Thursday, May 14, 2015

Democrat policies HURT the poor, minorities, middle class, our future

1. The poor
a.Do you care about the poor?
b. Do you deny that the "War on Poverty" started by LBJ has lasted since the middle 60's, cost $22 trillion and after 6 years of Obama, we have RECORD poverty in USA? Record food stamps?

a.Do you acknowledge Obama campaigned in 2008 against Bush's deficits and said it was unpatriotic? "“The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving ..."
b. Do you acknowledge Obama spending will DOUBLE all prior accumulated US debt by 44 presidents?

3. Blacks
a. To you care how Blacks and other minorities fare in USA?
b. Do you acknowledge Blacks have fared far more poorly under Obama ?
Do you care about racial tension?
Do you acknowledge racial tension is far worse under Obama?
When Obama entered office on January 20, 2009, U.S. unemployment stood at 7.8 percent. By April 2014, that Bureau of Labor Statistics figure had fallen to 6.3 percent — a modest improvement. Among blacks overall, joblessness dropped, though less significantly — from 12.7 to 11.6 percent. But for blacks aged 16 to 19, unemployment grew from 35.3 to 36.8 percent. • Obama’s somewhat more sanguine unemployment numbers, such as they are, seem less about job growth and more about people simply abandoning the workforce — whereupon they conveniently exit the unemployment rate. The more revealing labor-force-participation rate thus fell from 65.7 percent in January 2009 to 62.8 percent last month, a portrait of disengagement last witnessed in March 1978. For black adults, that number slipped from 63.2 to 60.9 percent. While 29.6 percent of blacks aged 16 to 19 were working when Obama took power, only 27.9 percent were employed last month. 
     Poverty has increased under Obama. Overall, 14.3 percent of Americans were below the poverty line in January 2009, versus 15.0 percent in 2012, according to the latest available data from the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey. Similarly, the share of black Americans living in poverty expanded from 25.8 to 27.2 percent. • Inflation-adjusted median household income fell across America, from $53,285 in 2009 to $51,017 in 2012, the most recent Census Bureau data indicate. Blacks slid, too, from $34,880 to $33,321 — and at a much lower income level. • America’s population of food-stamp recipients soared overall from 32,889,000 in 2009 to 46,022,000 in 2012, the latest Agriculture Department statistics show. For blacks, the analogous numbers are 7,393,000 when Obama arrived to 10,955,000 in 2012. • In spite of $275 billion in housing-market bailouts that Obama unveiled in his first month in office, home ownership actually has waned. In the first quarter of 2009, 67.3 percent of Americans owned homes. By 1Q 2014, that Census Bureau figure was 64.8 percent. Meanwhile, black home ownership during this interval sagged from 46.1 to 43.3 percent.

Read more at:

4.Middle Class
Do you care about how the middle class does?
Do you acknowledge middle class families have lost an average of $2500 annually per family under Obama

5. Employment
Do you acknowledge the employment rate does not count those who quit the labor force in disgust?
Do you acknowledge labor force participation rate is at a low of 60 years?
Liberalism is destroying more jobs than it is creating

6. Do you understand that only the rich have prospered under Obama and the Democrats?
 the very rich often support liberalism because liberals make them richer. Bill gates, Warren Buffet, Hollywood fatcats. 

7. Liberalism is destroying our cities
 Inner cities Detroit and Chicago junk bond status for credit, baltimore riots run by democrats, The inner cities are in terrible shape, all run by Democrats,
Obama is encouraging racial tension in cities

8. Obama is destroying the future of your children and grandchildren, saddling them with unpayable debt. he has 
 Doubled all US previous debt US DEBT
a.Do you acknowledge Obama campaigned in 2008 against Bush's deficits and said it was unpatriotic? "“The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving ..."
b. Do you acknowledge Obama spending will DOUBLE all prior accumulated US debt by 44 presidents?

9. Record poor recovery from recession under Obama Democratic policies ALWAYS are bad for the economy and Hillary is a radical leftist

10. Obama and democrats undermine israel and aid islamic terrorism
Do you care if Israel exists?
Do you acknowledge Obama is undermining Israel and our Middle east allies constantly in favor in favor of Iran?
"Charles krauthammer-iranian-ayatollahs-chants-death-to-america-but-obama-attacks-israel-"
Terrorism expert Steve Emerson: “we have an administration that's in bed with these radical Islamic groups
"Former CIA official:  Obama has switched sides"
see the plethora of evidence: Israel
Do you recall how Jerusalem was booed at the 2012 democratic convention?

11.Do you acknowledge Obama sent a secret envoy to iran mullahs in 2008 promising them they'd like his presidency?

12. Do you acknowledge Islamic terrorism has grown exponentially under Obama?
Do you acknowledge we have had, under Obama, huge Islamic terror infiltration in our government?

13. Do you acknowledge HILLARY is just as anti Israel! Hillary's top aid is Muslim brotherhood, Hillary took millions from terrorist nations while Secr State,  and documenting her long anti israel career except when she ran for NY Senate. etc. 
She Takes money from many evil nations, including Iran As President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry close in on a nuclear deal with Iran, it's worth remembering that the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation received money from "a front for the government of Iran" called the Alavi Foundation.

14.Do you acknowledge IRS to be used to persecute pro israel groups?

15. Do you acknowledge he's gutting our military as China, Russia and Islamic terrorism expand?


Obama’s Policies, Not Fox, Hurt the Poor

Yesterday, during a conversation about poverty at the Catholic-Evangelical Summit at Georgetown University, President Obamaemployed his favorite rhetorical device — a straw man opponent for his arguments — at the expense of his favorite target — Fox News. His point was that Americans were resistant to doing more for the poor because Fox had convinced them that the poor were unworthy of assistance thereby undermining support for government programs. But more than that, he saw this alleged sense of contempt as being linked to a belief in private initiative that he sees connected to the ills of the underprivileged. But there’s more to this issue than Obama’s trademark intolerance for criticism. At its heart, these statements tell us all we need to know about the president’s unwillingness to take responsibility for the state of the nation as well his refusal to think outside the conventional lines of liberal ideology.
The most obvious conclusion to be drawn from this is how after more than six years in office, the president is still more interested in blaming the messenger and creating a scapegoat rather than engaging with his critics. The difference between Fox’s coverage of his administration and that of many mainstream outlets is that it is not part of his cheering section. The notion that it demonizes the poor is unsubstantiated but the president’s invocation of the network isn’t meant to be part of an actual argument so much as it is a signal to his supporters that they are supposed to ignore contrary views or perspectives rather than listen to them. Though the president likes to pose as a public intellectual, he is remarkably resistant to advice even from his own side of the aisle and utterly intolerant of opposing views. From his perspective, Fox must be demonized and dismissed rather than engaged and argued with not because it’s reports are inaccurate but because anyone who watches it is open to the idea that Obama might be wrong.
But there is more to be gleaned from Obama’s remarks than a mere diversionary tactic. The problem with American poverty isn’t Fox’s coverage. The real issue is an administration that prefers to argue along these lines because of its stubborn and hypocritical devotion to the failed liberal patent nostrums of the past rather than trying creative solutions that might make things better.
The conversation about poverty has gained new urgency because of the recent riots in Baltimore which, coming soon after other protests relating to allegations of police brutality, has spawned a conversation about poverty and racism. But other than a sound byte at Fox’s expense which more or less won him the news cycle (and distracted some from the debacle on Capitol Hill where his own party spiked his effort to pass a trade bill), all the president seems to be willing to offer us is the same sort of big government liberalism that we’ve been getting from Democrats for the last 60 years with predictably dismal results.
The uncounted billions that have been spent on government “wars” on poverty have availed the nation but little. But rather than, as his predecessor Bill Clinton did for a while, own up to the fact that the era of big government was over, Obama is doubling down on the welfare state.
This is discouraging enough but what was truly disturbing was the president’s denigration of school choice options for the poor. Rather than supporting a measure that would give kids in failing inner city schools a lifeline to opportunity, the president castigated private schools as harming those who remain in the public system. More than that, he linked the idea of being educated outside of the public monopoly to “anti-government ideology.”
So when you come down to it, the problem isn’t just people watching Fox rather than liberal outlets marching in lockstep with his party but being taught in an environment not dominated by a belief in dependence on the government.
That a man who sends his own daughters to private school could denounce the efforts of those less well off than himself to get the same opportunity for their kids is an example of staggering, even Olympic-level hypocrisy. But even putting that aside the notion that the only way Americans can care about each other is if they are forced into public schools and other government entities is antithetical to the notions of individual freedom that this nation was founded upon.
More to the point, they are contrary to the basics of capitalism. The greatest engine of growth and destroyer of poverty is individual initiative and enterprise not compulsory involvement in communal institutions. More money won’t solve Baltimore’s problems or that of any other city. But better education, especially those schools that tap into the energy of individual parents and students and not government, do offer a solution.
The president likes to take credit for the economic recovery but he knows that it is plagued by endemic problems that have left many behind. But instead of addressing this, Obama and other liberals remain trapped in the ideology of the past, talking about inequality and serving failed liberal patent nostrums while ignoring or actively opposing ideas that offer a hopeful alternative. The problem isn’t a media that is insufficiently sympathetic to the poor or their self-styled champion in the White House. It’s Obama’s failed policies.
So don’t bother having sympathy for Fox News, whose enormous audience is more than enough compensation for presidential insults. If you want to be sorry for anyone, have some pity for the children of the poor that, unlike Sasha and Malia Obama, are being told to stay in failed public schools rather than getting a chance for something better.

No comments:

Post a Comment