Thread: Over 100 Million Now Receiving Federal Welfare

Originally Posted by catalinacat

President Clinton did great with that welfare reform. The low life is Obama for enabling people to collect welfare instead of looking for work until the economy improves. Are you kidding me? That's not the American way, you pull your straps up and fight against the negative tide, get a job and work hard. But of course obama says this because he NEVER had a real job. The tough get going, they don't let a president dictate whether or not they should try and get a job. You don't set around on your ass collecting welfare. That's why turns the economy around. What about that can you not see? You must be one of the ones laying back and collecting welfare, you're on this board 24/7. Obama IS in a bad light, but you just keep cheering for a loser, doesn't say much for your intelligence to keep defending Obama for not changing anything for the better, like he promised all you lemmings.

Willard needs Gingrich, who helped invent the act, to back 'em up on this one ... problem is, Gingrich like all neo-tea partiers, merely spout-off like psychopaths without requiring a shred of evidence to back themselves up ...

Just wait until Willard picks Paul Ryan as VP ... can you imagine how those little Paul Ryan voucher-program town halls will go ... last time he did, he did one ... and never did another one ... LOL.

Originally Posted by exotix

Willard needs Gingrich, who helped invent the act, to back 'em up on this one ... problem is, Gingrich like all neo-tea partiers, merely spout-off like psychopaths without requiring a shred of evidence to back themselves up ...

Just wait until Willard picks Paul Ryan as VP ... can you imagine how those little Paul Ryan voucher-program town halls will go ... last time he did, he did one ... and never did another one ... LOL.

Agree - the last person he should pick is Ryan or heaven forbid that other older guy who ran briefly, can't recall his name right now. Christie would be powerful VP, but his obesity is a negative.

Originally Posted by catalinacat

Agree - the last person he should pick is Ryan or heaven forbid that other older guy who ran briefly, can't recall his name right now. Christie would be powerful VP, but his obesity is a negative.

No matter who Willards' VP pick is ... he absolutely has to be the front-man for Willard ... whoever it is, will be worse than Romney ... Christie fits the bill ... a big fat blabbermouth who loves to come-off like a lunatic at you ...

LOL.

Originally Posted by exotix

No matter who Willards' VP pick is ... he absolutely has to be the front-man for Willard ... whoever it is, will be worse than Romney ... Christie fits the bill ... a big fat blabbermouth who loves to come-off like a lunatic at you ...

LOL.

Yes I know, no way they can match up to Biden, a true buffoon.

Originally Posted by coolguybrad

Endless welfare not creating jobs....this much should be obvious.

the rich create jobs to get that money that those on welfare get... you can bet the bank on that!

bottom up just works, trickle down... not so much...


.

Originally Posted by exotix

Wackbats are jumping on anything that puts Obama in a bad light because they're lowlifes ...

And libtards are giving Obama a free pass just 'cause he's "not Bush".

Obama is screwing up massively on the international front, and he doesn't have the spine to go after the thieves domestically.

If Romney wasn't such a doofus he might actually have a chance, but this is kind of a re-peat of the Sharron Angle race against Harry Reid - the Republicans probably could have run the dogcatcher and won, but instead they ran one of the only wing-nuts who's more hated than Reid himself.

Oy. The hapless Republicans. So sad, so sad...

But what happens on the other side, is the libs are getting lazy (intellectually and in every other way) just 'cause they're in the driver's seat. Obama isn't executing a liberal agenda, in fact he's looking more and more like Bush every day. He's continuing Bush's policies in every area that matters, and ObamaCare is something Bush himself would probably have been proud of. We got one two three wars, new ones that weren't there before, Gitmo's still open, our liberties are still disappearing day after day (NDAA's are still getting signed, and the Obama administration is even going to bat for new draconian "security measures") -

If I were a lib, I'd be mad as hell. I'd figure that maybe I was getting sold out, that maybe my Prez was more interested in the money (after all, the DNC is taking huge amounts of money from the very same companies our government is giving all the corporate welfare to).

Originally Posted by ballantine

And libtards are giving Obama a free pass just 'cause he's "not Bush".

Obama is screwing up massively on the international front, and he doesn't have the spine to go after the thieves domestically.

If Romney wasn't such a doofus he might actually have a chance, but this is kind of a re-peat of the Sharron Angle race against Harry Reid - the Republicans probably could have run the dogcatcher and won, but instead they ran one of the only wing-nuts who's more hated than Reid himself.

Oy. The hapless Republicans. So sad, so sad...

But what happens on the other side, is the libs are getting lazy (intellectually and in every other way) just 'cause they're in the driver's seat. Obama isn't executing a liberal agenda, in fact he's looking more and more like Bush every day. He's continuing Bush's policies in every area that matters, and ObamaCare is something Bush himself would probably have been proud of. We got one two three wars, new ones that weren't there before, Gitmo's still open, our liberties are still disappearing day after day (NDAA's are still getting signed, and the Obama administration is even going to bat for new draconian "security measures") -

If I were a lib, I'd be mad as hell. I'd figure that maybe I was getting sold out, that maybe my Prez was more interested in the money (after all, the DNC is taking huge amounts of money from the very same companies our government is giving all the corporate welfare to).

I told republicans that when they were giving those powers to Bush, no future president is going to give up those powers once they have been given, people were fools to think so, LEFT and RIGHT, the terrorists did not just destroy the twin towers that day, they gave our government a weapon to use against us... so they could trade our freedom for more power... in the name of SECURITY

and not only that, they gave us two ten+ year wars, with untold cost in both $$$ and lives

Originally Posted by Cubed

What a bird-brain. Welfare gives food to people who don't have any. It doesn't add extra spending power to consumers, it just keeps them from dying.

Jobs push the economy, and with companies not hiring and just paying down their debts instead, the economy won't make any major shifts.

Welfare provides extra disposable income to individuals, increasing their marginal propensity to consume. Pelosi is wrong in that welfare does not create jobs. There is very little evidence indicating behaviorally speaking that recipients are more incentivized to look for work. Although I would be ecstatic if this is not so, people need a harsher impetus to seek employment.

I have an idea for what Obama should run on:

Obama, the reason that the government now can provide more Americans food Stamps then ever before. The man who promoted Class equality by grouping together more americans into poverty then any other president. Most people in the US prieviously believed it took eight years to destroy America, Obama proved them wrong by taking less then four.

Obama-Four More Years.

I actually think it might be interesting if Obama wins. After all the republicans have a chance to take the senate while holding the house, preventing the expansion of Obama's socialist agenda. Not only that, but by the next midterm Republicans could make an effective case against Obama, who vetoed their econonomic recovery plan. This could lead to another Republican upset, perhaps even giving enough power to the Republicans to overpower Obama's vetos, then in 2016, there would be a real possibility for another Republican upset with a HUGE majority in both parts of Congress with a Republican President, Just a thought.