increase was little and the region already rather hot. Even a small unusual increase resulting in hundreds dying. As will a little reduction in already insufficient welfare monies. Some will die, but that' sok as it reduces demand and those who survive the cuts will be stronger for it.

Trying something new, only honesty. No euphamisms, figures-of-speech, spin, or interpretation. Just truth. Whole, uncompromsing, often unpleasant, truth.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Dems have been fighting the "War on Poverty" which was actually a War on the Black male head of household for 50 years and what do we have to show for it?

We have had a Department of Defense for over 200 years and what do we have to show for it?

We still have wars. All that defense spending does not appear to be working

We were the worlds Number 1 superpower, you got something better than #1, I'm all ears

 

[Delta4Embassy]

1. If one is an inveterate Liberal, one is relieved of the necessity of actually thinking.
In no area is this more evident than in welfare policy.

Let's, remember, first of all, that Liberalism/Progressivism is centered on the idea that bureaucrats, technocrats, invested with the power of an all knowing central government, are there to do the thinking for the herd, the mob, the 'reliable Democrat voters.'


Their voters never have to consider the function of the welfare system...but let's force the issue:

a. Is the welfare system there to 'offer a hand up, not a hand out,' i.e., to help move folks out of poverty.....
or...
b. to redistribute wealth from earners to takers, an keep the 'poor' feeding at the public trough?

A or B?




2. Two hard facts to offer toward the conclusion:

a. "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."
Scribd


b."This week, the U.S. Census Bureau is scheduled to release its annual poverty report. The report will be notable because this year marks the 50th anniversary of the launch of President Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty. In his January 1964 State of the Union address, Johnson proclaimed, “This administration today, here and now, declares unconditional war on poverty in America.”[1]

Since that time, U.S. taxpayers have spent over $22 trillion on anti-poverty programs (in constant 2012 dollars). Adjusted for inflation, this spending (which does not include Social Security or Medicare) is three times the cost of all military wars in U.S. history since the American Revolution. Despite this mountain of spending, progress against poverty, at least as measured by the government, has been minimal."
War on Poverty After 50 Years Conditions of the Poor in America



So...what do the facts tell you?
a. Is the system there to 'offer a hand up, not a hand out,' i.e., to help move folks out of poverty.....
or...
b. to redistribute wealth from earners to takers, an keep the 'poor' feeding at the public trough?

A or B?


What does Obama say?

Doesn't a program like Medicaid make the poor less poor?

Medicaid shouldn't be cut. It should be ended. Is noe volutionary benefit to helping the poor and injured or sick survive. Sooner they die the better for the rest.