Obama Supporters Looking for Their "Obama Bucks"

A growing number of us can't help but wonder--what person who has even the slightest clue of what's going on in this Country could still support Obama. A video has been made that highlights some of the fine individuals who love Obama because he "gives them stuff." Well, to be exact, the taxpayers are paying for these able-bodied men who are busy making babies (one of whom admits he has 5 children by 4 different "baby mommas") to sit around and do nothing.

Here's a video that was--strangely enough--put together by Nancy Pelosi's daughter, Alexandra, that demonstrates why those of us who are footing the bill for these leeches need to rally our friends, family, and neighbors to VOTE OBAMA OUT!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5tqH7UrzOw

Your rating: None Average: 5 (2 votes)

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

Ultra-liberal Bill Moyers is giving creedence to David Stockman as an expert on "crony capitalism." Well, let's see--a few years ago, Stockman was charged with committing securities fraud, falisfying books and records, and committing bank fraud related to a Michigan-based auto parts company of which he was CEO. It seems that Stockman knew that the company was in financial trouble so he manipulated the earnings reports to hide information. There's a credible source for you!

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

Welfare: government's parents for low life's who take personal responsibility to pathetic new lows unseen in all of Human History !

All to buy votes ?

What I want to know is this-----has anyone YET gotten anything they were promised? Anything at all?

We were promised higher electricity costs due to new EPA regs shuttering coal fired power plants ! We got that !

We were promised Hope...I surely am hoping for change !
We were promised change...my homes value changed down 43%, my 401K has changed from chalk full to near depletion, my personal income has changed downward by 35%, our families food budget has changed by 11%+ this year alone, and America has changed from a Nation of Plenty to $16 TRILLION in the hole !

America, was once a Triple AAA rated country, has now changed ! We have been downgraded to the same credit rating as Lithuania ?!

And , by 2022, we will have an interest charge on our debt alone of $5.15 TRILLION...just ten years from now !
This figure is TWICE, what our entire budget IS now !

And every Republican candidate for President would have let those companies sink. Keep in mind, for every job saved at GM and Chrysler, there were others saved at suppliers and at shops and stores near the sites of auto plants, many of them non-union jobs. How much worse would the Great Recession be if Mitt and the other Republican leaders had had their way!?

A VOTE FOR OBAMA IS A VOTE FOR JOBS!!

There you go supporting those CEOs and Corporations who fail again. LOL

But nothing I could post could be funnier than your last line. Crackerjack job thus far!

MikeyA

FORD !!!!!!!!!

Simple economic survival the old fashioned way....RESTRUCTURING !!!!

DADT was overturned and now members of the military who are gay can serve openly. That's something.

LOL, so, we've heard from 2 libtards, and that's all they have? A repeal of DADT that a majority of Americans probably don't give 2 shits about and the auto bailout that they conveniently keep forgetting was started by Georg Bush.

Here's one that you forgot, in the 38 months 0bama has been in office the national debt has grown more than it did in 8 years of Bush.

"We're all riding on the Hindenburg, no sense fighting over the window seats"-Richard Jenni

Here's one that you forgot, in the 38 months 0bama has been in office the national debt has grown more than it did in 8 years of Bush.

More willful ignorance. In 2001, the national debt Bush inherited was around $5.7T, give or take. Some of that debt in 2001 has to be attributed to Clinton, just as some of the debt in 2009 when Obama took office has to be attributed to Bush. When W. left office in 2009, the debt was nearly $11T. That's an increase of 89%.

Under Obama, the debt has increased from about $11T to about $15T, about 40%.

And what's behind that increase? Historically low taxes, interest on the $11T debt and historically low revenues -- and the worst financial crash since the 1930s. There's been no "binge" in spending.

You think Romney is going to solve the budget mess? Good luck, other than giving himself and NFL/NASCAR owning friends a big tax break that add trillions to the deficit, increased military spending and he’s all but promised a war with Iran. How does that fix the deficit?

Well we know one thing. The current President is not solving it.

MikeyA

the national debt quadrupled,,,that's an increase of about 300%! Yes, Virginia, percentages count!

Despite Republican predictions of economic disaster, and Ross Perot's claims that only a businessman like him could bring the federal budget into balance, Democratic politician Bill Clinton ended his 8 years in office with three straight budget SURPLUSES!

Bush #43, our first President with an MBA, with the full complicity of a Republican-controlled Congress, plunged us back into deficits in the blink of an eye!

The federal budget is developed and passed by the Congress. In the last three years of the Clinton administration (that you refer to), Republicans controlled both houses of Congress.

During the first two years of Obama's administration (that produced historically high deficits), the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress.

the Republicans took over control of Congress. In his first two years in office, Clinton and the Democrats in Congress put through true tax reforms which lowered taxes for most middle and lower income taxpayers without giving gigantic tax breaks to the rich. Such tax cuts, focused on us common folks, really stimulate economic growth. The Republicans predicted disaster. So did Perot. A lot of voters believed them, so Republicans took over Congress in the 1994 election.

After the Republicans took over Congress, they tried to pass budgets which had deficits that Clinton felt were far too high. Clinton vetoed these out-of-balance budgets, and even "closed down" the federal government, at least the "non-essential" parts, until the Republicans would cut the deficit spending.

Remember, every president may veto any bill. And it's extremely hard to override a presidential veto. If W didn't like the last two budgets passed when he was president, he could have vetoed them. Of course, W wanted to fight two wars simultaneously. And W wanted the bailout of the financial institutions that are "to big to fail". And W wanted the bailout of the U.S. auto companies. And W didn't want to raise taxes on the top 1%, the "job creators" who are creating precious few jobs!

Percentages count. So, you'd rather have a president increase the national debt by a smaller percentage, even if it was a larger dollar amount?

"We're all riding on the Hindenburg, no sense fighting over the window seats"-Richard Jenni

What's a few hundred thousand more common folk laid off?

In case you've forgotten, lifelong welfare for the able-bodied was ended back in the 1990s under the Clinton Administration!

There should be no handouts by the government to ANYBODY! If a company goes bankrupt, oh well, that's the free market at work. If someone goes hungry because he has no job because he chose a life of crime, oh well, when he staves to death, there'll be one less leech.

Oh, a true Christian has entered the conversation. Or maybe you're not a Christian but just mean as hell. In which case I refer you to a quote from another document - promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."
Google that meanie.

I think the issue of people expecting taxpayers to involuntarily foot the bill for their food and housing is more "un-Christian" than assuming that people should experience the consequences of their actions.

Let's face it--we've lost the war on poverty and need to come up with an exit strategy. We have to let people know that we expect them to be able to provide all of the necessities of life for themselves and the children they bring into the world. How galling was it to see the guy in the video chuckle about the 5 children he had by 4 women. That's a man who's relying on you and me to support his children. Again, not very Christian-like.

Typical commie, collectivist response

Thanks for the information! I never knew that! Your motto would be like the Seinfeld Soup Nazi, "No loaves, no fishes for you!!"

As long as the loaves and fishes are provided by private individuals and not the gov't, I'm perfectly fine with it. In fact, I do it often by donating to Seagate Food Bank. There's a huge difference between charity and government approved theft.

You're seeing this play out now. A big story this week was Mayor Bloomberg creating regulations to prevent certain foods from being donated to soup kitchens because of too high of salt content.

Apparently high cholesterol is a bigger problem to the homeless than starvation, I must have missed that memo.

Again just another area where private individuals and religious charities do a better job at the social safety net than the government.

MikeyA

You will never admit that Republican policies are at fault. I will never blame Obama for the mess I perceive that he was left by W.

Funny, I don't see anything here in the article 1 section, 8 enumerated powers that gives the federal government the authority to forcefully plunder from one citizen and give it to another, whether it be a private citizen or a corporation. Maybe I'm missing something? If so, please copy and paste it for me.
Good luck.

Section. 8.The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; — And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

The fruits of MY labor are not a social commodity.

You Sensless asswipe. More willfull lies and misleading info.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57400369-503544/national-debt-has...
The debt increased $4.899 trillion during Bush's 8 years.
Your flop eared messiah has increased it $4.939 trillion in 3 years and 2 months!
Who gives a rats ass what the percentage is!? If the debt started at $1 dollar at the beginning of someones term and was $2 at the end, the percentage of increase would be 100%.
0bama is the biggest bumbler to ever inhabit the white house.

"We're all riding on the Hindenburg, no sense fighting over the window seats"-Richard Jenni

The blame Bush for the Obama debt does not work in this instance because for the first two years of the Presidency, the President had a Congress who would have passed virtually anything he wanted and as it comes to fiscal matters he could have used reconciliation thus bypassing any GOP attempted filibuster.

He owns the debt as he and his colleagues signed off on it when they could have made changes to it but instead added to it.

Running from that is running from what they were responsible for.

MikeyA

and you don't really want a serious discussion, but I'm a fool, so here goes.

When the wealthy patrician FDR ran for President in 1932, in the throes of the Great Depression, one of the planks in the Democratic Platform he wanted, called for a balanced budget! Soon after he was sworn in to the presidency, he realized what a gigantic mess he had been left by Hoover and that cutting the budget to the point where it would be balanced would be inhumane to millions. He just couldn't do it. Instead he said that he was open to all ideas, and would keep trying new ways to help people, keeping those which worked and scrapping those that did not work. And if FDR was really so bad as you neo-cons say he was, why was he re-elected by a gigantic margin in 1936, and elected to an unprecedented third term in 1940, and to a further unprecedented fourth term in 1944?

The safety net started under FDR was steadily eroded under Reagan, Bush #41, Clinton, and Bush #43, especially the regulation of the financial institutions and commodity exchanges. "What ye shall sow, so shall ye reap." At least Clinton did have surpluses in his last three budgets, but Bush #43 quickly changed that. We were propelled into the Great Recession, and Obama is digging us out.

Now, you can say all you want about how this is not a real recovery, and it is a VERY PAINFULLY SLOW recovery, but have you seen where the smart money is going? The stock market has been on an upward trend for over six months now, and the stock market numbers tend to be predictive -- lead, not follow -- economic trends. And almost all of this investment is institutional. since most small investors were scared away by the scandalous lying that giant corporations did which destroyed so many individual "nest eggs". And most of these institutional investment firms are led by people who vote Republican. They certainly don't want Obama to look good.

Now, unusually high oil prices could bring this all crashing down, but barring a catastrophe, things are VERY SLOWLY getting better.

If you're wondering what the liberal bloviations listed above have to do with the video showing losers wanting us to pay for their (and their children's) food and housing, etc.--you guessed it--NOTHING.

Of course he wants to change the subject. Dale is a Toledo unionist and government employee and pensioner, which pretty much means he's a communist in the Toledo Hive. He needs the rest of us to keep paying more and more taxes into the government system that just pays and pays for his own class of parasite.

Here's the Upton Sinclair quote that fits everything that Dale says:

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

Damn, GZ. I know Dale. He worked his ass off for other people for decades; often for no compensation at all. You know, when someone dedicates his professional career, and a great deal of his free time, to educating children (mostly poor, urban children) and then is vilified - well that's not what I call be a real American.

I call it being a "real American" when you speak the truth no matter how critical directly to a popular communist tool, i.e. this Dale character.

Now put that in your pipe and smoke it. We're coming to zap Dale's overly generous pension and there's nothing any of you can do about it. There just isn't enough money to satisfy all these promises, so those promises must be broken.

"I chose a shitty career path and failed to obtain skills valuable in today's marketplace, so now I'm jealous of your financial stability."

Apparently nothing says "real American" like redistributing someone's wealth.

There's a city full of walls you can post complaints at

Are you mental? Dale's wealth comes from the taxpayers. We can't afford to pay him and his Communist brethren. There's simply not enough money. It's not even an issue of who's money it is-- THE MONEY DOESN'T EXIST. You may as well argue about redistributing all the eggs in the Easter Bunny's annual warehouse.

Even nuttier for you: Unsustainable pensions are the very definition of financial INstability. Not even worth a 'LOL' at this point, pal.

I'll be checking back in this thread periodically to continue schooling your class of person on real economics. You're welcome.

You truly are a "real American".

There's a city full of walls you can post complaints at

"We were propelled into the Great Recession, and Obama is digging us out."

You don't "dig out" of debt by borrowing more money. You don't solve a problem created by excessive spending, by spending more.

Borrowing $1.5 trillion a year is not solving anything except the "PR problem". It worked with you, apparently. But reality doesn't agree. MATH itself, doesn't agree.

The policies of Obama and the Democrats just made everything worse. The Second Great Depression could not be avoided by his administration, since it started in 2008 when three major U.S. industries collapsed (housing, banking, automotive). But he could have adopted sound economic principles (i.e. fiscal conservatism) to ensure that the pains of the SGD were experienced in the least possible time. Sadly, due to the complacency and actual stupidity of your class of person, he was given license to just keep supporting the rich against all possible risks, socializing those costs until the poor and particularly the middle class would essentially live out the rest of their lives in despondency.

The next great obscenity by the federal government is to take all these millions of foreclosures (which they won't allow the market to sort out) and package them up (sound familiar yet?) and sell them in blocks to the rich in order to have them re-issued as rentals... keeping them off the market where sensible and rightful price collapses would give people like YOU AND MYSELF (i.e. the middle class) the opportunity to buy property cheap with CASH, which we SAVED, and then have the ability to own property and set rents and (waaaait for it!) become prosperous thereby.

That's called a real economy: People with CASH, buying up real PROPERTY, to put it to real USE and under responsible CARETAKING.

Dale, for a guy claiming to be educated, you sure are woefully ignorant about real economics. I find that that's true with most Liberals. They, like you, believe the federal government is literally an endless supply of money that comes from a magical source, like Green Lantern's power battery.

#1 -- Rich patrician FDR wanted to balance the budget in 1933, but found that it would be inhumane to do so.

#2 -- After 30 years of deficits under both Democratic and Republican presidents, Bill Clinton had THREE STRAIGHT BUDGETS WITH SURPLUSES!! Reagan could understand deficit spending when there is unused economic capacity. Why can't you?

The so-called "elastic clause" in Article 1 of the U. S. Constitution has been adjudicated endlessly. It is an ideological argument that will never be settled between strict and loose constructionists. At this time, the loose constructionists have won. I leave the argument to the courts.

"you sure are woefully ignorant about real economics. I find that that's true with most Liberals"

Laughable coming from you.

Pink Slip

If you expect to cross swords with me, bother to present a sharp edge rather than the dullness you've shown.

All the one-liners in the world can't mask your complete lack of economic understanding. But if it makes you feel better....

Pink Slip

Remember a vote for Obama is a vote for JOBS!

Over 1 Trillion "Saved or Created" or at least I think that's the number now.

We are now in Recovery Summer #2. The motto of this one should be "Can you take another?"

MikeyA

"VOTE OBAMA OUT!"

I'd love to, except that all we'd do is just vote in another elite who will:

1. Increase the tax load upon the remaining taxpayers;
2. Continue bailing out the rich;
3. Continue destroying the middle class.

... just like Obama's been doing, and how Bush II was doing.

The assault upon the foundation of the nation is bi-partisan.

Vote Libertarian to stop this. Vote Democrat or Republican to continue it. It's literally that simple.

I agree with many of the Libertarian viewpoints, but I also understand that it is currently a fringe party. I know that people are working hard to correct this--and that's good--but I'm not ashamed to say that my focus is on voting Obama out.

The other thing I would take exception to is thinking that Ron Paul is not elite. He has a medical degree from Duke University--pretty elite. He also has spent 20 years of his life in Congress--pretty elite.

In 2012, the reality is a vote for a 3rd party candidate is a vote for Obama.

EXACTLY!

I know the Libertarian party and viewpoint is 'fringe'. That's why the nation is collapsing, socially, economically, politically. The fringe has to become mainstream or we're truly doomed.

Ron Paul's elitism is by position not action. I don't care if somebody's rich or has sat in a position of privilege for decades. I care about how they act. Anything else is unwarranted class envy and has no place in reasoned debate or citizen duty.

And once again, the reality about voting is that you only vote for your candidate, not for others. There is no "wasted vote". The two-party system doesn't "own" my vote. My vote for Ron Paul in no way puts another man into office. Stop promoting it otherwise.

I'd have to disagree with your statement that a vote cannot be wasted. It makes for a good cliche (much like "There's no such thing as a stupid question"), but a third party presidential candidate has no chance of winning. As far as a third party candidate not having an impact on putting another man into office, Bill Clinton should thank Ross Perot every day of his life for assisting Clinton in becoming president in 1992. Perot got 19% of the vote. This allowed Clinton to win with only 43% of the vote.

more of the $16 TRILLION National Debt, is as deranged, and demented as the craziest psycho in the loony bin !

How's that "hope and change" thing-y working out for you?

Since January 20, 2009, the Dow Jones Industrial Average is up over 59%. The broader-based, (more closely watched by experts), Standard & Poors 500 Stock Average is up over 65%. The NASDAQ Average, which has many high tech stocks, is up over 101%!

Again...the smart money on Wall Street, mostly invested by people who vote Republican and do not want Barack Obama to be re-elected, knows that the economy is in recovery. And many who bet on Obama's leadership in 2009 are being rewarded with LOTS of Obama bucks. I'll bet W's stock portfolio is doing well!! Cheney's too!!

Well, I'm glad Wall Street is doing well. That's a start.

"knows that the economy is in recovery"

The economy cannot possibly be in recovery since there are millions of people not paying their mortgages, and there are other millions of houses sitting empty and unsold, weighing down the books of the lenders in ways that cannot be avoided (noting well that when the Japanese who encountered the same thing, tried to do that, they earned themselves a 22-year run of deflation and stagnation).

On top of that, the prices of energy must ever rise or otherwise be rationed by failure to deliver. You can't honestly sit there and ignore the reality of Peak Cheap Oil. The petroleum era for mankind is well and truly ending. Hence all that we've built upon cheap oil is also ending, which for Americans and the Western lifestyle, pretty much means everything you have seen or can imagine.

Those libs/Dems may notice a change in their billfolds, if one of 2 things doesn't happen:

1) The Supremes do their duty and uphold the Constitution (regarding the unconstitutional "individual mandate) this summer.
2) A regime change occurs in November.

Because otherwise middle-class to poor Dems (and others) across the nation will be paying from $3,000 to several Thousand MORE... for INSURANCE POLICIES ONLY... that they cannot afford now and won't be able to afford then.

So the biggest "change" BO made was a veritable attack on the U.S. Constitution in order to REWARD GIANT INSURANCE COMPANIES with (his words...) "... all these new customers". Even the two Bushes never dreamed or "hoped" to "change" things in so dishonest a manner. Aren't we all glad Bill Ayers marxist parents helped this "foreign student" through college?

"A regime change occurs in November."

Since the faux choice of Obama vs Romney is what's almost certain to occur in November, there just won't be any significant regime change. Libertarian principles must be adopted since the other options are devoted to the destruction of the Republic.

"Alexandra, that demonstrates why those of us who are footing the bill for these leeches need to rally our friends, family, and neighbors to VOTE OBAMA OUT!"

So we hear from 3-4 people that clearly have warped views on life, and this is supposed to prove that the social safety net is a failure and this is Obama's fault? That's ridiculous. There are always some bad eggs. Here's another clip from Pelosi from the South:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tuI2LEKHGiQ

Pink Slip

I watched the video you suggested. Although Pelosi kept stressing that Mississippi is the poorest and most conservative state (I got it after the first time she said it), the irony is that with the exception of the one guy who said he was on food stamps not one of the other interviewees talked about getting "Obama money" or "free stuff" from the government.

So, the moral to the story is you can be poor and not looking for the government to bail you out (which costs taxpayers nothing) or you can be able-bodied and hanging around the Welfare Office looking for a check (which comes out of the taxpayers' pockets).

Translation:

Conservatives = I can survive on my own
Liberals/Obama Supporters = It's not fair--you need to pay for my food, housing, etc.

The comparison I was thinking of was this---people who are less than educated are going to vote for reasons that don't make a lot of sense. The guys in New York were voting for Obama to get "Obama bucks", and because he's black. The guys in the South are voting against Obama because "he's Muslim" and a "half-breed" and they're voting to put "God" into people's lives. So I think these videos are less about ideological differences, and more about getting past your prejudices.

Pink Slip

All those closet queers on wall street are waiting to get their Bush bucks back.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.