Jump to content

Michelle O's Speech - Showcased They're In Touch With The Poor- Down With The Struggle


Guest Deisel
 Share

Recommended Posts

After reviewing Mrs's speech last nite I captured here theme, but don't believe it. Neither does she. Case in hand.

1. Baracks favorite possession was a dumpster dive coffee table -

2. His shoes didn't even fit, were a size to small -

3. He drove a car with holes in it -

All that while they were dating - Well, they started dating and met while working for a Law firm. Do lawyers drive beat up, holes in the doors, cars? They were Attorney's.

Do u really believe Obama's favorite piece was a coffee table he took from a dumpster? If so, why was it not in his book, when everything else was included like his Drug usage?

If a man cannot buy the right sized shoes, is he to be trusted with Nuclear weapons?

Michelles image was to paint them, him as poor, with Nothing as many Americans are now left with after his past 3.8 years. If Obama was poor, HOW'd he go to a private Prep Highschool? How'd he get into the Ivy League colleges and Pay for them? HARVARD? POOR?

Are we to think HE was down with the struggle going to Prep schools, doing Drugs, then Harvard? In his own memoirs he said his family traveled extensively, for months at a time even. Does this sound like some poor kid from the Mississippii Delta?

Michelle didn't grow up poor Either. Her dad, a fixture on the local Union and political lines made $58k in the 70's. Thats the equivalent to $250k in todays dollars. Is that Poor, struggling?

During the Obama's courtship, they lived Rent free with a family member, all the while owning a beach house. POOR?

Now, Obama is said to really care abt the little people, the down trodden, and he understands, wants to help, sympathizes was the THEME. But, Obama, the Millionaire allows his brother to live in a hut in Africa. Michelle buys $6000 pant suits, goes on 16 vacations in 3.5 years, but can't help Obama's brother move out of a HUT? Playing golf 104 times, 16 vacations in the 1st term does not equal UNDERSTANDING the little guy. Spending $12k per flight hour in a military Jet to cross the world in a different airplane then your Husband DOES not compute as caring.

But, Michelle told us ALL how Obama cares, deeply. Is this even somewhat believeable? Its as believeable as his concern for the weather and risking his worshippers, I mean followers, in an open air stadium seating 70k. That in itself is a lie. They tried Giving away tickets and couldn't even bus in his own folks, as they needed ID to get in. So much for hope and change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Says the guy who sits around his condo on vacation and complains about the economy.

Just. s.t.f.u already

The way I see it, if you get any kind of check from the goverment then you're likely to vote for Barack again no matter what common sense or research tells you, but then again there are a lot of people that believe Jesus is on his way.

Edited by Nono
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Says the guy who sits around his condo on vacation and complains about the economy.

Just. s.t.f.u already

Its actually a townhouse and we will spend 10 days at a time there. The luxury being thinker, my job entails alot of computer time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Barack Obama: The poverty president

A few weeks ago, the Federal Reserve pointed out that recent economic losses have been so severe that the median U.S. family has only about as much wealth as it had in the early 1990s. Thus two decades went down the financial drain in the space of a few years.

The Fed attributed a lot of that drop to the plunge in the housing market. By one estimate, U.S. households have lost a total of $7 trillion over the past six years because of the fall in home prices.

But homes worth vastly less than what people still owe on them are not the scariest thing about the current economy.

More than a dozen think tanks, economists and professors from across the political spectrum weighed in on a recent survey by The Associated Press on the country's economic prospects, and it would be a reckless understatement to call their predictions troubling.

They overwhelmingly believe that when census figures for 2011 come out this fall, poverty in the United States will have risen from 2010's 15.1 percent -- to as high as 15.7 percent. They estimate that in 2011, almost 50 million Americans were living below the official poverty line of around $22,000 for a family of four.

That would bring poverty in this country to its worst level since 1965 -- nearly half a century ago.

Tragic as they may be, though, these numbers should not come as a surprise.

It was about a year ago that the U.S. Department of Agriculture made a grim announcement: Food stamp usage had risen to almost 15 percent. That was an all-time high of nearly 46 million Americans, and it was up by a stunning 47 percent since just before Barack Obama took office. Yearly government spending on food stamps doubled to a record $75 billion in four years.

And don't forget unemployment -- not that anybody could.

Joblessness has been stuck above 8 percent for 42 straight months now, the longest span since the Great Depression. In fact, the rate rose to a five-month high of 8.3 percent in July, according to the jobs report released Friday. Tens of millions more Americans are not counted in that official rate of unemployment even though they have simply given up seeking jobs, need full-time work but can get only part time, or have retired earlier than they wanted because they can't get hired.

We were told by the Obama administration that unemployment wouldn't even go past 8 percent if Congress passed the 2009 stimulus. By mid-2012, the administration projected, unemployment was supposed to be around 5.6 percent.

So much for rosy predictions. Where are the jobs, Mr. President? Where is the bustling employment picture that was supposed to come into happy focus after Democrats passed the $862 billion stimulus?

It isn't there, because all that government-directed spending didn't prime the jobs pump the way it was claimed that it would.

Yet the president doesn't seem to appreciate fully the economic chaos to which his policies have contributed. He called the jobs report released a month earlier -- showing unemployment unchanged in June -- "a step in the right direction."

For whom? Workers at agencies that process unemployment benefits?

The "stimulus" spending wasn't entirely without its effects, mind you. It burdened the United States with higher debt, which today stands at roughly $16 trillion. That debt load virtually guarantees eventual, economy-busting tax increases and massive cuts in entitlements -- or a combination of the two. The stimulus also helped fund green energy flops such as solar panel maker Solyndra. So let it not be said that it served no purpose.

Poverty is rising in this country, Mr. President. It has happened on your watch and in large measure because of big-government, high-spending policies that you have promoted.

You can continue to blame the previous administration, and that tune will play well with many in your political base who, like you, see higher taxes and more government as the solution.

But you had better hope that the voting public as a whole doesn't look around at some point before November and ask, "Are we better off than we were four years ago?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fact Check: First Lady’s False Fairy Tale of Struggle

Posted on September 5, 2012 by Conservative Byte

Michelle-Side-300x225.jpg

First Lady Michelle Obama’s pitch to voters last night relied on the premise that she and her husband understand what it is to struggle to make ends meet. She spoke movingly about their early years–about how a young Barack Obama drove a car that was “rusted out” and found his furniture “in a dumpster,” how they both came from families that had to “scrape by.” Her fairy tale–however well-delivered–was one great, big, colorful lie.

Both Michelle Robinson and Barack Obama began their adult lives with a leg up on the rest of America. They attended elite schools: Michelle went to Whitney Young, the public magnet school for Chicago’s upper class, while Barack attended Punahou, the private prep school for the top stratum of Hawaiian society. They were accepted to Ivy League schools despite undistinguished credentials, and both attended Harvard Law School.

elieve it or not, when we were first married, our combined monthly student loan bills were actually higher than our mortgage,” Michelle said. That sounds like a raw deal–but in fact reflects their fortunate circumstances. They had both just graduated from a very expensive law school, and their combined income from cushy law firm jobs dwarfed the repayments. Barack also soon enjoyed a second salary from the University of Chicago.

They had expensive tastes, reflected in the $277,500 two-bedroom condo they bought in 1993–a high price even by today’s standards. Several years later, they moved into their $1.65 million mansion in Hyde Park–with the help of fraudster Tony Rezko. Barack often told a story of hardship on the campaign trail in 2008 about having his credit card declined–once. The fact that he thought this counted as real hardship speaks volumes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way I see it, if you get any kind of check from the goverment then you're likely to vote for Barack again no matter what common sense or research tells you, but then again there are a lot of people that believe Jesus is on his way.

Well do you see the way that something like the 5 poorest states are the ones who almost always vote republican?

Such as Mississippi, Arkansas,Tennessee,West Virginia,Louisiana

those 5 make up a huge percentage of he government assistance given in America and EVERY one of those 5 are traditionally republican states and all 5 voted republican in 2008.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/business/2011/09/u-s-census-richest-and-poorest-states/

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/showelection.php?year=2008

So much for that idea huh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well do you see the way that something like the 5 poorest states are the ones who almost always vote republican?

Such as Mississippi, Arkansas,Tennessee,West Virginia,Louisiana

those 5 make up a huge percentage of he government assistance given in America and EVERY one of those 5 are traditionally republican states and all 5 voted republican in 2008.

http://abcnews.go.co...poorest-states/

http://www.presidenc...n.php?year=2008

So much for that idea huh?

The poor don't always vote for Dems. Alot of the Poor want Opportunity, like the rest of us. Thats why they vote republican.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://factcheck.org/2012/08/santorums-distorted-dependency-claims/

Rick Santorum blames President Barack Obama for “a nightmare of dependency with almost half of America receiving some sort of government assistance.” But the same could have been said of George W. Bush. In fact, the Census Bureau reported that in the third quarter of 2008, under Bush, “nearly half of U.S. residents live in households receiving government benefits.”

Back then, Census reported that 44.4 percent of Americans received some sort of government benefits. That has risen to 49 percent under Obama as of the most recent figures available, and much of that modest increase is due to the aging Baby Boom generation reaching retirement age.

Indeed, Santorum is also being profoundly misleading when he refers to all “government assistance” as a “nightmare.” Those receiving benefits include tens of millions of senior citizens and disabled persons on Social Security and Medicare.

Santorum also distorts the facts when he says Obama “showed us once again he believes in government handouts and dependency by waiving the work requirement for welfare.” Nothing has been waived yet, for one thing. The Obama administration now allows states to request a federal waiver from certain work requirements — if the states develop and enforce a new set of welfare-to-work rules that prove more effective.

‘Nightmare of Dependency’?

The former Pennsylvania senator, who unsuccessfully challenged Mitt Romney for the Republican nomination,

at the convention on Aug. 28. His speech focused on work and the American Dream — mentioning the word “dream” a dozen times and “work” (or a variant of it) 14 times.

Santorum accused Obama of turning the dream into a “nightmare of dependency.”

Santorum, Aug. 28
: Under President Obama, the dream of freedom and opportunity has become a nightmare of dependency with almost half of America receiving some sort of government assistance.

But that shockingly high number — “almost half of America” — isn’t particularly new, and it hardly amounts to a “nightmare” for the 55 million persons who got Social Security retirement or disability payments last year.

The Census Bureau conducts quarterly surveys of income and program participation, and estimates the number of Americans who are enrolled in at least one government program. The four programs with the highest number of enrollees — those with at least 40 million Americans enrolled — are Medicaid, Social Security, food stamps and Medicare.

In the third quarter of 2008, when Bush was president, the Census Bureau estimated that 44.4 percent of Americans were enrolled in at least one government program. (The Census Bureau could not provide us with the fourth quarter of 2008.) To be sure, that number has gone up under Obama. In the second quarter of 2011, it was 49 percent (see table 2). (The second quarter statistics were released this month and are the most recent available.)

The two programs with the largest enrollments under both presidents were, in order, Medicaid and Social Security.

Under Bush, 23.8 percent of Americans were on Medicaid, and under Obama, the figure is 26.4 percent. But enrollment in Medicaid, which provides health care for low-income Americans, is driven in large part by economic factors.

Social Security, on the other hand, is driven by an aging population, and the percentage of Americans on that, too, has gone up under Obama. It was 14.9 percent under Bush, and 16.2 percent under Obama.

The point is that the increase in Americans receiving some sort of government benefit is driven by two factors: an aging population and a weak economy. Of course, Republicans blame the weak economy on Obama, and whether Obama is to blame is a matter of opinion that we’ll leave to readers to decide. But it’s wrong to blame Obama for being responsible for “almost half of America receiving some sort of government assistance,” when the same thing can be said of Bush.

Distorting Welfare, Too

Santorum also joined the Romney campaign’s false attack on Obama for changes the president made to welfare — formally know as the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF, program.

Santorum, Aug. 28
: Requiring work as a condition for receiving welfare succeeded. … And this summer he showed us once again he believes in government handouts and dependency by waiving the work requirement for welfare.

The fact is, though, that Obama is still requiring work as a condition for receiving welfare.

As we have explained before, the administration in July announced it would allow states under certain circumstances to obtain a waiver from the federal work requirements. But only if the state sets up a welfare-to-work “demonstration project” (not to exceed five years) that provides a “more efficient or effective means to promote employment.”

States must set up “interim performance targets” and, if states fail to meet those, they will be “required to develop improvement plans.” If the improvement plans fail, then those states will lose their waivers and return to the work rules as set by statute.

States have a financial incentive to get people off welfare and into jobs, and some states — including Republican administrations in Utah and Nevada — have urged the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to provide waivers as a way to give the states greater flexibility to improve their welfare-to-work programs.

  • Utah suggested that HHS relax the costly and time-consuming process of verifying and documenting that welfare recipients are meeting the work requirements. “In times of reduced funding, waivers may be the best method to allow states to find effective and efficient approaches to assist the unemployed to find and keep work,” a Utah welfare official wrote.
  • Nevada recommended four “possible waiver opportunities” — including allowing states to exempt the “hardest-to-employ” welfare recipients from the work requirements “for a period of time (i.e., six months) to allow time for their barriers to be addressed and their household circumstances stabilized.”

States could request waivers from a variety of federal work requirements, not just the requirement that states place at least 50 percent of their welfare recipients in so-called work activities. They include “definitions of work activities and engagement, specified limitations, verification procedures, and the calculation of participation rates.”

As a senator, Santorum voted for the 1996 law that created TANF and the work requirements, and he claims that the program has “succeeded.” That’s a matter of opinion. The fact, however, is that less than 30 percent of those receiving cash assistance are engaged in work activities — far short of the 50 percent required by the law. And some states, including Republican states, believe they can do better. If not, the worst that would happen is those states would have to return to a set of rules that Santorum and others had a hand in drafting.

Romney and his Republican allies keep making these attacks on Obama’s new welfare policy, even though we and our fact-checking colleagues have found the welfare claim to be bogus — or “Pants On Fire,” to quote our friends at Politifact. Why? Apparently the attacks are working. A Romney media strategist says it is the campaign’s “most effective ad.”

– Eugene Kiely

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually agree with Rush Limbaugh (and his devoted parrot Snake) that the story is most likely exaggerated and trying to convince average people "we're just like you". The thing is, Ann Romney did the exact same thing in her speech at the RNC, and you lauded that as the best speech you've ever heard.

We're talking about 2 Harvard-educated multi-millionaire lawyers. They're BOTH full of ****. So give us a break, cheerleader.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...