szalman60

Ricko,,,,, fact : the difference between facts and conjecture is historical data of which your statement has none,,,, I especially was humored by the "Obama is unqualified',,,,, Obama was a constitution Law professor from Harvard,,, now lets look at past presidents, Bush ,, failed business man, his idea of good business was to take out ridiculous loans against assets,, divvy up the money amongst him and his board as bonuses and drive the business into insolvency,,, BTW that's how Romney made his billions ,,,
Clinton was a graduate of georgetown and yale law schools,,, Bush 41's father Preston was a Nazi sympathizer that wouldn't stop dealing with Hitler until Congress past a law to forbid it and then he fought the law in court,,, Reagan was an actor,, a grandfatherly type who could "sell"
the republican agenda to an ignorant public

szalman60

What a difference two letters can make.

Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) is our country’s only direct cash assistance program — the family welfare program that conservatives most love to hate. The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) is the cash assistance program for failing banks put in place by the Bush administration and augmented by the Obama administration — a financial welfare program that nobody fully understands.

In 2007, the latest year for which figures are available, TANF spending on cash assistance (not including child care or other subsidies) came to $4.5 billion. Total commitments to TARP since September 2008 come to $700 billion. So one year of TANF spending equals less than 1 percent of TARP. Citibank alone received $25 billion, five times the cash transferred to mothers and children receiving public assistance in 2007.

Here’s a more specific comparison. Top executives of banks bailed out this year — about 600 guys — received an estimated $1.6 billion in bonuses in 2007. That’s a little over a third of what 1.6 million families got in cash from TANF in that year.

TANF isn’t the only form of assistance to the poor that we regularly provide and TARP isn’t the only form of assistance to banks and insurance companies delivered this year. It’s difficult to figure out exactly what should be added up on both sides to compare welfare to rich and poor.

Robert Rector and Katharine Bradley of the Heritage Foundation, a conservative research organization, estimate that federal welfare spending amounted to $491 billion in fiscal 2008. (They don’t explain what specific programs they included in this estimate, and I’ll try to unpack it in a future post.) Even their extremely high estimate remains far below estimates of the total of $2.5 trillion spent on financial bailouts this year. The libertarian Cato Institute often emphasizes the issue of corporate welfare, but it’s remained remarkably quiet so far on the topic of bailouts.

The Welfare Indicators Act of 1994 requires annual reports to Congress on the level of welfare dependence. Perhaps we should require similar reports for banks and insurance companies.

In the wake of an earlier round of bank bailouts presided over by George H.W. Bush, I published a short piece in Newsweek entitled “Welfare Bankers” (sadly, the magazine’s digital archives do not extend to October 16-17, 1989). Protesting the moral double standard applied to bankers and to welfare mothers, I argued that the bankers whose institutions were bailed out at a cost of about $156 billion (what a deal compared to today’s bailout!) could perhaps be retrained as child care workers.

In the decade that followed this financial debacle, we could have gotten banking reform. Instead, we got welfare reform. Stricter work requirements and time limits were imposed. The welfare rolls declined sharply. Participation in the TANF program has fallen by half since 1996.

Welfare reform was heralded as a great success because it got so many of our female “troubled assets” off the rolls. But in addition to some unanticipated side effects (which I’ll describe in a future post), it was premised on the assumption that single mothers would be able to find work if they just tried hard enough.

That assumption no longer holds. More than one out of 10 single mothers is out of work. The latest figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics report an unemployment rate for March of 10.8 percent for women who maintain families on their own, significantly higher than the average seasonally adjusted unemployment rate for men (9.5 percent) or women (7.5 percent) the same month. Unemployed single mothers number about a million, compared with two million unemployed married women.

The recent stimulus package passed by Congress offers some supplementary funds to the states for public assistance. Conservative groups such as the Heritage Foundation lambasted the stimulus package for “abolishing welfare reform.” That, it does not do. But if unemployment rates for single mothers remain over 10 percent, welfare reform may indeed need to be reformed.

Artemis

:thumbup: That was a GRRREAT reply... thanks

Artemis

Welcome aboard, hope you stick with us

Retired669

:thumbup:

Winter Solstice Loc: Salt Lake City

NO, Not Bush. It was Slick Willy Carter who has BinLaden in his grasps and decided to NOT Hold and prosecute him. Bush never got the chance.

Retired669

What was OBL wanted for in this country before 9/11?

vernon

killing over 300 people in embassey bombings in africa.

Floyd Brown Loc: Milwaukee WI

Are you to find those that agree with you or perhaps partake of an exchange of ideas?

vernon

what

Snoopy

Saman

If Obumma is so well educated how come no one can see his records?

How come NO ONE from his classes remember seeing him?

Snoopy

PoppaGringo Loc: Muslim City, Mexifornia, B.R.

How can breathing (breathe) be bad for you?

Armageddun Loc: The show me state

It would seem that to try to prove a falsehood requires much more verbage than the truth.

I received this in my email this morning. I think it is very interesting. I don't mean to go against my above statement, but this says much in one article.

Want to know why citizens who work for a living dislike those who vote for a living? This guy hits the nail on the head!

Subject: TWO AMERICAS

In early January 2014, Bob Lonsberry, a Rochester talk radio personality on WHAM 1180 AM, said this in response to Obama's "income inequality speech":


Two Americas

The Democrats are right, there are two Americas.

The America that works and the America that doesn't;
the America that contributes and the America that doesn't.

It's not the haves and the have nots, it's the dos and the don'ts. Some people do their duty as Americans, obey the law, support themselves, contribute to society, and others don't. That's the divide in America.

It's not about income inequality, it's about civic irresponsibility.

It's about a political party that preaches hatred, greed and victimization in order to win elective office.
It's about a political party that loves power more than it loves its country. That's not invective, that's truth, and it's about time someone said it.

The politics of envy was on proud display a couple weeks ago when President Obama pledged the rest of his term to fighting "income inequality." He noted that some people make more than other people, that some people have higher incomes than others, and he says that's not just.

That is the rationale of thievery. The other guy has it, you want it, and Obama will take it for you. Vote Democrat. That is the philosophy that produced Detroit. It is the electoral philosophy that is destroying America.

It conceals a fundamental deviation from American values and common sense because it ends up not benefiting the people who support it, but a betrayal.
The Democrats have not empowered their followers; they have enslaved them in a culture of dependence and entitlement, of victimhood and anger instead of ability and hope.

The president's premise - that you reduce income inequality by debasing the successful - seeks to deny the successful the consequences of their choices and spare the unsuccessful the consequences of their choices.

Because, by and large, income variations in society are a result of different choices leading to different consequences. Those who choose wisely and responsibility have a far greater likelihood of success, while those who choose foolishly and irresponsibly have a far greater likelihood of failure. Success and failure usually manifest themselves in personal and family income.

You choose to drop out of high school or to skip college - and you are apt to have a different outcome than someone who gets a diploma and pushes on with purposeful education.

You have your children out of wedlock and life is apt to take one course; you have them within a marriage and life is apt to take another course.

Most often in life our destination is determined by the course we take.

My doctor, for example, makes far more than I do. There is significant income inequality between us. Our lives have had an inequality of outcome, but, our lives also have had an inequality of effort. While my doctor went to college and then devoted his young adulthood to medical school and residency, I got a job in a restaurant.

He made a choice, I made a choice, and our choices led us to different outcomes. His outcome pays a lot better than mine.

Does that mean he cheated and Barack Obama needs to take away his wealth? No, it means we are both free men in a free society where free choices lead to different outcomes.

It is not inequality Barack Obama intends to take away, it is freedom. The freedom to succeed and the freedom to fail. There is no true option for success if there is no true option for failure.

The pursuit of happiness means a whole lot less when you face the punitive hand of government if your pursuit brings you more happiness than the other guy.

Even if the other guy sat on his arse and did nothing. Even if the other guy made a lifetime's worth of asinine and shortsighted decisions.

Barack Obama and the Democrats preach equality of outcome as a right, while completely ignoring inequality of effort.

The simple Law of the Harvest - as ye sow, so shall ye reap - is sometimes applied as, "The harder you work, the more you get." Obama would turn that upside down. Those who achieve are to be punished as enemies of society and those who fail are to be rewarded as wards of society.

Entitlement will replace effort as the key to upward mobility in American society if Barack Obama gets his way. He seeks a lowest common denominator society in which the government besieges the successful and productive to foster equality through mediocrity.

He and his party speak of two Americas, and their grip on power is based on using the votes of one to sap the productivity of the other. America is not divided by the differences in our outcomes; it is divided by the differences in our efforts. It is a false philosophy to say one man's success comes about unavoidably as the result of another man's victimization.

What Obama offered was not a solution, but separatism. He fomented division and strife, pitted one set of Americans against another for his own political benefit. That's what socialists offer. Marxist class warfare wrapped up with a bow.

Two Americas, coming closer each day to proving the truth to Lincoln's maxim that a house divided against itself cannot stand.

Hitler did the same thing in the thirties. Give them someone or some person to hate ( He used the Jews, he told the German people that the reason they were poor was because the Jews had all the money, and they got it illigally). What Hitler did not have was (political Corrnestness) the liberals had this in place when he Became President.

PoppaGringo Loc: Muslim City, Mexifornia, B.R.

Armagedden:

Thank you for sharing this. It is the most succinct and true account I have read regarding our current Administration and it's acolytes, the Progressive Liberal Democrats. I have printed it for future use and remembrance. When re-posting or sharing, I shall give due credit to it's author.

Armageddun Loc: The show me state

:thumbup: