I guess I just don't get it. I consider myself an independent conservative Democrat who'd vote for Ron Paul given the chance; but, I just don't get all this rhetoric about the ‘Food Stamp President' [Hail to the ‘Food Stamp President', Jan. 23, 2012, page B6].
It seems to me that anyone with more than a pea-brain would understand that there's no way that any one individual, albeit a President, can singularly affect something so complex as the U.S. economy - including an all-powerful big business establishment - and be labeled the ‘Food Stamp President'. Following that logic, it makes 100 percent equally logically good sense to call George W. Bush the ‘Death, Destruction and Deficit President.' As I recall, immediately following his election, and his administration taking control, we had: 9/11, the incursion into Afghanistan, an invasion and occupation of Iraq, the Hurricane Katrina debacle, TARP, etc.
To blame an individual president, or his administration, for all of the calamities that occur within their administration, shows a partisan narrow-mindedness I'm surprised anyone would lay claim to. You'd think that, somehow, eventually, cooler heads would prevail, but, then this is Arizona, home of Charles Keating, Ev Meacham, Fife Symington, AzScam, SB 1070, the Fiesta Bowl scandal etc.
John and Patti Latson
Mesa
Dale Whiting posted at 9:36 am on Fri, Jan 27, 2012.
John and Patti,
As best I can figure, the propensity to blame others, especially one other, is human nature. Sure it's not logical. But then we humans often are illogical.
Recall in our youths the cowboy movies? Good guys all wore white hats. Even the masked man wore a white hat. And there were plenty of characters who doubted his motives, this because he wore that mask. But we on the human side of the screen knew he was the good guy, because he wore that white hat. Only good guys wear white hats. Bad guys wear black hats. That makes the process to judging easy and convenient.
From our youth we've been taught to judge by the cover, or the outward appearance. And the society in which we were born influences our judgements. I was born in a Red State, so I'm a registered Republican. It took me years to figure out what being a conservative was supposed to mean. I wondered why those other registered Republicans whom I admired where dropping out of pupularity. Weren't they still Republicans, too? No, they got labled RINO's but not because they changed their values, but because the society and movement in which they grew up moved away. The conventional wisdom was that it moved "right."
So now I find myself awash in a movement that moved away from me. And I am labled Republican in name only [RINO] when I'm the one who did not move. I'm seen as wearing a black hat when I don't wear any hat other than the one I was wearing when I registered to vote for Richard Nixon at age 21.
I'm glad to make both of your acquaintenances and understand some of the reasons why Ron Paul might seem attractive to registered Democrats. Ron does not move from the positions he takes and his positions rest on easily understood grounds.
After having read Seantor McCain's book and both of President Obama's books, I recognized in the President values compatible with conservatism and in the Senator deep regrets for having strayed from the values of his parents. The President seems to be steering a straight course, but one which requires making consessions in order to move forward on that course. Like so many other of today's Republicans, the Senator seems to be stearing from one course to another without any true heading. And while I can understand the need to "tack" into the wind to move forward, seldom is there an need to reverse courses.
So rather than putting hats on either Senator McCain or President Obama, I just examine the couses they have steered over their lives and hook myself up to the ship which seem headed in the best direction. I expect you both do too!
Leon Ceniceros posted at 12:20 pm on Fri, Jan 27, 2012.
Blaming everybody "but" Barack Hussein Obama is just..."preaching to the choir" of all the Left-Wing Liberals, the Progressives, the Democrats, the Anti-American Anarchists, the Socialists and the Commie Wanna-be's in Arizona.
To quote your own words, " It seems to me that any one with more than a pea-brain would understand that there is no way that any one individual, albeit a President, can singularly afffect something so complex as the U.S. economy....".
You are soooooooooooooooo right...now go tell that to Barack Hussein Obama, the "pea-brain" who keeps on blaming his predecessor, President George Bush for every problem facing America.
Barack Hussein Obama knew what the state of the U.S. economy was when he took the oath of office. So why is he still taking the "coward's way out" and blaming Bush in every single speech.
America needs a man in the White House to act like a man and not a coward.
Dale Whiting posted at 5:51 pm on Fri, Jan 27, 2012.
You know Leon,
When I penned my comment, I was thinking about you! And I'd bet that when John and Patti wrote their piece, you were one of those they had in mind, too.
Leon Ceniceros posted at 7:27 pm on Fri, Jan 27, 2012.
LOL..No...these Chanderites had only one person in mind...BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA........the ....."BLAMER IN CHIEF".
By the way...Obama better scurry on home before "Chewbacca" gets in a "snit" because the "veggie casserole" had gotten cold for din-din......[wink]
Rational Human posted at 9:38 am on Sat, Jan 28, 2012.
Is President Obama Creating A Nation Of Dependents?
By JOHN MERLINE, INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY Posted 01/26/2012 08:05 AM ET
If the Republican primaries are any indication, one big debate in the upcoming election will be whether President Obama is pushing the country toward a European-style welfare culture.
Mitt Romney, for example, argues that "over the past three years, Barack Obama has been replacing our merit-based society with an entitlement society."
Newt Gingrich has taken to calling Obama "the best food-stamp president in American history."
Obama, in contrast, says the government must play an increasing role — what he likes to call "shared responsibility" — to ensure a society that is fairer.
So is Obama turning the country into a welfare society and away from one focused on opportunity?
While it's true that the country has been headed in this direction for many years — with the explosion in entitlements since the 1960s and the aging of the population — Obama has, in fact, greatly accelerated the trend. Examples:
Direct payments. The amount of money the federal government hands out in direct payments to individuals steadily increased over the past four decades, but shot up under Obama, climbing by almost $600 billion — a 32% increase — in his first three years. And Obama's last budget called for these payments to climb another $500 billion by 2016, at which point they would account for fully two-thirds of all federal spending.
People getting benefits. According to the Census Bureau 49% now live in homes where at least one person gets a federal benefit — Social Security, workers comp, unemployment, subsidized housing, and the like. That's up from 44% the year before Obama took office, and way up from 1983, when fewer than a third were government beneficiaries.
Food stamps. This year, more than 46 million (15% of all Americans) will get food stamps. That's 45% higher than when Obama took office, and twice as high as the average for the previous 40 years. This surge was driven in part by the recession, but also because Obama boosted the benefit amount as part of his stimulus plan.
Disability. The number of people on Social Security disability has steadily climbed since the 1970s, thanks mainly to easier eligibility rules. But their numbers jumped 10% in Obama's first two years in office, according to the Social Security Administration. That sharp rise was due largely to meager job prospects since the recession ended in 2009. When employment opportunities are scarce, experts note, many who could otherwise work sign up for disability benefits instead.
sockratties posted at 10:54 am on Sat, Jan 28, 2012.
John and Patti – It's true that the quality of our politicians has declined to the point that only sound-bites and label are heard. Politics is nothing more than business to professional politicians. Dirt is the stuff that influences the votes of the ill-informed.
Dale – you believed the myth of the cowboy movies and now you believe the myth of politics. You voted for Nixon? 'Nuff said.
Leon – Pathetic!
Radical Human – One of these days you'll develop an opinion of your own. Oily Romney will say whatever he thinks will get him a vote. Gingrich has at least been consistent. He plays to whatever audience is available, consistently. A newt is still a lizard with a forked tongue.
It would be nice if the GOP could field a candidate that might actually improve things but Ron Paul won't prevail and Huntsman has already dropped out. Romney and Gingrich are only in it for personal gain and both have shown they are petty, bickering little men. Do we want national Romney-Care and higher taxes a la Romney. Is there any reason to think Gingrich would do a better job than his lame efforts when he was Speaker of the House? He's lucky he didn't end up in Jail.
Rodini posted at 12:29 pm on Sat, Jan 28, 2012.
A big "RIGHT ON" to John and Patti and to Dale.
How sad that we have people like Leon who are totally cluless and don't know enough to keep their mindless opinions to themselves!
We had an America where everyone had the opportunity to succeed...it was washed down the drain when Reagan started "class warfare" against the middle class some 30 yrs ago! That attack on the majority of Americans has been stunningly successful.
We need a new populist direction and we can't afford to wait 30 years for things to change either! Democracy is currently on Hospice in America.
Oligarchy is the rule in America these days! Powered by Wall Street and their army of lobbyists!
sockratties posted at 2:19 pm on Sat, Jan 28, 2012.
Rodini -- Well said!
GOP primary campaigning is costing millions every week and if the rumors are true the democrats will spend nearly $1billion during 2012 to keep their man in office. That's obscene!
k33j88 posted at 6:34 am on Sun, Jan 29, 2012.
Most here can't see the forest for the trees. There are forces at work that go well beyond the bi-partisan bickering. Hint: Follow the money