The Results of Liberal Welfare Policies

Exactly. There is no line to be drawn. It's called fascism.

 

My mistake. Perhaps you don't know how percentages work.

And . . .

Then adjust the numbers for inflation.

Actually, it shows a willingness to deceive on your part. Cherry picking apples to oranges comparisons that support your case.

 

I imagine you have the perfect solution to this but no is listening to you?

 

The title is "Results of LIBERAL Welfare Policies." I never claimed that he increased welfare spending nor did I claim Obama as the sole liberal who made America dependent. Read the op.

 

LOL. So the base changes how percentages work? Lol.

That is why we use percentages and not nominal levels of spending. Stuff cost much more now than they did in 1980.

It just shows your lack of education. Saying that because the base in 1980 was smaller than now, that a higher percentage of spending is more acceptable is simply as unintelligent of a response as I've ever seen. You would be laughed out of any classroom in America with that kind of logic.

 

These are exactly the same policies from George Bush's Presidency, lol.

Here is from your OP

There is nothing different about welfare than the past 10 years. So how is Obama's world any different than pre-Obama's world?

 

Please show me where I said it was acceptable.

What I was getting at is that with a smaller base, a smaller increase will show a larger percentage increase.

Do you disagree with this?

 

I suppose anyone with "a functioning brain" could comprehend that the thread is actually about entitlement culture and its causes. I only made a comment about the deficit to correct the statement and show how much we spend to maintain dependency. However, nothing pleases me more than when someone engages in a misguided adhominim attack of brain capacity only to completly miss the actual topic of the thread he posted. Keep up the good work and feel free to jump in to my future debates without having known the subject matter. I like the akwardness.

 

Now were moving foward to the core of Obama entitlement mentality. Same policies of the Bush admin you say? Listen to these fine citizens! When you have a stimulous slush fund you can make your own welfare policies.

Bush can only follow the laws hes given to enforce as the executive by the way.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOZ-Etb0k0Q"]Obama Money - Where Did it Come From? - YouTube[/ame]

 

I'm sure they exist. Are you telling me that Obama, among other liberals, arent going to overwhelmingly rake in the welfare vote?

 

Of course I agree with that. The point is who cares. We deal with real values not nominal values.

In 1980 $1 billion could purchase the same amount as $2.73 billion now. That means the nominal value of spending will have to increase in order to afford the same things they were able to afford in 1980.

 

Obama was boosted into his highchair by the top banks, public record.

His job there is done. They're hedging bets on Romney because they already own the other side.

It's easy to see and if you deny that, you're being payed or are blind and hopeless.

 

Those videos you keep showing are just ignorant people that do not understand politics. Obama didn't actually pay for everything of theirs. They are making the same amount of money in relation to welfare policies than before. Just because they expect Obama to pay for everything doesn't mean Obama is paying for everything.

 

To top banking executives, "I'm the only one standing between you and the pitchforks."

That's right. Maybe they needed some pitchforks. I thought that was a progressive mantra, regulation, justice, and all that.

Bull(*)(*)(*)(*), your're fascist state-worshiping losers.

 

I think they should heavily regulate the banks and Wall Street. They are leveraging our money and our future while making billions of dollars for themselves. All those executives and employees that made hundreds of millions of dollars leveraging our money and destroying the economy should be in jail. But instead, even firms that were bailed out by the tax payers are still paying millions of dollars in bonuses to individuals responsible for bringing the house of cards down.

It's sickening.

 

Well (*)(*)(*)(*), there we find common ground. I'm angry at all of the insider passes and backroom handshakes. See, I see the government is inescapably bought-off by the top organizations, therefore I see no way they will or even try to escape that situation.

I guess my position would be, tear it down and start again.

 

It was from Obamas stimulous bill.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0eh3inWjeVg"]Breitbart tv » Thousands Line Up For Stimulus Money in Detroit - YouTube[/ame]

 

Almost half of Obama's stimulus bill was tax cuts/rebates. About the other half was direct support to the states for their budget problems. None of Obama's stimulus went to these families.

 

Then I guess you should give that news station a call and ask them why they reported otherwise.

 

I don't think our problem is that we're being too nice to people.

 

Sickening indeed! But if you really want to be sickened to the max, and at the same time build a valid case in your mind for the need to INTELLIGENTLY regulate (as opposed to "HEAVILY regulate" - there's a big difference) the banking industry, check out the Front Line documentary, "The Warning". There are some excellent resources at the site for learning just how stubbornly stupid our leaders were in the decade leading up to the 2008 meltdown.

.

 

Saying that the government can intelligently regulate is like saying that the USSR could have worked if they only did it right.

 

According to the free market guru, Alan Greenspan, there was no need to regulate toxic derivative trading. The bankers would have regulated themselves.

Then he apologized and said he was wrong.....oops.