An Administration That Will Live In Infamy

[cwo_ghwebb]

There was a time when people assumed that if America’s future was under attack, it must come from a foreign source–like, say, Japan at Pearl Harbor. Those days are long gone. Now, our decline is no one’s fault but our own. We elect leaders who are ignorant of America’s history and contemptuous of its values. The currency in which this ignorance and contempt is expressed is government spending. I am not sure I can fully explain the logic, but those who are filled with hatred for the first 200 years of American history want–for some reason–America’s government to accumulate ever more power and to spend unprecedented amounts of money. Does that make sense? Seemingly not, but it is the world in which we live: the entity that is most bent on destroying the private economy of the United States of America, until recently the envy of the world, is our own government.

An Administration That Will Live In Infamy | Power Line

Many are believing the transformation of America is quite intentional. The transformation first involves the destruction of America as it's been since its inception.

When do 'entitlements' turn into 'reparations'?

 

[mamatutu]

An Administration That Will Live In Infamy | Power Line

Many are believing the transformation of America is quite intentional. The transformation first involves the destruction of America as it's been since its inception.

When do 'entitlements' turn into 'reparations'?

I thought reparations turned into entitlements. And, yes, the transformation of America is quite intentional. This is why I am awake at 345am, and don't sleep well anymore. This all makes me very sad, but, I am also prepared to defend my country against usurpers until the end. Just sayin...

 

[philibusters]

I am pretty sure that link didn't contain one actual fact. It just opined that Obama was intentionally destroying our country.

A couple actual facts:

Need based entitlements make up about 23% of federal spending (about 850 billion of the 3.7 trillion of spending). Obama's administration has not lowered the threshold to qualify for any of the need based entitlement. Obama did extend unemployment benefits and expanded Medicaid through Obamacare (Medicaid being the largest need based entitlement program), but other than that he hasn't expanded any of the programs.

Further, people are posting things like that right at the time that there are going to be cuts to these programs.

 

[FreedomFan]

I love these links that suggest Obama is "fundamentally transforming" our country. The guy is demonstrably incompetent in everything he does. And on this he is going to hit it out of the park?

OMG! The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

 

[PsyOps]

I love these links that suggest Obama is "fundamentally transforming" our country. The guy is demonstrably incompetent in everything he does. And on this he is going to hit it out of the park?

OMG! The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

Can you explain what makes him incompetent? I mean beside the fact that he just won a second term on this incompetency?

 

[cwo_ghwebb]

I am pretty sure that link didn't contain one actual fact. It just opined that Obama was intentionally destroying our country.

A couple actual facts:

Need based entitlements make up about 23% of federal spending (about 850 billion of the 3.7 trillion of spending). Obama's administration has not lowered the threshold to qualify for any of the need based entitlement. Obama did extend unemployment benefits and expanded Medicaid through Obamacare (Medicaid being the largest need based entitlement program), but other than that he hasn't expanded any of the programs.

Further, people are posting things like that right at the time that there are going to be cuts to these programs.

Your facts are so ridiculous as to be absurd. Give us a link.

Here is a link that debates BOTH sides of the issue. It's not that long.

http://www.aei.org/files/2012/11/19/-nation-of-takers-debate-transcript_123723251458.pdf

Did you forget about the welfare work requirement changes?

Some good charts that rebut your so-called facts.

Are Entitlements Corrupting Us? Yes - WSJ.com

I'll believe in entitlement reforms when I see them, especially since Obama is fighting reform tooth and nail.

 

[GURPS]

Food stamp use reaches another high in September: 47.7 million participants


Obama Transforming the Country

Ignoring inconvenient Immigration Law , DOMA, Obama-care, Fast and Furious, the recent change in entitlement restrictions - basically ignoring Clinton ERA Welfare Reform Rules

 

[dontknowwhy]

I am pretty sure that link didn't contain one actual fact. It just opined that Obama was intentionally destroying our country.

A couple actual facts:

Need based entitlements make up about 23% of federal spending (about 850 billion of the 3.7 trillion of spending). Obama's administration has not lowered the threshold to qualify for any of the need based entitlement. Obama did extend unemployment benefits and expanded Medicaid through Obamacare (Medicaid being the largest need based entitlement program), but other than that he hasn't expanded any of the programs.

Further, people are posting things like that right at the time that there are going to be cuts to these programs.

I won't disagree with you.
I won't argue with you on this or anything else...

These days I just pity you little retarded idiots....

 

[GURPS]

These days I just pity you little retarded idiots....

yeah that furthered the conversation ..........

 

[Larry Gude]

Yet another piece that has ZERO interest in how we got here.

Now, our decline is no one’s fault but our own. We elect leaders who are ignorant of America’s history and contemptuous of its values. The currency in which this ignorance and contempt is expressed is government spending. I am not sure I can fully explain the logic, but those who are filled with hatred for the first 200 years of American history want–for some reason–America’s government to accumulate ever more power and to spend unprecedented amounts of money. Does that make sense? Seemingly not, but it is the world in which we live: the entity that is most bent on destroying the private economy of the United States of America, until recently the envy of the world, is our own government.

This is a simple fact; absent the massive growth in government power and spending under George W Bush, from Med Part D, to the DHS to the TSA to the Patriot Act, bailing out the UAW and the biggest disaster of them all, TARP, in short, had he governed as moderate Republican, let alone a conservative, instead of the progressive he is, Barack Obama most likely does not beat Hillary in '08 and, even had he won, he has NONE of the tools and the arguments used for ALL of that previous growth in government.

Obama is a progressive. Make no mistake. He is acting intentionally and one can judge for themselves what he intends. However, unless and until we come to grips with how we got here, we can NOT turn the nation around. That begins with ending this fantasy line that all this started under Obama. It certainly didn't all start under Bush but, the growth of government spending and control was staggering on his watch.

Once we come to grips that that was no accident, that Bush acted just as intentionally and deliberately as Obama is, then we can start looking at Obama for what he is, as just a symptom, and stop pretending HE is THE problem and all we need do is defeat him.

Or, we can be honest and just admit we like our big government just as long as it's our team doing the spending.

 

[cwo_ghwebb]

Yet another piece that has ZERO interest in how we got here.



This is a simple fact; absent the massive growth in government power and spending under George W Bush, from Med Part D, to the DHS to the TSA to the Patriot Act, bailing out the UAW and the biggest disaster of them all, TARP, in short, had he governed as moderate Republican, let alone a conservative, instead of the progressive he is, Barack Obama most likely does not beat Hillary in '08 and, even had he won, he has NONE of the tools and the arguments used for ALL of that previous growth in government.

Obama is a progressive. Make no mistake. He is acting intentionally and one can judge for themselves what he intends. However, unless and until we come to grips with how we got here, we can NOT turn the nation around. That begins with ending this fantasy line that all this started under Obama. It certainly didn't all start under Bush but, the growth of government spending and control was staggering on his watch.

Once we come to grips that that was no accident, that Bush acted just as intentionally and deliberately as Obama is, then we can start looking at Obama for what he is, as just a symptom, and stop pretending HE is THE problem and all we need do is defeat him.

Or, we can be honest and just admit we like our big government just as long as it's our team doing the spending.

The first link in my response to Philibusters supports your assertion. Increased spending has been a staple of both parties. Nick holds some chair (not looking it up) at the AEI. Not exactly a liberal.

The nation is at a crossroads here. I believe our politicians don't have the fortitude to get entitlement reform under control.

When one takes a look at spending over the last 10 years, it's obvious who is spending the most.

 

[Larry Gude]

The nation is at a crossroads here. I believe our politicians don't have the fortitude to get entitlement reform under control.
.

But, that's just it; we are NOT at a crossroads. We have the government we choose. Our politicians don't have the 'fortitude' because they are simply representing us.

 

[philibusters]

Your facts are so ridiculous as to be absurd. Give us a link.

Here is a link that debates BOTH sides of the issue. It's not that long.

http://www.aei.org/files/2012/11/19/-nation-of-takers-debate-transcript_123723251458.pdf

Did you forget about the welfare work requirement changes?

Some good charts that rebut your so-called facts.

Are Entitlements Corrupting Us? Yes - WSJ.com

I'll believe in entitlement reforms when I see them, especially since Obama is fighting reform tooth and nail.

I based my facts off of data from the Hertiage foundation...Federal Spending by the Numbers - 2012

Basically I added up all the means tested (need based entitlements) then divided that by total spending to get 23%. For example the the two biggest entitlements Social Security and Medicare are not means tested (you don't have to prove you are poor to get them). The biggest entitlement that went into my calculation was Medicaid which is means tested. All entitlements combined which include things like Social Security (for people who worked at least 10 years), Medicare (health care for old people), both federal gov't employee pensions and military pensions, veterans benefits and so on make up between 60 and 65% of total spending. However, for the most part, posts like the original posts are not referring to those, they are referring to welfare to the poor, which is why I used means tested entitlement programs. Basically 23% of federal spending goes to programs designed for the poor (though for Medicaid some of that spending goes to the disabled even if they are not from poor families).

Obama did not change the work requirements for welfare. For one, I don't believe anything ever passed and became law, so you are talking about what Obama proposed and not what he did to the best of my knowledge. Second, he is not dropping the requirement, rather what he proposed would allow states to pass their own work requirements if they wanted to have different requirements than the federal gov't.

 

[Larry Gude]

Basically I added up all the means tested (need based entitlements) then divided that by total spending to get 23%. For example the the two biggest entitlements Social Security and Medicare are not means tested (you don't have to prove you are poor to get them). The biggest entitlement that went into my calculation was Medicaid which is means tested. All entitlements combined which include things like Social Security (for people who worked at least 10 years), Medicare (health care for old people), both federal gov't employee pensions and military pensions, veterans benefits and so on make up between 60 and 65% of total spending. However, for the most part, posts like the original posts are not referring to those, they are referring to welfare to the poor, which is why I used means tested entitlement programs. Basically 23% of federal spending goes to programs designed for the poor (though for Medicaid some of that spending goes to the disabled even if they are not from poor families).

Obama did not change the work requirements for welfare. For one, I don't believe anything ever passed and became law, so you are talking about what Obama proposed and not what he did to the best of my knowledge. Second, he is not dropping the requirement, rather what he proposed would allow states to pass their own work requirements if they wanted to have different requirements than the federal gov't.

Which is another way of saying Obama is a failure because he's fixed nothing.

 

[philibusters]

The first link in my response to Philibusters supports your assertion. Increased spending has been a staple of both parties. Nick holds some chair (not looking it up) at the AEI. Not exactly a liberal.

The nation is at a crossroads here. I believe our politicians don't have the fortitude to get entitlement reform under control.

When one takes a look at spending over the last 10 years, it's obvious who is spending the most.

My point was not that both parties are not responsible for increased spending, nor that entitlements are not a problem. My post was in response to the original link which states that Obama is intentionally destroying this country through entitlements. Perhaps, I'll make my point a seperate way here: Entitlements were an issue before Obama. That article is bs in that it would lead the uninformed reader to conclude that Obama was acting in an unprecedented manner.

 

[Larry Gude]

My point was not that both parties are not responsible for increased spending, nor that entitlements are not a problem. My post was in response to the original link which states that Obama is intentionally destroying this country through entitlements. Perhaps, I'll make my point a seperate way here: Entitlements were an issue before Obama. That article is bs in that it would lead the uninformed reader to conclude that Obama was acting in an unprecedented manner.

Yup.

 

[cwo_ghwebb]

But, that's just it; we are NOT at a crossroads. We have the government we choose. Our politicians don't have the 'fortitude' because they are simply representing us.

Our politicians are representing the 51% that voted for the President.

And the 47% are just gonna suck it up.