I've been wondering myself when we will wake up and throw Obama out. Did you know the small number of green jobs created cost $250,000 each? Hope and change, how's it working for you?
whatever else might be said, it is certain the President didn't drive poverty up. . .a system in which the poor grow pooer as the rich grow richer says it all.
What happens to wages in a socialist system? What occurs when socialists attempt to control inflation through price controls? What happens to businesses when labor prices are locked in and there are limits to prices? What do shoppers buy when there are no groceries on the shelves?
Anon ___:Did you actually look at any of these pictures, or read any of the stories? People are mired in deep, distressing poverty, and you spout ideological rhetoric. At least pretend to be a little concerned first.
Its interesting that the only sure way to stimulate the economy (for Obama, Krugman, Reich, Hoffa, etc.) is an all in or nothing stimulus package. All we have, no reserve. The liberals claim the only reason we are still mired in economic recession or depression is b/c the stimulus was not large enough. The current stimulus-of-the-month plan is yet one more pass-it-without-reading-it wealth transfer plan. One would think that the trillion dollars we spent so far might have produce one or two non government jobs. The opposite is occurring actually. The more we print and borrow, the more trouble we're in. The European Union - the socialist model that American liberals idolize - is dead. You can't trade debt and call it a bill paid. There is simply no hard evidence socialism actually works. Yet the libs can only ask for more tax dollars to show us Keynes will ultimately be proved correct. One would think there would be mounting evidence that Keynes was right. But there is none. It's "all or nothing - no other approach will show even a small amount of success."
The policies of the President is most certainly driving poverty up.
I am amazed at how the radical right continue to blame Obama for everything in this country. What exactly did Bush do for the poor? The wealthy and corporations profited but the poor got poorer, jobs and the economy went south. Of course, that is all Obama's fault too! I do agree Obama is not a strong leader yet I do believe taking over when he did would not have been any easier with a Republican at the helm. The only difference would have been 4 more years of Bush politics. Those who love to throw the word Socialist around should take the time to study what Socialism really is instead of listening to the rants of loons on the FOX network. Bush left us with a great loss of civil liberties and closer than ever to a police state yet people ignore it since it does not concern them personally? I would have hoped Obama would have changed some of that but he has not and I don't expect him too. His hand is in the same pockets as all of the other politicians.Take a look at the pictures. They say a lot about what is really wrong with this country. Those people are not poor because of Obama or Bush. Poverty has been a blight on our great country for a long time.
Why do some folks turn every issue into a chance to spew political vitriol? The original post was about poverty - real people who are not making it. Why are so many of these posts overheated rhetoric with not even a hint of compassion for the people shown? I really don't get it - how can that be your first response?
Where is the hope and change? Obomanomics made things WORSE.
vitriol: "something felt to resemble vitriol especially in caustic quality; especially : virulence of feeling or of speech"overheated: "characterized by marked inflation from an increase in demand and a decrease in supply"rhetoric: "the art of speaking or writing effectively"Miriam-Webster doesn't include a definition of "overheated rhetoric." I don't find the language overheated nor do I find vitriol. I am actually proud of us this time. Here is an interesting idea: maybe the person who mischaracterized our communication is overreacting, perhaps due to limited skill at comprehension.
By the way, the answer to Anon 6:23's questions is people become poor.
Saying Obama is responsible for all the ills of society and calling him a socialist qualifies as both vitriolic and overheated rhetoric in my book. The point is that, instead of expressing any concern about the plight of the people whose lives are depicted, some here turn everything into a political rant - first and only. If you said: "Wow, these are really sad stories,' and then engaged in a meaningful discussion about how to work on the problem, we probably wouldn't all agree, but it could be a useful discussion. Saying Obama and the D's want to bring the country down and calling them socialists does nothing to advance a conversation. It's just throwing incendiary grenades at the other side of the political spectrum with whom you disagree.
" But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
Post a Comment