At a food pantry in a Chicago suburb, a 38-year-old mother of two breaks into tears.
She and her husband have been out of work for nearly two years. Their house and car are gone. So is their foothold in the middle class and, at times, their self-esteem.
“It’s like there is no way out,” says Kris Fallon.
Beware of opinion polls,
[i]Pew Research Center said its recent polling shows that a majority of Americans – for the first time in 15 years of being surveyed on the question – oppose more government spending to help the poor[/i]
Do they really? Or do they just oppose more Government spending period? Are they really saying “we can spend more on the poor by spending less on “green jobs”, less on the EPA, Dept of Energy, Dept of Education, less on Federal Government bureacracy, less on Foreign Aid, less on the UN, etc, etc, etc,”
If Americans were REALLY saying they wanted to do LESS to help the poor, that would be news because that would be a real reversal of the inherently charitable nature of this country.
Nope, this is just the Associated Press running cover for the Obama administration. They found a poll to fit a pre-conceived position and use the well honed Democratic tactic of “personallizing” issues to tug at people’s heartstrings (and wallets) in an effort to legitimize more government spending.
I looked up the question; 51% agreed with: The government today can’t afford to do much more to help the needy
I think that the wording of the question (which has not changed) is probably more loaded now than it was in the past.
That said, those stories are all scary. We are all more precarious than we like to admit, and the downward slide can be very fast indeed.
[i]That said, those stories are all scary. We are all more precarious than we like to admit, and the downward slide can be very fast indeed[/i]
It is very scary how one man, a comitted socialist, can exact such economic damage on a country, and can inflict such misery on such a large number of people, all in the name of “hope and change”.
Of course, our little socialist president is still a piker compared to the real utopian ideologues of history: Stalin killed millions, Mao killed millions, Hitler killed millions, Castro, Mugabe, and on and on and on.
Our socialist isn’t there yet, we’re just at the misery stage now. God willing, this country and the people who believe in Her will rise up next year and throw this guy and all his minions to the curb where they belong.
Captain, I truly hope that you are not serious. This description of our President is loony. And anyone who honestly believes he is responsible for the mess we are in is ascribing to him further imaginary powers.
Albany+, I stand by what I wrote and I consider the description to be accurate.
Capt Deacon,
Your comments about Obama being a socialist are slanderous at worse and without evidence. They are… “fantastic,” and speculative. Obama has read Marx (as have all the editors of the Wall Street Journal), and he’s been on boards with leftists. And some leftists have really liked him.
But can you come up with one single example of our president calling himself a committed socialist? Is there a single socialist economist on his team of advisors?
And is there any self-proclaimed socialist who considers Obama a fellow traveller? I hang with real socialists, Deacon. To them, Obama is another corporate crony, trying to save capitalism from itself. They look with awe at how the tea party seeks to destroy the foundations of which a market economy is based. Half of them are loving the way the tea party is taking down a president who is seeking to keep the market going by refusing to find a way to pay off the debts the country owes.
You seem to hold the communists, of course, in awe. Because he’s NOT like them, you hold him in further contempt. The evidence indicates that Obama could adapt the policies of Eisenhower and Nixon, and you’d still find some reason to find him threatening.
Historically, we were once much more charitable to the point that when we really wanted to get things done, we understood that the government, being a republic, was an effective way to do it. Social Security, for example, was developed as an idea by JP Morgan (I know, Deacon – he was probably also a socialist). Business people often asked government to partner with them for the long term interests of the country. Over the last 30 years, however, we’ve bought into the idea that the government is somehow separate from the people – but it has become a self-fulfilling prophesy as the ones who really have access to Washington are the banks. The people who do their darndest to keep themselves unregulated.
But I admit I’d love to be convinced about how Obama’s caused all this damage when you barely mention the banks, two wars nobody wants to pay for, and a congress that would like to raise taxes upon the middle class. My taxes, personally, have been lower under Obama.
Since I don’t see businesses hiring people at a wage where they can support a family, and we can’t mandate them to do so, I have far more trust that the government would. I don’t have a say in your average business, except as a consumer (which doesn’t do me much good if I can’t buy anything). I do have a say in our great republic. I hope. And families that have good wages, health insurance – they buy things. And they buy things from businesses.
But as long as businesses seek to hire people for nothing, those people can’t buy very much.
Of course, as one wag recently quipped, “not voting for Obama because he’s not fixing everything is like saying, ‘he can’t cure cancer. I’m voting for cancer.'”
Gee John, I think thou doest protesteth too much……
I have a busy day so I’ll briefly refer to trillions in stimulus that have not worked, Obamacare that has corporate America sitting on its money, Green jobs scandels, Fast and Furious scandel, GM and Chrysler nationalization, ~$5T in deficit spending, EPA shutting down the energy industry (an industry with good paying jobs with great wages that don’t have to be mandated by anything other than supply vs demand). And how abou them Czars and tax-cheat Tim G!
And in any case, you are a true believer so I am wasting what little free time I have.
So, let’s see what the voters think in November 2012. Deal?
Captain,
The voters will vote. Whether they also wiil think is another matter.
The article isn’t about Obama and his reading on the “socialist” meter. It’s about real people who are trying to survive, the choices they are making and their determination.
I’ve noticed that there is always someone (or someones) in online discussions — particularly at our local newspaper site — who jumps in and steers the conversation away from the people on the ground and makes it all about Obama being a socialist. I don’t know why that is but it’s rather insulting on many levels. It detracts from the real problems that average people are facing, it pretends that a president who’s been in office for less than 3 years caused it all, and it attempts to use people’s real hardship to score cheap political points.
While I’m not thrilled about the prospect of four more years, I’m even less enthusiastic about the choice being between Obama and “the candidate who isn’t named Obama” instead of being between two eminently qualified leaders. We deserve better. Or maybe we’ve proven that we don’t and that’s why we’re in this mess, I dunno.
There but for the grace of God go I and my loved ones. Prayers and supplications to you, Oh Lord, for our country and the suffering, in particular.
Perfectly said.
[i]I’ve noticed that there is always someone…in online discussions,,,,,who jumps in and steers the conversation away from the people on the ground and makes it all about Obama being a socialist[/i]
Let’s take a typical story I see on a near daily basis: “we had a house, but I haven’t worked in over a year and now the house is gone. I fill out reams of applications but don’t hear anything. I don’t want hand outs, I want to work. But my rent is due, our food stamps have run out, and I need help. I have a applied at Walmart, Lowes, Home Depot, you name it no one is hiring. Why?”
We’ve had nearly three years and Trillions of “stimulative spending” and the economy is in far worse shape than the day Obama took office. Unemployment up, poverty up, food stamp usage up, people who have just plain quit looking for work up. So, to put the shoe on the other foot……
[i]I’ve noticed that there is always someone….in online discussions…who jumps in and steers the conversation away from the people on the ground and makes it all about how none of this, just none of this is Obama’s fault. I don’t know why that is but it’s rather insulting on many levels[/i]
Capt.,
If that were a valid point, you threw the first punch and lost the high ground. In any case, the case has not been made either that Obama is a socialist or responsible for the unemployment rate.
I didn’t make the statement that “none of this, just none of this is Obama’s fault.” I only alluded to it not ALL being his fault. Huge difference.
And that isn’t the point of the article or my comments, anyway. How can we as a people even contemplate ideas and solutions if the pertinent discussion is quickly derailed by inflammatory labels and rhetoric? No one is served by this, except the “other than Obama” candidates, perhaps.