What jumped out at me is your uncivil tone. That's not terribly uncommon wherever there's a political discussion on the Internet, but calling people who voted for the other guy a "bum class" is a ridiculous generalization, and isn't getting us anywhere. If you're upset because your favorite candidate lost, that's fine, I would be too, but acting like a petulant little shit just makes you and all other conservatives look bad.
Anyway, your rant seems to revolve around two premises: your comparison of Obama to Hugo Chavez, and your claim that "the poor has multiplied so drastically under Odumass" (again, with the incivility. What are you, twelve?). The first, of course, is totally absurd. Chavez makes Obama look like Ronald Reagan, and if you tried telling him that he and Obama shared the same political views, he's probably laugh in your face. Chavez has criticized Obama for not being left-wing enough even before Obama was elected in 2008. [link]
As for your second claim, I can't begin to guess what basis you might have for making it. But just for the sake of simplicity, I'm going to assume it's the increase in TANF recipients between 2009 and 2012. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the number of TANF recipients in January 2009, when Obama was inagurated, was 3,978,297. As of December 2011, the number was 4,262,052. That is a net increase of around seven percent, NOT a multiplication.
In any case, it's not like the president has godlike powers over the economy. He can't directly control the unemployment rate, consumer spending, or investment. If you're confused, you might want to read the Constitution and find out what exactly the president is able to do with regards to fiscal policy.
Okay, glossing over your lack of a source to back up that claim, it sounds like that's a result of economic conditions of the time. If more people are out of work, as they were during the recession, then it shouldn't come as a surprise that more people will be enrolling in government-funded assistance programs. And personally, I'd rather live in a country where people have a social safety net available, rather than one where they're forced to suffer as a result of economic circumstances that are beyond their control.
there will always be a recession when you got a socialist system in place. Unemployment in Spain for example is near 30 percent...Unemployment in France never drops below ten or eleven percent and of course Greece and Portugal and Italy are on the brink of complete financial collapse...they only survive due to the money Germany and the USA doles out to them to keep their failed socialist systems going.
And since we have a socialist president our national debt has increased about sixty percent in only four years and unemployment is shockingly high
Socialism is government or public ownership of the means of production. At what point has Obama advocated such policies? As far as I know, virtually all of the means of production in this country are owned by private citizens.
Our unemployment rate is currently 7.9%, that is higher than what would be ideal, but it is not shockingly high, and is in fact much lower than the rate at the beginning of Obama's first term. Meanwhile, our GDP increased from $14.4 trillion to $15 trillion between FY 2010 and 2011. When the GDP is GROWING, that means we're not in a recession.
As for the national debt, I agree that it's a serious problem. But Congress is responsible for levying taxes and setting the federal budget, not the president. If you want someone to blame, blame them for not reaching a bipartisan consensus on how to effectively reduce the deficit.
Stop shipping jobs overseas. For anyone who does all for the "cheap" that it gives them, tax the goods they bring back in on a rate that would equate the pay/benefits for every employee that they have overseas, that should be an American working instead. Business' pay for not making local/national, which means it's just as well to STAY local, meaning jobs for people who are "bums" right now.
Seems fair to me, but then I'm a "Commie/Socialist" Canadian.
Well, after reading a lot of your previous postings I know saying anything to you is pointless.
That being said, first, are you saying that jobs WOULDN'T be appreciated in the US? With things the way they are currently?? Are you sure you live in the US and not somewhere else because that seems totally asinine to presume.
Second, the US is far from socialist (got a ways to go yet ).
Just because I say that doesn't mean I don't believe in hope and change. Just means I admit the *gasp* Reality of things at this current time, something a lot of Republicans are still having an issue with.
Things are changing, getting better, but slowly. Neither hope or change should be instant, unless you like total chaos and anarchy.
things are getting better? Obama has added six trillion to the national debt, our credit rating has been downgraded, foodstamp enrollment and poverty is at record highs, unemployment and gas prices at record highs, we are bombing everything that moves in the middle east, taxpayers are paying the salaries of failed union employees...maybe its better for you but Im not so sure???
It's only idiotic if you look at it in the short term. You make less money, but you keep money in YOUR economy, sustaining YOUR country's workers. You, the rich person, make less money, but in the long term it's good for business. This way, the people that work for you can buy the things you pay them to make.
Rich Americans fire American workers, and send jobs overseas where poor people over there, desperate for work, are willing to slave away for very little money to provide the goods and services that rich Americans want. A lot of Americans no longer have jobs, and need them, but the rich aren't willing to provide them. If they ARE willing to provide them, it's usually only when the American workers are willing to live practically like slaves, with minimal pay. Because there were no regulations in place to stop rich Americans being so goddamn bloody selfish millions upon millions of other Americans became incredibly poor, and would earn less than they needed to survive.
If it wasn't for welfare and food stamps MILLIONS, all those people without jobs,they would have starved to death. Does this sound like a good thing to you? For me, those articles a while ago on starving kids in the world's richest country made me sick to my stomach. If foodstamps hadn't been around, they'd all be dead.
You're not making any sense. Those people, who aren't buying because they're broke? They're broke because either A)Rich employers don't pay them enough, or B)Rich employers aren't even hiring American workers, and giving those jobs to people overseas, because those people are even POORER, and are willing to work for even less money. Americans in lower castes already earn far too little, and you can look it up pretty much anywhere, that living expenses have gone up, while wages have stayed the same. This means that many Americans have to work more hours or get multiple jobs just to stay afloat. It's barbaric, but that's capitalism when there's no safety nets.
Rich people have all the power, and poor people can demand jobs, but no one has to give it to them. Jobs will not just magically appear either because people want them. People in power have to SPEND their money to create jobs for poorer people, and this is where Obama and government is in many ways helpless, because rich Americans and rich corporations DON'T have to create jobs, can fire who they want, and do what they want. All in the pursuit in profit, and not because of what is right, and certainly not because they might care about their fellow Americans.
For example, look at all the American CEOs that continue to get bonuses in the MILLIONs, while at the same time firing thousands of workers from their companies. It's greed and selfishness at its worst, and a big 'To hell with you' to people who aren't rich or have power themselves. Even if those people are decent or moral, a single rich person lacking in decency or morality can destroy their lives.
And you know, maybe that's fine. Maybe rich people should be able to treat poorer people like slaves ,or kick them, or beat them while they're down. At least when there's welfare and social systems in place these people will at least have a safety net so that they can survive while getting back on their feet or looking for new jobs.
hey dude, nobody on welfare ever signed a paycheck
like I say, when you are your party hate business so badly, why on earth would anyone try to do business here...we have an anti business president and apparently an anti business electorate...why would and sane person come here to create jobs and generate money