Ben Carson Brings Story of Self-Reliance to 2016 Race

They matter to some degree. A lack of honesty and integrity clearly cost Romney the election.

 

Ben Carson Brings Story of Self-Reliance to 2016 Race


Well... he just lost the democrat votes.

 

True.

Had not the President served as an Illinois State Senator from January,1997 through November, 2004, and a US Senator from January, 2005 – November, 2008, teaching constitutional law at the University of Chicago from 1992 to 2004, he certainly was not going to be a two-term, popularly-elected POTUS based upon other activities.

That would be like claiming that co-starring in Bedtime for Bonzo made Dutch Reagan the ideal candidate for the presidency.

​

Benny Carson was, by all accounts, a competent surgeon thanks to the government financial aid he received. He's not remotely qualified for the presidency, and the GOP establishment will destroy him if he ever could make himself even remotely viable in primaries.



.

 

Honesty? People don't get any more honest than Romney. When someone (democrats) try to push absolute lies about you, his defense was as honest as it gets, and left wing loons would never believe anything Romney says no matter what

 

What a (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up comment about someone that has achieved what Dr Carson has. We would be a much greater country if more Americans would use the government resources like Dr Carson did, instead they continue suck off the teats and achieve nothing. Carson is an example of excellence and your comments only illuminate how pathetic liberals really are

 

lolol. Court Jester, indeed!

 

Letting you know that the twice-popularly elected President had served as an Illinois State Senator from January,1997 - November, 2004, and a US Senator from January, 2005 – November, 2008, and teaching constitutional law at the University of Chicago from 1992 to 2004, when you were labourinf under the misconception that his political qualifications comprised his capacity as a "community activist?

I would hope that my providing you with such knowledge might be appreciated.

How you regard Benny's political resumé is a separate matter, of course.

Gesundheit.

 

I can see that kool aid must run through your veins. Obama is a lying inept disgrace and only a small percentage of people like will never believe it.

 

I can understand why you need to avoid the matter of Benny's political resumé, of course. After I provided you with Obama's 11 years of elective service before being elected POTUS, what can you say?

If you regard the 65,446,032 Americans who voted for him in 2012, 51.01% of the popular vote, or even the 45-50% who currently approve of the job he's doing as "a small percentage of people like will never believe it", yours is certainly a novel perspective.

He's just an average president that is accorded mediocre numbers, and you shouldn't let right wing entertainers get you so wee wee'd up with their demon "Liberals!" up the wazoo.

 

and how that number has declined. People today seeing him for the inept liar he is, no matter how much you refuse to admit.

 

If you regard being elected to a second term with 51% of the popular vote, and being accorded an approval level in the high 40s now as a precipitous plunge, you should check out the Dub's numbers that were in the Mariana Trench at this stage of his terminal term.

 

And Bush was higher than president Truman and look how that turned out, Truman is in the top 10

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States

 

Not to mention Richard Nixon.

The reality is that, as a pragmatist, I am simpatico with the American people's assessment of the twice-elected Obama as a fair-to-middling president. Whether he some day soars to Clintonian levels or plummets to the Dub's is purely speculative.

The fringe extremists who deem him the second coming of FDR as well as the ones who rage that he is a foreign-born, socialist, communist, islamist scoundrel are entitled to their aberrant opinions.

I just happen to find myself in the vast majority of Americans in my balanced assessment.

 

Which means nothing in the history of politics, and the vast majority doesn't agree with your love for Obama, seeing he is now below the 50% mark

 

And think about how much better our environment would be if only the successful breathers air or used water. Or doesn't this analogy work for you?

- - - Updated - - -

And think about how much better our environment would be if only the successful breathed air or used water. Or doesn't this analogy work for you?

 

The approval numbers for Congress have declined even further to below 10% at this time. Guess the Republican controlled congress is full of even more inept liars than the White House.

 

I understand Ritlin helps for those that can't seem to stay on topic

 

See my previous post and then call your doctor

 

Billy, how many people do you think are dependent on welfare in this country (defined as "welfare provides half or more of their income in any given year")? And how many of them do you think are long-term dependent?

 

Yes, well, the overall point I guess is this: As of at least 2008, competency and experience with the actual requirements of the position is no longer necessary to have a hope of winning the seat. But there is this: perhaps someone who is NOT a career politician will do something to restore control of their governance to The People. Someone who does not have any back-room debts to repay to special interests has a distinct advantage on this front. To me, this aspect makes him 'not eliminated' as a potential.

 

I'm sure you can't wait to tell me, which of course will be a skewed view given to you by your king Obama.

Your liberal meme on Dr Carson is just another pathetic attempt to discredit this great man. What is really sad is liberals like you can't see him as an example of a hand up instead of a hand out. This entire mess has been created by democrats thinking they were going to solve poverty in America, and they made it worse

 

Uh-huh. Never mind that when I provide a number, I source it to hard data.

Can't even give me a ballpark of what you THINK the number is? After all, you're talking about how America has this big problem because of so many welfare dependents. I'd like to know how many people you think that is. I assume it's a fairly large number, since you think it's pulling America down.

Please quote the part where I used a "liberal meme" to "discredit" Carson.

He's a political neophyte who keeps saying politically stupid, ignorant things. That's just a fact.

 

So where's the number? I'm guessing since 47% use government assistance the number is large, but you will probably say something like 50. The only thing stupid is your comments that Carson is stupid, but then you being the partisan you are it is to be expected

 

Look at this link:
http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/13/Indicators/rpt.pdf

This is an annual report that Congress requires, looking at welfare dependency. Keep in mind that this particular report was done at the height of the recent recession, so the numbers will be much higher than normal -- since use of welfare programs, obviously, goes up when the economy is doing poorly.

Even so, guess what share of the population was "welfare-dependent": just 4.6%. At the height of the worst recession since the Great Depression, which occurred before any of these programs existed.

Get that? 4.6% IS THE WORST CASE SCENARIO. It's normally less than that.

Further, the number of people in long-term dependency is very, very small.


Longitudinal measures show that program spells are typically short and long-term recipiency is rare. For example, approximately three-fourths of all TANF spells and 62 percent of all SNAP spells lasted one year or less (see Indicator 7). Among individuals receiving TANF at some point over a ten-year period ending in 2008, over 70 percent received AFDC/TANF in only one or two years during this period.


If you do the math, you'll see that only about 1.2% of the population is on long-term welfare.

Ignoring dependency and long-term dependency, Overall recipiency rates are pretty low, too:


Trends in recipiency rates are similar to the more well-known changes in TANF, SNAP, and SSI caseloads. For example, the percentage of individuals receiving TANF cash assistance fell from 5.4 percent to 1.4 percent between 1993 and 2009. SNAP recipiency rates fell from 10.4 percent in 1993 and 1994 to 6.1 percent in 2000 and 2001. By 2009, the SNAP recipiency rate had increased to 10.7 percent, the highest rate in the history of the program. SSI recipiency rates, on the other hand, were relatively flat between 1993 and 2009, fluctuating between 2.3 and 2.5 percent.


So just 1.4% of the population was receiving cash assistance in 2009, even at the height of the recession. SNAP (food stamps) was 6.1% before the recession, and had risen to 10.7% at the height of it. SSI was basically unchanged, at just 2.5% or so.

Does that make you think, Billy? You had the impression that half the country was "welfare-dependent". The actual number is a tiny fraction of that -- less than 5%, even at the height of the recession. And most of those people are doing exactly what you want them to do -- getting a temporary hand up when they're down on their luck. Barely 1% of the population is long-term welfare-dependent.

So is this a giant problem that is destroying our country? Or have you, maybe, been misled by your partisan information sources?

I didn't say Carson was stupid. I said he keeps saying things that are politically stupid and ignorant. He could be a genius and still be politically stupid.

 

If the comparisons are to esoteric for your taste suggest you adjourn to the Romper Room forum.