TexasCHLforum.com

AND, to add insult to injury, we have George Bush to thank for this one, and Obama to thank for continuing it!

http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/19/usda- ... z2169UZmB0

USDA partnering with Mexico to boost food stamp participation
Published: 1:07 AM 07/19/2012

By Caroline May

NEW YORK - FEBRUARY 10: Kethia Dorelus a social worker with the Cooperative Feeding Program displays a Federal food stamps card that is used to purchase food on February 10, 2011 in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

The Mexican government has been working with the United States Department of Agriculture to increase participation in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), or food stamps.

Just when do America's taxpayers, including those who "didn't build their business—someone else did that" get some relief from this insanity?

And how much more does this type of insanity push people away from the ballot box and toward the bullet box?

The Annoyed Man wrote:AND, to add insult to injury, we have George Bush to thank for this one, and Obama to thank for continuing it!

http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/19/usda- ... z2169UZmB0

USDA partnering with Mexico to boost food stamp participation
Published: 1:07 AM 07/19/2012

By Caroline May

NEW YORK - FEBRUARY 10: Kethia Dorelus a social worker with the Cooperative Feeding Program displays a Federal food stamps card that is used to purchase food on February 10, 2011 in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

The Mexican government has been working with the United States Department of Agriculture to increase participation in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), or food stamps.

THIS is why I always say that, though I liked Mr. Bush, he certainly did have some mistakes during his Presidency. Though it irritates me to no end, on the other hand, I'm not even surprised by this...and that is truly sad indeed.

America is about its people being free to make their own choices and, being allowed to reap the consequences; either good or bad.

That's the problem.

Too many of our citizens these days believe "freedom" is: Free to make poor decisions that the government will make somebody else pay for....

Mark Alexander is a clear eyed thinker, who brings light to the darkness of liberal/progressive (socialist/communist) muddy-the-waters-as-much-as-possible thinking:

http://patriotpost.us/alexander/14167/
Socialism v Free Enterprise: Translating ObamaSpeak
What He Said v What He Meant
By Mark Alexander · July 19, 2012

Benjamin Franklin wrote:"Here comes the orator! With his flood of words, and his drop of reason." --Benjamin Franklin (Poor Richards Almanack, 1735)

Trust me, I never operated a lemonade stand, but I'm the president!
Barack Hussein Obama never so much as operated a corner lemonade stand, but his perspective on free enterprise, shaped by his lifelong socialist indocrtination, is certainly getting some traction.

Invoking the two pillars of his re-election campaign, tax "fairness" and class warfare, Obama first focused on the tax piece, asserting, "I'm not going to see us gut the investments that grow our economy."

In ObamaSpeak, "gut the investments" translates as "cut taxes," and "grow the economy" translates as "grow the government." This remark was a smokescreen in regard to Democrat efforts to let the across-the-board Bush tax rates expire, which, in effect, will raise taxes on all Americans who earn a living rather than live on the dole.

More here http://patriotpost.us/alexander/14167/

However, in all of this, there is some small little bit of poetic justice:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/zekejmiller/ath ... ne-to-pray

Somebody in the adminstration said (probably lying about it) that he was daily on his knees praying for rain for drought stricken farmers, and he got in trouble with the libtard atheists. We must mind our political correctness P's and Q's, mustn't we?

"74novaman

There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me —because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t — look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.

What they don't want to admit is that very often success occurs because a particular individual actually IS SMARTER than most and/or DOES WORK HARDER than most. It's "the politics of envy" that seeks to make everyone equal by refusing to recognize individual effort and achievment and its spreading throughout the world as evidenced by rioting in Europe demanding that the governments provide an ever higher level of support for the large percentage of the population that doesn't work or produce anything, and the "occupy" movement expessing the idea that because someone else has something they don't they are entitled to it . It really does sound like some of the governmental philosophy espoused in Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead..."from each according to his ability for each according to his need"

talltex wrote:"74novaman

There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me —because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t — look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.

What they don't want to admit is that very often success occurs because a particular individual actually IS SMARTER than most and/or DOES WORK HARDER than most. It's "the politics of envy" that seeks to make everyone equal by refusing to recognize individual effort and achievment and its spreading throughout the world as evidenced by rioting in Europe demanding that the governments provide an ever higher level of support for the large percentage of the population that doesn't work or produce anything, and the "occupy" movement expessing the idea that because someone else has something they don't they are entitled to it . It really does sound like some of the governmental philosophy espoused in Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead..."from each according to his ability for each according to his need"

That is not something espoused by Ayn Rand...that quote of yours is the central tenet of Marxism.

Heartland Patriot wrote:

talltex wrote:"74novaman

There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me —because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t — look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.

What they don't want to admit is that very often success occurs because a particular individual actually IS SMARTER than most and/or DOES WORK HARDER than most. It's "the politics of envy" that seeks to make everyone equal by refusing to recognize individual effort and achievment and its spreading throughout the world as evidenced by rioting in Europe demanding that the governments provide an ever higher level of support for the large percentage of the population that doesn't work or produce anything, and the "occupy" movement expessing the idea that because someone else has something they don't they are entitled to it . It really does sound like some of the governmental philosophy espoused in Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead..."from each according to his ability for each according to his need"

That is not something espoused by Ayn Rand...that quote of yours is the central tenet of Marxism.

You misunderstood what I wrote...that statement was referring to THE GOVERNMENTAL POLICY Ayn Rand was arguing against in her novels...the exact opposite of her philosophy of Objectivism.

tallmike wrote: I'm certainly not saying that government charity is the best answer, but its part of the answer. If you were having a conversation about this with Jesus do you think you would be able to convince him that he should be against paying an extra 3-5% income tax next year?

There isn't any such thing as government charity. That would imply the government had something of its own to give which it doesn't.

Using this religious argument is misguided at best. Jesus taught us to take care of one another and to be charitable. He didn't teach us that we should give our money, which otherwise could be used for charitable giving, to a government with a questionable record using those funds to dole out in a manner that is questionable at best. I should be able to be charitable of my own right and determine the best place to utilize those funds for the betterment of my community. For what money I have left to give after the government takes their slice, I spend a great deal of time making sure the majority of the funds make it to the person in need. Funds funnelled through the government are lucky to have much meat on the bone by the time they get to the person in need and often are doled out to people who have no interest in helping themselves or are not in need at all.

It's not the governments responsibility to take care of people. Its our responsibility to take care of ourselves and our neighbours. Don't get me wrong. I'm not completely against some limited programs to help people out (unemployment and limited short term welfare, etc) but the government has way overstepped their bounds in this regard and shackled a large segment of the population to the government trough for life.

The Obama campaign tactic being used makes sense politically. Obama's 2008 campaign rhetoric and his actions while in office don't bode well as a reelection platform. He campaigned against an individual health insurance mandate ("that makes as much sense as mandating everyone buy a home to end homelessness"). He also said Obamacare would lower an average family's insurance premiums by $2,500. His admin claimed unemployment would stay below 8% if the huge stimulus was passed. You can see where I'm going...

So, we have right now continuing difficult economic times and instead of Obama getting pinned down by the media (they support him & won't do that), we have the Obama campaign being afforded about the only tactic that can work for him - Class envy.

Obama is playing on people's tendency to be envious of those that have more or are more successful. By continuously going after those that "need to pay their fair share" (those rich folks that have more than you) and demeaning success (they didn't do that on their own - i.e. everybody needs to share in their success), he's seeking to gain support in a manner akin to "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

His rhetoric, including the demands for 10 years of Romney's tax returns, are attempts at conditioning people to resent other productive or successful people (like he seems to). This could certainly work on those that have been un-or-under-employed and those that have seen their standard of living diminished. Instead of blaming Obama and his failed approach/policies, they may be conditioned to the point where they believe Obama will tip the scales in their favor and away from the people they've been conditioned to resent. Of course, there are those that already have that resentment and need no additional conditioning (liberal progressives).

The Obama campaign has released an ad claiming that Romney misquoted Obama. But the ad itself shows Obama saying exactly the same words as Romney claimed he said -- the "...you didn't build that..." quote.

You couldn't make this stuff up!

LINK HERE

sjfcontrol wrote:The Obama campaign has released an ad claiming that Romney misquoted Obama. But the ad itself shows Obama saying exactly the same words as Romney claimed he said -- the "...you didn't build that..." quote.

You couldn't make this stuff up!

LINK HERE

The funny thing is, when you look at the context of that 1 sentence....it makes the statement look worse, not better. It doesn't explain away what he was saying so much as expands upon the fact that he thinks you didn't "earn" what you've got so its perfectly okay to take it away from you. I can think of a couple other countries who thought the individual existed only to serve the State. It always works out so well for everyone.

talltex wrote:

Heartland Patriot wrote:

talltex wrote:"74novaman

There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me —because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t — look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.

What they don't want to admit is that very often success occurs because a particular individual actually IS SMARTER than most and/or DOES WORK HARDER than most. It's "the politics of envy" that seeks to make everyone equal by refusing to recognize individual effort and achievment and its spreading throughout the world as evidenced by rioting in Europe demanding that the governments provide an ever higher level of support for the large percentage of the population that doesn't work or produce anything, and the "occupy" movement expessing the idea that because someone else has something they don't they are entitled to it . It really does sound like some of the governmental philosophy espoused in Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead..."from each according to his ability for each according to his need"

That is not something espoused by Ayn Rand...that quote of yours is the central tenet of Marxism.

You misunderstood what I wrote...that statement was referring to THE GOVERNMENTAL POLICY Ayn Rand was arguing against in her novels...the exact opposite of her philosophy of Objectivism.

I understand now...thank you for the clarification.

sjfcontrol wrote:The Obama campaign has released an ad claiming that Romney misquoted Obama. But the ad itself shows Obama saying exactly the same words as Romney claimed he said -- the "...you didn't build that..." quote.

You couldn't make this stuff up!

LINK HERE

You can make up ANYTHING and pretty much get away with it when you are a leftist and the press is full of leftists and operates as a propaganda arm of the Democrat Party. Its like a lightweight version of Pravda in the old Soviet Union...whatever Stalin, I mean Obama, says must be the TRUTH!

I read a study a while back that claimed 50% of the world's population gets by on less than $1 per day. When my bleeding heart liberal friends try to explain that we owe the poor children of the world all the rich people's money, I toss that in there and ask them how they like paying for all the starving children out of their super-rich lifestyle now. It's amusing.

Fangs wrote:I read a study a while back that claimed 50% of the world's population gets by on less than $1 per day. When my bleeding heart liberal friends try to explain that we owe the poor children of the world all the rich people's money, I toss that in there and ask them how they like paying for all the starving children out of their super-rich lifestyle now. It's amusing.

Yer darn tootin' it's funny. I ask them "how many children are you sponsoring through World Vision so far?" That usually net's a glance downward at the ground.... or anywhere but at my eyes... and a "uh....well none....yet...." Like it was ever their intention to be personally charitable out of their own pockets.

That's one of the big motivators behind liberal thinking. They want to be charitable because it makes them feel good, but they want it to cost someone else, not themselves. Which means that they completely miss the point of charity. "Here, let me give you some money" means not nearly the same as "Here, let me give you his money."

Liberals. You could almost laugh at their antics if they weren't so dangerous to the economy or our natural God-given rights.