Is President Obama Creating A Nation Of Dependents?

[antiquity]

First you make up a scenario then ask for a defense of it? What gives with that?

Not very well read are you? This is actually a very current event.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 08-205 (2010), 558 U.S. ––––, 130 S.Ct. 876 (January 21, 2010), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that the First Amendment prohibited the government from restricting political expenditures by corporations and unions. The nonprofit corporation Citizens United wanted to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton and to advertise the film during television broadcasts in apparent violation of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (commonly known as the McCain–Feingold Act).[2] In a 5-4 split decision, the Court decided that portions of BCRA §203 violated the First Amendment

As far as I know, the only objection most people have to certain types of political contributions are those that come from foreign interests. Some of us don't think that foreigners should be influencing US policy with their money, but I guess when a political party in the US can't garner sufficient support for its causes among Americans, it'll get on its knees for anyone with the bucks.

You better read up on Clinton on that one. He was the one accused of doing that very thing.

[Chachma v'Oz]

I stand corrected. I left the workforce before the Citizen United case and hadn't been following the law regarding union contributions. When I was aware of the law it was different.

That doesn't change what I said in #219. It's foreign influence that's objectionable, not that of domestic special interests.

[Chachma v'Oz]

Not very well read are you? This is actually a very current event.

Maybe in liberal circles. I wouldn't know.

You better read up on Clinton on that one. He was the one accused of doing that very thing.

I'll let President Clinton defend his actions. I wasn't a part of them.

[antiquity]

Maybe in liberal circles. I wouldn't know.I'll let President Clinton defend his actions. I wasn't a part of them.

Whoa, that is kind of wishy-washy.

[Chachma v'Oz]

I'm not aware of current news about what types of political contributions liberals object to. It it's been in the news I skipped over it because it wouldn't interest me. I also don't recall Clinton's position on the matter, if I was even cognizant of it. That's pretty straightforward.

[antiquity]

In other words you post on a political issue thread not knowing what your are talking? Got ya!
I think I will have dismiss all of your future posts as, you stated, it doesn't interest me.

[Chachma v'Oz]

In other words you post on a political issue thread not knowing what your are talking? Got ya!
I think I will have dismiss all of your future posts as, you stated, it doesn't interest me.

???? Trying to bail? Go ahead.

[Vader]

In other words you post on a political issue thread not knowing what your are talking? Got ya!
I think I will have dismiss all of your future posts as, you stated, it doesn't interest me.

Your open servitude to republicanazism is enough of a reason to ignore your existence.

[antiquity]

Your open servitude to republicanazism is enough of a reason to ignore your existence.

I am neither a republican or a nazi but after reading your hate mongering posts I may volunteer.

Please go to the VA hospital and get some help. I think that plate in your head is loose.

[antiquity]

???? Trying to bail? Go ahead.

Politically if you knew what you were talking about I would stay and debate, but since you admitted you don't, what's the point?

[86Dùde]

I am neither a republican or a nazi but after reading your hate mongering posts I may volunteer.

Please go to the VA hospital and get some help. I think that plate in your head is loose.

Naw, he just needs his helmet polished.

[Archaix]

Yes, governments got too large by building their empires and spending and counterfitting[sic] money to finance wars. History has proven that time and time again. If you want a more recent example, try the USSR. To a lesser extent, Germany with their uncontrollable printing of money to the point it was worthless.

I’ll give you the USSR, because that was central planning and warfare to the extreme. But your other examples don’t work (for clarification, you mentioned Egypt, Greece, the Roman Empire, and Britain)

Egypt, Greece and Rome
Egypt and Greece fell to Rome because the government of the latter spent an enormous sum of money creating an organised war machine through the Marian Reforms and direct senatorial control, and a state-influenced economy based around the Annona system). This system encouraged the production and distribution of consumable goods around the Mediterranean, and was so economically influential that when the Roman Empire in the West faded in the 5th century, Europe as a whole went into an (economic) Dark Age for another 500 years or so. Economies had to be based not on trade -which became difficult without standardised systems of exchange and protection from piracy by government- but land. That’s what feudalism was all about. And nor did the Roman Empire bleed itself dry from big government/wars –because if that was the problem, why didn’t it do so from the moment the legions left Italy or set up centralised control? While the reasons for why the Roman Empire in the West tanked in the 470s have been debated for centuries, it’s most likely that the problem was internecine warfare based on competing ethnic groups and the lack, not the presence of, strong central systems of control to keep them in check.

Britain
The end of the British Empire was not financially crippled by the size and scale of it’s territories, but because of the first and second world wars. If gaining that territory (through wars, no less) had been unprofitable, it simply wouldn’t have been attempted. That was because conquest wasn’t a centralised process; it was farmed out to corporations like the East India Company. By the 1950s most colonies –from Africa right up to Northern Ireland- were undergoing national identity movements that shows Britain hadn’t really done much to assimilate them at all. Rather than spending money, the British Empire did everything on a shoestring.

TL;DR: You don’t know what you’re talking about.

[Cd.]

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.
Health care. The government's role in health care has grown over the past decades, with 45% of all health spending now coming from the federal government, up from 32% in 1990. But this trend will dramatically accelerate should ObamaCare remain the law of the land. In eight years, ObamaCare will add 16 million people to Medicaid, according to the Congressional Budget Office, and another 24 million will be getting coverage through heavily subsidized government-run insurance exchanges, with the cost of those subsidies running $130 billion a year.
Corporate welfare. Prior to Obama, the federal government was already dishing out $92 billion in corporate welfare programs — in the form of subsidized loans, special tax breaks, bailouts and the like — the Cato Institute found. Obama added tremendously to this largesse. Federal grants to the energy sector, for example, quadrupled to over $18 billion in 2009, according to the Pew Charitable Trusts' Subsidyscope.
http://news.investors.com/ArticlePri...x?p=1&ibdbot=1

The reason that more money is being invested in supporting the poor and unemployed is because 30 years of supply side economics broke the economy. Funny that the Repubs never complained when Bush was spending the US into debt. And Obama is trying to get us out of the ditch and the hypocrits on the right start bitching.

[hadit]

The reason that more money is being invested in supporting the poor and unemployed is because 30 years of supply side economics broke the economy. Funny that the Repubs never complained when Bush was spending the US into debt. And Obama is trying to get us out of the ditch and the hypocrits on the right start bitching.

You weren't paying much attention back then, because Bush was criticized a lot for overspending. Of course, now that TFO is on the scene, Bush looks like a pennypincher.

[Freedom&Liberty]

The reason that more money is being invested in supporting the poor and unemployed is because 30 years of supply side economics broke the economy. Funny that the Repubs never complained when Bush was spending the US into debt. And Obama is trying to get us out of the ditch and the hypocrits on the right start bitching.

Obama has you fooled, chump. He has no intention of getting us out of anything. He now has a record of saying the things democrats want to hear and then doing whatever he can to collapse the economy further. He then hides his deceptive practices by pointing fingers at everyone but himself as the media remains silent. Saul Alinsky - 101.

[Vader]

I am neither a republican or a nazi but after reading your hate mongering posts I may volunteer.

Please go to the VA hospital and get some help. I think that plate in your head is loose.

Your clear support for the right says otherwise. You really do live in a state of denial. So sad.

[Vader]

Obama has you fooled, chump. He has no intention of getting us out of anything. He now has a record of saying the things democrats want to hear and then doing whatever he can to collapse the economy further. He then hides his deceptive practices by pointing fingers at everyone but himself as the media remains silent. Saul Alinsky - 101.

Obama is far less corrupt than any one of the nazi republican swine you want in office.

[hadit]

Obama is far less corrupt than any one of the nazi republican swine you want in office.

Evidence?

[Vader]

Evidence?

Typical guilty party move!

You and your existence have been denied. Feel free to stop breathing.

[hadit]

Typical guilty party move!

You and your existence have been denied. Feel free to stop breathing.

If you cannot document that statement, please exit the country immediately. You will be notified via carrier pigeon when you may apply for re-admission. 3 Forms of ID are necessary, along with documentation that you've had all your shots.