Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: clinton's welfare reform

Posted 2 years ago on Dec. 30, 2011, 8:55 a.m. EST by flip (6755)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

America's Welfare "Reform" Laws Deepening and Perpetuating Poverty By Sherwood Ross

The tougher welfare laws instituted by President Bill Clinton with great fanfare have only worked to keep the poor poverty-stricken longer, a former welfare mother who knows the story from the inside, contends.

Since 1996, politicians have bragged about the success of Temporary Assistance to Needy Families(TANF) but “successful at what?” asks Diana Spatz, executive director of LIFETIME, a California organization working to encourage low-income parents to pursue higher education as their path out of poverty.

“If kicking low-income children and their families off welfare is the measure, than TANF was a huge success,” she writes in the January 2, 2012, issue of “The Nation” magazine.

States were given bonuses for reducing their caseloads rather than reducing actual poverty, Spatz charges. “As long as families were off the rolls, it didn’t matter how or why.”

TANF’s mantra that “any job is a good job” put even make-work jobs ahead of education. “Tens of thousands of low-income mothers were made to quit college to do up to 35 hours per week of unpaid ‘workfare,’” Spatz writes, “sweeping streets, picking up trash in parks and cleaning public restrooms in exchange for benefits as low as $240 a month.”

“Contrary to the ‘welfare queen’ stereotypes, like most welfare mothers, I worked first. Work wasn’t the problem; it was the nature of the work---low-wage, dead-end jobs with no benefits and little chance for advancement---that kept families like mine on the welfare rolls,” Spatz explains.

Studies showed parents were 10 times more likely to get cut off welfare because of punitive sanctions than because they got jobs paying enough to “income off.” In many states, Spatz points out, “‘full family’ sanctions cut low-income children off welfare along with their parents. Under the ‘work first’ mantra, TANF caseloads plummeted by almost 70 percent, as nearly 9 million low-income parents and children were purged from the national welfare rolls by 2008.”

Restrictions on postsecondary education and training----the most effective pathway out of poverty for parents on welfare---made earning an associate degree, much less a bachelor’s degree, “nearly impossible,” Spatz writes. Mothers in the “work first” programs “earn less than $9,000 a year” whereas the same women might have become, say, nurses, and earned a good living if they had taken the education route.

In California, home to one-third of all welfare families nationally, recipients have been “timed off” the rolls automatically after 60 months. In 2003, Spatz recalls, “the vast majority” of parents in CalWORKS who had reached the limit were timed off for the rest of their lives. Since then California, like many another state, has reduced the welfare payment limit to 48 months. Last July alone, 22,500 parents there were cut off in the teeth of the current Depression.

Not only are welfare recipients being cut from payments earlier but States are making it tougher for new applicants to get help. In Georgia, for example, families applying for TANF must face waiting periods before they can get cash assistance, which Spatz calls “the welfare equivalent of a poll tax or literacy test---with caseworkers offering to send children into foster care or put them up for adoption to ease the burden.”

As a result, Georgia is now spending more on adoption services and foster care than it does on assistance to families, Spatz writes. Similarly, Arizona, Rhode Island, and Texas are spending nearly half of their TANF block grants on child welfare-related cases while parents wail as their families are broken up. “I’m not a bad mother, I’m just unemployed,” one woman complained to Georgia State Senator Donzella James, who is getting calls from constituents whose children are being taken away by the Department of Family and Child Services.

Now, as Americans slide ever deeper into poverty, the number of children living in deep poverty is higher than ever. What’s more, the unemployment rate for single mothers (who represent 90 percent of parents in the welfare system) “has nearly doubled to a 25-year high,” Spatz points out.

In 1995, the old welfare program served at least six out of every 10 low-income children, Spatz writes. Today, TANF serves only two out of every 10 poor children nationally. “In passing TANF, Congress and Bill Clinton made good on their promise to ‘end welfare as we know it.’ It’s time to end welfare reform as we know it instead,” Spatz concludes.

It is ironic that a nation that allows giant corporations to evade huge sums in taxes via loopholes and that supports the wealthy with a variety of entitlements, should come down so hard on the poorest of the poor, condemning them to lifetimes of squalor, even to the point of breaking up their families. Of course, this "reform" was started by the same Bill Clinton who created mass starvation in Iraq and inaugurated international kidnapping by the CIA. We need to ask ourselves, "Have we lost all human values?"

Sherwood Ross is a public relations consultant for colleges, entrepreneurial start-ups and other worthy causes. Reach him at sherwoodross10@gmail.com.

123 Comments

123 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

I can't speak of the welfare programs of the Clinton era, but during the Reagan Era my mom raised four children, went to college and worked as a bar tender. In the '90s, she utilized her new skills doing what she enjoyed. Before becoming a special ed teacher ten years ago, she was a staff member at a juvenile half way house. If it was not for the Gov't benefits, the social safety net as it was, I have no idea where I'd be in my development. Those that denigrate and disparage the working poor do so at their own nation's peril. We are some of the most loyal, smart and hard working people in the Union. We also hold grudges like no other, speaking from experience on the bottom rung. These words should really be taken seriously and their implications pondered long and hard.

[-] 2 points by flip (6755) 2 years ago

thanks for that - many in my family needed help for lots of different reasons. i think black elk says the obvious from 1900 - a supposed savage who can see what we are - a bit like the kid in the emperor has no clothes - Words of Black Elk:

I could see that the Wasichus (whites) did not care for each other the way our people did before the nation’s hoop was broken. They would take everything from each other if they could, and so there were some who had more of everything than they could use, while crowds of people had nothing at all and maybe were starving. They had forgotten that the earth was their mother. This could not be better than the old ways of my people.

[-] 2 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

The Culture of Classism

The most destructive tool of the culture of classism is deficit theory. In education, we often talk about the deficit perspective—defining students by their weaknesses rather than their strengths. Deficit theory takes this attitude a step further, suggesting that poor people are poor because of their own moral and intellectual deficiencies (Collins, 1988). Deficit theorists use two strategies for propagating this world view: (1) drawing on well-established stereotypes, and (2) ignoring systemic conditions, such as inequitable access to high-quality schooling, that support the cycle of poverty.

The implications of deficit theory reach far beyond individual bias. If we convince ourselves that poverty results not from gross inequities (in which we might be complicit) but from poor people's own deficiencies, we are much less likely to support authentic antipoverty policy and programs. Further, if we believe, however wrongly, that poor people don't value education, then we dodge any responsibility to redress the gross education inequities with which they contend. This application of deficit theory establishes the idea of what Gans (1995) calls the undeserving poor—a segment of our society that simply does not deserve a fair shake.

If the goal of deficit theory is to justify a system that privileges economically advantaged students at the expense of working-class and poor students, then it appears to be working marvelously. In our determination to "fix" the mythical culture of poor students, we ignore the ways in which our society cheats them out of opportunities that their wealthier peers take for granted. We ignore the fact that poor people suffer disproportionately the effects of nearly every major social ill.

They lack access to health care, living-wage jobs, safe and affordable housing, clean air and water, and so on (Books, 2004)—conditions that limit their abilities to achieve to their full potential.

[-] 1 points by flip (6755) 2 years ago

right on!

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 2 years ago

Clinton Welfare was the greatest thing ro ever hit this country hallelujah !!! Safety net yes - but sooner or later you need to stand on your own two feet. ENOUGH!!!

[-] 1 points by flip (6755) 2 years ago

tell that to the banks smart guy - you are a sad case - going to church tomorrow

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by ChemLady (576) 2 years ago

What is to be done though? Welfare wasn't working to get people out of poverty either. We set up rules and people work to get around them. The only ones hurt are the honest people that need help.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Welfare fraud was actually minimal and still is. However, perpetuating that thought cycle allows people to rationalize dropping programs.

[-] 1 points by flip (6755) 2 years ago

you are sharp girl

[-] 1 points by ChemLady (576) 2 years ago

Doesn't take more then a few to paint a distorted picture, unfortunately the electorate votes without much thought or knowledge. We see a growing sense of entitlement in our population and see also that this approach hasn't done anything to end poverty. It's played a role in bankrupting us as well as Europe and has simply made poverty into a way of life for families.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

It didn't play a role in bankrupting.

[-] 1 points by ChemLady (576) 2 years ago

In bankrupting Europe and bringing the US to the brink, you can't be serious? If we paid for what we wanted to do, taxed corporations and individuals properly banks wouldn't even be in the picture. We borrow too much as a nation then throw the money into things that don't work.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

It doesn't work right now because of the changes that were listed above. Further, there are poverty pimps that we need to get rid of.

But, no the welfare for those that are poor did not bankrupt the US or Europe.

[-] 1 points by ChemLady (576) 2 years ago

It's no one expense, granted, but we do spend more then we take in. Entitlements are a big part of that overspending.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Then the taxes need to be rolled back to preReagan and capital gains needed to be taxed at a higher rate and the corporate welfare needs to go. The cap needs to be lifted on Social Security.

This is not about lets all get together and figure out ways to help the top level of this social contract.

[-] 1 points by ChemLady (576) 2 years ago

Of course taxes on corporations need to be raised, and on individuals too.

[-] 1 points by flip (6755) 2 years ago

what is to be done - how have they done it in sweden or many other european countries?? do a bit of reading and maybe you will find out - are you old enough to remember the great society? ....Most of the deep starvation and malnutrition in the US had pretty well been eliminated by the Great Society programs in the 1960s. But by the early 1980s it was beginning to creep up again, and now the latest estimates are thirty million or so in deep hunger.

[-] 1 points by flip (6755) 2 years ago

sorry but you have no idea of the history of capitalism - maybe you should ask some of those who were helped by welfare - some in my family - heartless is the word that comes to mind

[-] 1 points by ChemLady (576) 2 years ago

How many have been helped, how many have simply become welfare families, growing up to expect the state to take care of them?

[-] 1 points by flip (6755) 2 years ago

you tell me - ever been poor - ever had to in the back door - i am old enough to have seen my father drink from one fountain and his friend from another - equal opportunity wouldn't you say? ever had really bad luck - i have two friends that work 70 hr weeks and no health ins - are you christian?

[-] 1 points by ChemLady (576) 2 years ago

I don't believe in god at all, that has little to do with helping people. I've been poor, I've worked with people that are poor also. I don't know what to do with the current system of entitlements, but I see it isn't working very well.

Anecdotes don't help the situation, we all know individuals with hard luck stories. I've seen the other side too, the overweight woman with several hundred dollars worth of tattoos, smoking a pack and a half a day complaining about being given a generic drug for free instead of the one she saw on television. People need certain things, I don't deny that. I'm saying the way we've been doing things hasn't worked. Throwing more money down a hole isn't the answer.

[-] 1 points by flip (6755) 2 years ago

you have not responded to this - how have they done it in sweden or many other european countries?? do a bit of reading and maybe you will find out - are you old enough to remember the great society? ....Most of the deep starvation and malnutrition in the US had pretty well been eliminated by the Great Society programs in the 1960s. But by the early 1980s it was beginning to creep up again, and now the latest estimates are thirty million or so in deep hunger.

[-] 1 points by ChemLady (576) 2 years ago

Sweden taxes all it's citizens more, in the US the average person pays about 24% of his income back in some form of tax. In Europe it's closer to 35%, Sweden taxes the highest, at around 45%. Sweden does tax the rich and corporations a little higher then the US does, but a great deal of their taxes are consumption taxes. They have a 25% VAT, that hits the poor more then the rich.

In many ways they are like the US, their success was due to a free market. More government programs were paid for though through higher taxation. They are likely headed down the same road as we are though. They have the highest rate of sick leave in all of Europe now because it pays well to stay home and not work.

[-] 1 points by flip (6755) 2 years ago

is that your answer - i have been to sweden many times and have good friends there for 30 yrs - they are moving in our direction but so what. their taxes go to support those that need help - they have a better lifestyle and higher standard of living (esp for the 99%) than we do - your question was -What is to be done though? - i thought i answered it - not sure if your response is a counter argument or agreement?

[-] 1 points by ChemLady (576) 2 years ago

Looks like they are becoming more like us in more ways then just getting more lazy.

http://news.yahoo.com/wave-shootings-baffle-swedish-police-144253329.html

[-] 1 points by ChemLady (576) 2 years ago

They did things right in the sense that they taxed enough to pay for the programs they wanted. They are moving in our direction in the sense that they lead Europe in sick leave, meaning more and more people find it better to stay home all week and get a government check for 80% then to work for 5 days for just 20% more. More and more are starting to abuse the system.

[-] 1 points by flip (6755) 2 years ago

as i said i have been there - too many times - stop with the sick days - americans have two weeks vacation. we work too hard - we should take vacation, sick days etc - isn't it obvious we could put more people to work if we took more time off here is sam on the subject Samuel Gompers (pictured), stated that “As long as there is one man [sic] who seeks employment and cannot find it, the hours of work are too long.” Shorter hours also increased wages because more overtime would be paid.- but that is not the question - you asked what is to be done and i answered it - your response is too many sick days????

[-] 1 points by ChemLady (576) 2 years ago

You're free to push for a tax system like Sweden has and take care of all the people you can afford to. My point is a simple. One, we need to take a close look at what we are doing with our social programs, because they are not working. Two, whatever we can decide to do, as a nation, we have to tax enough to support it.

[-] 1 points by flip (6755) 2 years ago

no problem on the tax front - look at rates during the "golden age of capitalism" - then look to the progress of the "great society" and how it helped to get people out of poverty - we know how to do it - now we need leaders who will implement the process

[-] 1 points by ChemLady (576) 2 years ago

I see the illegitimacy rates going through the roof. Kids dropping out of school to continue the cycle of poverty, committing crimes, having their own illegitimate children to ensure the jails stay full. This is the collateral damage from the great War on Poverty. Poverty won.

[-] 2 points by flip (6755) 2 years ago

it is very easy to find out what works if one wants to - and very easy to find out why we have more poverty than europe even though we are richest country thee world has ever seen. you need to know our history and just look at our country today. we have always had a very aggressive ruling class that practices class war on labor and the poor. we are watching it at work today - here is a bit about sweden - do some reading and stop listening to rick santorum ....... The same pattern holds. According to nationmaster.com, Sweden also has the 2nd highest divorce rate in the industrialized world (236). However, there are some key differences in the way the Swedish system works. Sweden is a 'Welfare State' and practices what is known as Institutional Welfare:

An institutional system is one in which need is accepted as a normal part of social life. Welfare is provided for the population as a whole, in the same way as public services like roads or schools might be. In an institutional system, welfare is not just for the poor: it is for everyone. (86)

For this reason we don't see the same high levels of unemployment and poverty as those exhibited by welfare 'beneficiaries' here in the United States. People aren't punished for working, benefits aren't taken away as soon as one begins to pull out of poverty. Neither poverty or single motherhood is subsidized by the government. Healthcare, childcare are provided free to all, and every family with children receives a monthly check from the government. There is generous government unemployment insurance of up to 80% of the former salary, but this can only be accessed if one was previously employed. But there is a small catch. Single parents receive an additional payment for each child and there are some programs that are means tested (based on income) (87)
[-] 1 points by ChemLady (576) 2 years ago

You're right, they are dedicated to caring for everyone, we are not. That is a big difference. We, as a nation, don't want to pay the kind of taxes that they do in Sweden. Try to get a congressperson to propose a 25% tax on consumption. We don't want to pay.

Lay it out for American citizens, government wants to raise taxes on you and we'll take care of you. That proposition will be rejected. Sweden has one unified cultural experience and a longer history of welfare.

[-] 1 points by flip (6755) 2 years ago

that is your opinion only - present some evidence - and how did sweden do it. almost no poverty and please do not talk about sick days!

[-] 1 points by ChemLady (576) 2 years ago

You ask how Sweden did it. I'm not sure what they have managed to accomplish, I'll take you at your word that their welfare state has been successful. Taxing at an average rate of 45% may have had something to do with it (average for the US is only 24%). They also tax the poor more heavily then we do. Part of that 45% average tax rate is a 25% tax on consumption, a regressive tax. Probably why their cost of living is higher.

For whatever reason the US seems to lead the world in illegitimate children among the poor. That increases the chances of children doing drugs, getting into criminal activity, dropping out. All good for maintaining your status as poor. The entire national attitude may be different in Sweden, they may have a more unified work ethic then Americans. They may benefit from being one culture not many cultures like the US.

Another thing about Sweden they started social welfare programs over two centuries ago (1734), so they have devoted a bit more time to it then we have in the US.

[-] 1 points by flip (6755) 2 years ago

you do not know the history - all of that happened because of the dismantling of the "golden age" by reagan and clinton and the like - does "ending welfare as we know it" ring a bell?

[-] 1 points by ChemLady (576) 2 years ago

Welfare was a mess before Reagan, you already had second generation welfare families by then. Which is why there was bipartisan criticism of the program by the 80's. It was a nice idea to help people out of poverty, but it hasn't worked out that way. The reform worked out by Clinton and the congress was necessary, people on their own have little motivation to work when things are simply given to them.

[-] 0 points by flip (6755) 2 years ago

your response has no basis in fact - once again your opinion. opinion polls show the us population is willing to pay more in taxes and spend more on education and poverty reduction. the politicians and the governing classes do not want to pay more in tax - do some research - look for polls from pew - you will be surprised. if you want to hold on to your opinion fine but then stop the conversation

[-] 1 points by ChemLady (576) 2 years ago

You don't seem to know what your talking about. Gallup, April 2011, taxes too high 50%, just right 43%, too low 4%, your taxes fair 57% yes, 40% no. The big numbers come when asked if others pay enough. Nearly 1 in 5 think the poor pay too little and about 2 in 3 say the rich and corporations pay too little. An American Enterprise Institute poll in April 2011 showed similar results. A Reuters poll (59%) and a Washington Post poll (52%) found over half the country cuts and tax increases together. If you remove the choice they will take cuts over a tax increase by a big majority.

One Pew poll from last June shows a majority want to keep spending on social programs and raise taxes on someone else. In December of 2010 a Pew poll found 60% favored an extension of the Bush tax cuts.

As with most polls it depends on how you ask the questions. Big majorities want others to pay more and will agree that raising taxes to save specific programs are acceptable. Again most of those surveyed prefer that it is someone else that pays more.

[-] 1 points by flip (6755) 2 years ago

the main point of debate was your line - what can be done - when i pointed out what could be done you came up with all sorts of reasons not to d it. i can't find the polls that i am looking for and won't waste any more time on it. believe what you want but you are wrong - most of the polls chomsky cites are unpublished since they send the wrong message to people like you - here is a sample - this is a bit off topic but informative none the less - this is noam chomsky - you might want to read him if you want to understand the world - "Popular opinion in the United States has been very well studied, mainly because the business classes, who run the country, want to have their finger on the public pulse – for the purpose of control and propaganda. You can only hope to control people’s attitudes and opinions if you know a lot about them, so we know a lot about public opinion. In the last election, 2004, most Bush voters were mistaken about his views on major issues – not because they’re stupid or uninterested, but because the elections are a marketing system. This is a business-run society: you market commodities, you market candidates. The public are the victims and they know it, and that’s why 80% think, more or less accurately, that the country is run by a few big interests looking after themselves. So people are not deluded, they just don’t really see any choices.

The Obama phenomenon is an interesting reaction to this. Obama’s handlers, the campaign managers, have created an image that is essentially a blank slate. In the Obama campaign the words are hope, change, unity – totally vacuous slogans said by a nice person, who looks good and talks nicely – what commentators call “soaring rhetoric” – and you can write anything you like on that blank slate. A lot of people are writing on it their hopes for progressive change. In the campaign, as the Wall Street Journal correctly notes, issues have received little attention. Personal characteristics are the key element. It’s character that’s up front.

But, yes, the support for Obama is a popular phenomenon, and I think it reflects the alienation of the population from the institutions. People are grasping at a straw: here’s a possibility that maybe somebody will stand up for what they want. Even though he’s not saying so, he looks like the kind of person who might do it. It’s quite interesting to look at the comparisons that are made. Obama is compared to John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan – Kennedy and Reagan were media constructions, Reagan particularly. He probably didn’t even know what the policies were, but he was a creation of the media. He wasn’t particularly popular, incidentally, but the media created the image of this wonderful cowboy who would save us, and so on and so forth.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Did we ever have human values at all?

The limitations that Clinton's little welfare reform placed on families has been excruciatingly painful to watch. Poverty is not a crime.

When children are removed from homes because of poverty then they are placed somewhere else. Money is given to a placement or to a foster home, although, foster parents are not paid very much. Some placements can cost upwards towards $300 (if not more).

So, why are we as a society spending $300 to a placement where they are not eating steak and lobster for dinner in places that do not pay taxes?

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

I know how the system works. I was speaking of placement facilities and it should be upward towards $300 a day. Not a month.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

I am in agreement with you. 100%.

Further, there have been changes made with drastic results like here: http://liftingtheveil.blog.com/2010/10/23/advocates-weigh-in-on-nebraskas-foster-care-privatization/

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Poverty profiteers?

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by flip (6755) 2 years ago

i think you have a dragon tattoo! you are good! we as a society are completely fucked up and have been from the beginning - we can start with cotton mather and go from there - here is black elk around 1900 - Words of Black Elk:

I could see that the Wasichus (whites) did not care for each other the way our people did before the nation’s hoop was broken. They would take everything from each other if they could, and so there were some who had more of everything than they could use, while crowds of people had nothing at all and maybe were starving. They had forgotten that the earth was their mother. This could not be better than the old ways of my people.

(from Black Elk Speaks, told through John G. Neihardt.) .... and one last one from chomsky on the reagan years and central america!....... The US commitment to international terrorism reaches to fine detail. Thus the proxy forces attacking Nicaragua were directed by their CIA and Pentagon commanders to attack "soft targets," that is, barely defended civilian targets. The State Department specifically authorized attacks on agricultural cooperatives -- exactly what we denounce with horror when the agent is Abu Nidal. Media doves expressed thoughtful approval of this stand. New Republic editor Michael Kinsley, at the liberal extreme of mainstream commentary, argued that we should not be too quick to dismiss State Department justifications for terrorist attacks on farming cooperatives: a "sensible policy" must "meet the test of cost-benefit analysis," an analysis of "the amount of blood and misery that will be poured in, and the likelihood that democracy will emerge at the other end." It is understood that US elites have the right to conduct the analysis and pursue the project if it passes their tests.6

[-] 0 points by America921 (161) 2 years ago

Well after this reform was passed it reduced Welfare Rolls which saved money and poverty dropped by 1%. So all in all I think this worked perfectly. Keeping in mind that when you are on Welfare you are technically still in poverty. So how does Welfare reduce the poverty number?

[-] 1 points by flip (6755) 2 years ago

poverty dropped by 1%. - where does that come from?

[-] 0 points by America921 (161) 2 years ago

http://www.heritage.org/research/testimony/the-effects-of-welfare-reform

Scroll down to the first two graphs. The whole website is good but you really only need the two graphs. If you have trouble finding it just make another post.

[-] 1 points by flip (6755) 2 years ago

i'll pass thank .you read too much from those guys to spend anymore time on them - if you think poverty has dropped since the 1970's you are not old enough to remember - i am - i think the line is from groucho marx "do you believe me or your lying eyes"

[-] 0 points by America921 (161) 2 years ago

I'm not referencing the 1970's I was simply looking at the 5 years before and after the reform was in place. If you looked at the graph and educated yourself on the matter instead of going on personal experience ( have you lived in poverty and seen everyone in poverty and kept records of them for yourself since 1970?) then I would take you seriously. But instead you are filling the role of the stereotypical Liberal. Which is a true shame.

[-] 0 points by Perspective (-243) 2 years ago

BS. My family was on welfare from my age 12 to 16. My Mom busted her ass,got a nursing degree,got a job and never went back. My experience made me realize I didn't want to live that way and I've been very successful in my life due to hard work and perseverance. the only thing that holds people back in this country is themselves.

[-] 1 points by flip (6755) 2 years ago

and what part is bs tough guy - no luck involved in your success - the only thing that holds people back in this country is themselves.- you need to think this through - no, on second thought you don't just don't bother me with your nonsense

[-] 0 points by Perspective (-243) 2 years ago

Sorry you can't understand the concept.

[-] 1 points by flip (6755) 2 years ago

try me smarty pants - make the case for the koch brothers and the mellons, the duponts and the carnegies - should i go on?? is the right phrase i"i got mine you get yours" or maybe "kicking the ladder" - can you under stand those. my guess is that you are a christian - go to church and pray hard to jesus to send you more money? i think quisling is the right term don't you?

[-] 0 points by Perspective (-243) 2 years ago

Ah yes,insults again. Once again,sorry you don't understand the concept of hard work and striving for more skills to make your self successful. Why do you feel the need to insult successful people?

[-] 1 points by flip (6755) 2 years ago

taleb's line is "if your so rich why aren't you so smart" - you know nothing about me or my work ethic so let's not start on that one - for all you know i am more successful than you - then we would have to consider how one measures success - money?? any other thoughts - no - i doubt it! if you are such a hard worker why are you here - don't you have anything better to do than mess with people who are your inferiors

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

How old are you Perspective?

[-] 0 points by Perspective (-243) 2 years ago

I have managed to make it to 50 Blue and my next goal is 55. I don't take anything for granted lol. How old are you? Lived through many rough times and never gave up.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Then you weren't impacted by the reform.

[-] 0 points by Perspective (-243) 2 years ago

Why do you think it would have mattered? My Mother hated welfare and that's why she busted her ass working and going to school. The only thing that holds people back in this country is themselves. ANYONE can work hard and make a decent living. Quit feeling sorry for yourself and start making something of yourself. I could make a $100k if I wanted (and have come close some years) but I like my leisure time.Quit being a victim(in your own mind) and make something of yourself.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

I am not on welfare, sweet pea. I have not ever been. I am not interested in your thoughts on these matters.

[-] 0 points by Perspective (-243) 2 years ago

Lol obviously. So you have achieved success? What's your story?

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Over 3 months of vague comments, just like this one, with no real details, or job offers, for that matter.

If you're so successful, You wouldn't be here.

Are you a libertarian?

[-] 0 points by Perspective (-243) 2 years ago

Lol you hate it that someone can disagree with you and be successful don't you? Poor thing.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

I just get tired of the same old BS.

As well as your assumptions.

The real killer on your statements, though is the absolute refusal, to be honest.

Never answering a question directly, and the further obfuscation.

Followed, of course by a lame attempt at insult.

It's the same MO, over and over.

You are all one trick ponies.

[-] 0 points by Perspective (-243) 2 years ago

Lol you just can't stand it can you? I'm a registered Republican who leans center.What would you like to know about me?

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

It's the level of dishonesty, I don't care for.

The obfuscation and hidden truths.

The false, if I can do it, anybody can attitude.

All I want from you, is open honesty.

[-] 0 points by Perspective (-243) 2 years ago

So ask away like I said. And actually yes,if I can do it anyone can! I have a high school diploma and that's it.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by flip (6755) 2 years ago

speak young man - have you nothing to say? you are a sad case - zeitgeist is not the answer but keep trying - does einstein's definition of insanity come to mind

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Nothing keeps people poor like giving them just enough to get by.

[-] 2 points by flip (6755) 2 years ago

better to get rid of them by starving them to death

[-] 2 points by ubercaput (175) from New York City, NY 2 years ago

Cool, that is why Somalia is the ideal nation for libertarians, no welfare, no government, and the poor get starved to death.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by flip (6755) 2 years ago

you are right - hard money and a hard life for those without it - just the way it should be in the mind of the true capitalist - like maybe hchc - not sure about chemlady

[-] 1 points by ubercaput (175) from New York City, NY 2 years ago
[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Well I think thats a bit over reactive. I think there needs to be more incentive to work though. Yes, entry level pay is low, but you will find very few people who show up on time and work hard, that dont make their way up the ladder.

[-] 1 points by flip (6755) 2 years ago

i am sure you are not surprised but i disagree completely - i stand by the first statement and i can go back in history to show you the direct line to today

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

And I can go into the direct neighborhoods you are talking about and show you more abuse than ever. I work those neighborhoods, the abuse is rampant. Do you work in a lot of low income neighborhoods?

[-] 1 points by flip (6755) 2 years ago

so how are you so successful working in a poor neighborhood? i live in one - my daughter teaches in a school (one block away) where some of her students live in cars - parents in jail or addicts or just poor. do you make more than $7.50 per hour - probably. we are the richest country the world has ever seen - only a very hard man would tell them that this is the best we can do - good christians to boot, right? i think black elk said it best - a poor dumb savage but he can see the truth so clearly - then you have to tell me how sweden and italy can take care of their "lower" classes in a better fashion than the richest country in the world can - hard to figure no? here is my boy black elk -Words of Black Elk:

I could see that the Wasichus (whites) did not care for each other the way our people did before the nation’s hoop was broken. They would take everything from each other if they could, and so there were some who had more of everything than they could use, while crowds of people had nothing at all and maybe were starving. They had forgotten that the earth was their mother. This could not be better than the old ways of my people.

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

A) Im not successful. B) I've been to Italy, their poor arent taken care of better than ours.

Im saying that before all this welfare stuff came along, the crime rates and broken marriage rates of poor communities were much better. People had more reason to act right. Now they have less, and we see what its doing to communities. Im not saying eliminate all of it, Im saying the abuse is rampant, and its too much.

[-] 1 points by flip (6755) 2 years ago

wrong about italy - present evidence! do you want to mention sweden? if you think people were better off in this country in the 20's through the 50's think again - i am old enough to have seen it - i remember "the shame of the nation" - appalachia - i come from there! abuse is not rampant - not when compared to the banks or the corporate welfare system - present some evidence - and not from cato!

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

I go off what my own eyes tell me. Im helping a friend with an apartment complex, and most of them live rent free, get food stamps, and get mediaid. Im not sure what else the nation is suppose to supply for the very poor.

Im not one for government statistics. And Im certainly not saying the nation isnt in some very serious trouble. Im just saying the welfare systems are pretty comparable, but over the poor seemed to have more "stuff".

Ive never been to Sweden, have you?

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

You live in a SYSTEM. When more is fed to the top, less is spared for the bottom. Money may be infinite and fiat, but its worth is finite. Aristocracies are heavy burdens and costs for a nation to manage. I hope one day that you will learn that what you see with your eyes, is only part of the picture. Now If I were one of those welfare recipients, which statistics state has a one and ten chance of being employed, I'd like my pay role to be able to pay more of the taxes. But id have to insist that the federal government stop bombing for gold and booty.Na',on second though, I think I'll continue being a non tax paying member of society, at least until they get their heads out their asses.

[-] 1 points by flip (6755) 2 years ago

many times in sweden - very nice capitalist country with a big welfare system - as to free rent where do you get that? i am sure you don't like gov't stats or anything that shows you a true picture (not that gov't stats always do -they tend to down play the problems - like with unemployment or inflation). the welfare systems and the systems in general are not at all comparable - do some research and find out how the middle and lower classes live in europe. the rich are less rich and the poor less poor - even the poorer countries in europe - italy for instance. listen to the business news and you will hear it all the time. here is section 8 housing - don't see anything about free............ Other attempts to solve these problems include the 1978 Section 8 Housing Program, which encourages the private sector to construct affordable homes, and subsidizes public housing. This assistance can be "project-based", subsidizing properties, or "tenant-based", which provides tenants with a voucher, accepted by some landlords. ......

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Yes, and I have plenty of people I know that accept sec 8 from perfectly able bodied people. They all get EBT too. And WIC if they have kids. And more $$$ per kid too.

That is living free.

[-] 1 points by flip (6755) 2 years ago

abuses all around - do you complain about boeing or nbc?? take a mortgage deduction - try the living free routine - see how well you do - did i ask already - are you a follower of christ?

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

I bitch about all of them :) I just like to bitch. Why else would I be on political forums :)

Only one type of person complains more than a new yorker....An upstate new yorker lol !

[-] 2 points by flip (6755) 2 years ago

i am a western ny guy - as i aid - there is abuse everywhere but the money flowing to the top - in all sorts of ways, dwarfs that given to the poor

[-] -2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Who is dependent on the government checks to support themselves:

Elderly get SS and medicare. They need it. If it stops, theres going to be massive riots.

Foodstamps- 40 million people living their life around 200 free food from the gov. Many are indoctrinated onto the program, totally dependent. If that stops, its massive riots.

SSI- Tons of people paying their rent on disability checks. If this stops, we are going to see many people rioting.

Medicaid- people dependent on the gov to pay for their medical treatments. Better hope this doesnt stop.

Unemployment checks- people basing their entire life around that check. If it stops, riots.

The financial systesm are breaking down. We are going to end up at a point where the people arent going to get this stuff like they expect. At least some. It only takes one section to fail and its riots.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

the results are always riots with you. Is that because they could affect you?

You know if the elderly lose there SS the will likely face destitution, dog food, and death. You didn't mention that. No matter.?

cut food stamps? women and children will go hungry. No concern for that.?

You have to think beyond yourself. These programs help our fellow human beings. We want to help them because we are caring people.

We reject the economic survival of the fittest theory you republicans live by. We're all in this together.

[-] -2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Man you are dumb. I never stated a belief or non support for any of them.

I state riots because that is when society has officially broke down. People being hungry is not good. People robbing and killing each other for food is much worse.

Rioting is rock bottom. That is where we are heading. You are damn right we are in this together. I hope people remember that.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

umm sorry.....

"dumb"? name calling =weak arguments.

You focus on riots because that would affect you! If you cared about these people, you would have discussed it.

It's an old perspect1ve. We've heard it plenty.

Peace

[-] -3 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Actually the other stuff is going to affect me much more than the riots.

You missed the entire point of the post as usual, because you are a troll with an agenda. A very conservative agenda.

You get called more names here than anyone I have ever seen on a chat site before. And its pretty common knowledge that your political knowledge is shady at best. Pretty much limited to talking points.

Not trying to be mean, but the person who could care less about deaths from illegal wars overseas telling me I dont care about people is pretty freakin insulting.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Did I say you don't care? Who do you care about? Khadafi? Ive seen those comments. how about Al Awlaki? You definitely care about him. And we know when people talk about riots that is code for property damage done by poor people to none poor people. So clearly you care about the none poor people who might have property damage from "riots"

So I take it back you care about lotsa people.

It might be time for another "white flight". Run away! run away!. the poor are rioting.

LOL

[-] -3 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

"If you cared about these people, you would have discussed it."

Yes, you did care. And I can say I have probably been more poor than you ever thought about being. You live on investments and rentals, which means you own multiple homes.

You are pro war, anti gay, and probably pretty close to being in the 1%.

You would rather kill innocent people for oil than innovate.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

LMFAO.

You don't know what your talkin about. I grew poor in the projects of brooklyn NY. Lived through a couple of those riots your afraid of. You seem like a comfortable child of priviledge from the suburbs who didn't do as well as mommy and daddy. Maybe some marketing/pr meaninglessness. Unfulfilling, solidly middle class just not as well as you wanted or as well as his parents.

I am anti war, I am against the drone bombings, I support LGBT rights.

I support all innovation especially in green tech in order to eliminate the oil wars you repubs love so much.

[-] -2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

You are pro war, you are fine with no gay marriage, and you are fine with the Bush cuts. Face it. Thtas who you are. No liberal ever says they are fine with deaths from bombs. Only the fake ones do.

You didnt live through a riot, you wouldnt know a fight if it came to your front door. You live off of investments and rental income. You are pretty close to the 1%. Maybe if you bomb some more poor people you can make some more dollars.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I am anti war, Pro LGBT rights, I support tax cuts/debt for working/middle class & 90% tax rate on millionaires

[-] 1 points by flip (6755) 2 years ago

good program - your man in the white house supports one of those - i'll let you guess which one - 1 for 4 ain't bad - better than the other guy who is 0 for 4

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

We must agitate all politicians, mine and yours. to push these concepts forward.

Elect progressives, Vote out conservatives, Protest, sign petitions, write letters, call pols.

Peace

[-] -1 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

Anti war VQkag2? Perhaps you should rephrase that and say you're anti-war only when it suits your parties needs. I remember arguing with you yesterday about your support for the Libyan war....and the fact that if we didn't steal other countries resources china or russia would do it instead. I believe i also saw support for an overthrow of the Syrian government as well by you. I thinks it's rational to say that you're anti-war when it hurts the republican party and pro-war when it benefits the democratic party. Or in common terms...a flip flopper....similar to mitt romney.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Those are all lies.

I am anti war. Not a pacifist. But anti war I support using our military to help all oppressed people all over the world. Like a huge planetary police force. So Libya was a police action, Syria would be as well. WWII was a good war. I support that kinda thing.

Africas resources. I said I hope we get our hands (not steal) on them without killing anyone.

I suppose you resort to lies because you can't discuss your position with facts. What position do you hold on these issues? isn't that the productive thing to do? Compete (honestly) in the marketplace of ideas.

Or are you here just to attack? Tear down.? The politics of personal destruction?.

I'm not attacking you. I don't have to. You must put me down to lift yourself up. I simply continue to express my opinion, my position. It isn't the opinions that every OWS supporter might hold. I'm not taking a poll. It is mine. I'm proud of it. I'm not always right, but I try to be respectful, honest, and fair.

Please do the same.

Peace, Good luck with all your good work.

[-] 0 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

You said: “I'm not attacking you. I don't have to. You must put me down to lift yourself up. I simply continue to express my opinion, my position.”

Lets go over a few things you have said to me:

“And what's with that john 23. Is he some religious fundamentalcase? “

“Marvelpym has suggested you might be a racist. I know all republicans are not racist, but I've heard all racists are republicans. Have you pissed him off?” (marvelpym didn't suggest anything of the sort and was pissed you misrepresented the comment)

“Those are all lies” you said in your above response to me. Lets go over what I said that you’re calling lies one by one..here are my assertions numbered and then lets see exactly what you typed to back up what I’m saying:

  • 1.) I remember arguing with you yesterday about your support for the Libyan war.

What you said yesterday:

“We did it quick, transparently with a real coalition of Arab, African, UN, and European partners. Let the Libyan people do their own fighting and helped with some air support, some secret cia ground troops to paint our drone targets, and intelligence. Libya was a success! I don't see your problem. We support freedom fighters against dictators (khadafi) Do you support Khadafi?”

  • 2.) You argued the fact that if we didn't steal other countries resources china or russia would do it instead.

What you said:

“Oh. And here's hoping we get our hands on those African resources without killing anyone. huh?"

Which i responded:

"So it's ok with you to kill people to get their resources? VQkag...thought you were sentimental to human rights etc. You disappoint.”

Which you responded:

"Hey how did our oil get under their desert! LMFAO"

Which i responded:

"That’s f’d up."

Which you responded:

"Aaaaaaah Ha ha ha!. You don't like that one Brother John.? It's an old one. Breaks me up everytime I hear it. Peace"

Or a completely separate comment you made you said:

“I like that the pope said it isn't a sin to steal food when your hungry. Regardless of the laws on the books.”

or

"“Well I think there is a loophole. So there. I don't it is simple as you say. I think we must this superior approach or we will be subjected to the criminal actions of Bush and the repubs. Sorry. Gotta agree to disagree. Be cool. It's all over. We succeeded! WooHooo! USA! USA! LOL”

  • 3.) I believe i also saw support for an overthrow of the Syrian government as well by you.

You said: “So Libya was a police action, Syria would be as well.”

  • 4.) I thinks it's rational to say that you're anti-war when it hurts the republican party and pro-war when it benefits the democratic party.

You troll the chats talking about the disasters and fear mongering of the Iraq war and Afghanistan wars, even though those people were “freed” from a similar type of oppression as Libya/Syria.

Now lets take a look at your views of the law:

“Blah blah blah. Obama, attacked. wah wah wah! war powers act. Yada yada yada. He can't have a successful military action without the protests that Bush had. It's not fair! Why does he get to bomb without being accused of war crimes like Bush. It's the same as Bush. It's the same I tell you. sniff sniff. unconstitutional why won't anyone listen.? why won't anyone sue him? he's bad. illegal. war powers. mommy, I need you.”

So as you can see nothing I said was remotely close to a lie….not one thing. The only person caught in a lie...is you. You’re the disgustingness that infects the political system these days….the slime that pollutes the establishment with lies and partisan hackery..even if being partisan means it will temporarily hurt the country. It’s disgusting, untruthful and immoral. The sad thing is people can read your bullshit online and if they don’t take the time to actually sit down and fact check every absurd statement you make….they are going to walk away all the dumber because of it...it's about time someone called bullshit on you. So...."bullshit".

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28267) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

OK show me where there was no approval after 60 days.

BTW - a charge filed does not mean guilt - the legal process must decide that - do you rememberize that you are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law? So at best your comment would be an opinion but the way you state it - it is a lie.


[-] -1 points by john23 (4) 13 minutes ago

Why the hell do you think Kucinich would sue obama????? For shits and giggles?

I've done more than enough research for you today...look it up yourself.

Actually if you want to be technical it's 60 days for congressional approval because obama didn't request more time.

"sorry for making stuff up about you john23" ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28267) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

"Read It" and weep as it stands at this very point in time what Obummer authorized in the intervention of the Libyan government slaughtering it's citizens was not illegal. So your comment to the contrary is a lie until this law suit you mention ever happens and only if it succeeds. Period.

JURIST - Forum: The President Does Not Need Congressional Approval


[-] -1 points by john23 (4) 3 minutes ago

"Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) and Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.) announced Wednesday that they are suing Obama in federal court over the constitutionality of leading the U.S. into war with Libya without seeking Congressional approval. Specifically, their lawsuit challenges the executive branch’s circumvention of Congress and its use of international organizations -- namely, the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization -- to authorize the use of military force abroad. "With regard to the war in Libya, we believe that the law was violated," Kucinich said in a statement. "We have asked the courts to move to protect the American people from the results of these illegal policies."

"According to the War Powers resolution, a president who commits troops to war must explain the legal reasoning for doing so within 60 days. That period can be extended to 90 days if the president requests more time from Congress, which Obama did not do. By the 90-day mark, the president is required to obtain congressional approval for action. To date, Obama has not sought such approval and maintains it is not necessary given that military action is expected to be limited in scope and duration."

Or just go directly to president Obama:

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

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/CandidateQA/ObamaQA/ ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

[-] -2 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

"On the back of every mistaken defeat is the laughter of wisdom, if you listen."

Give it up DK...you look ridiculous.

[-] -2 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

<sigh>

DK, you really need to read and understand things before you post them. This is gonna be the second time today you get creamed.

Your article is referring to the 48 hours after the war was initiated that president obama had to inform congress of what was going on. He did that, and that is exactly what your article that was going to make me "weep" said. Unfortunately that's not where the illegality comes into play. Its after the 90 days of allotted time that he must get congressional approval. That's why the title of your article is " The President Does Not Need Congressional Approval for Libya No-Fly Zone (Yet) ". Whats the key word in this statement????? "YET". What Kucinich is pissed about is that his 90 days were up...and he needed congressional approval to stay within the confines of the law for Libya. Even your own freaking article says it: "It could be that Obama is gambling that Gaddafi will be gone within three months, thereby allowing him to beat the clock (aka the 90 days). But if Gaddafi is not gone, then Congressional authorization will be needed."

If you really want to get into the nitty gritty of it, it is debatable that he didn't follow international law (obama), even with the initiation of the war (putting the 90 day deal aside). People can make up their own minds...the first link is your article....the second one is an international lawyer and professor talking about that same subject:

http://jurist.org/forum/2011/03/the-president-does-not-need-congressional-approval-for-libya-no-fly-zone-yet.php

http://jurist.org/forum/2011/03/the-use-of-force-against-libya-another-illegal-use-of-force.php

I accept apologies and retractions against false accusations (calling me a liar).

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

meanwhile Yemen is fair game for war?

[-] -1 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

I agree...and pakistan and somalia....i have the same feeling towards all of them.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28267) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

< SIGH > Show me where hostilities by the US continued unapproved after that 90 day deadline.


[-] 0 points by john23 (4) 1 minute ago

<sigh>

DK, you really need to read and understand things before you post them. This is gonna be the second time today you get creamed.

Your article is referring to the 48 hours after the war was initiated that president obama had to inform congress of what was going on. He did that, and that is exactly what your article that was going to make me "weep" said. Unfortunately that's not where the illegality comes into play. Its after the 90 days of allotted time that he must get congressional approval. That's why the title of your article is " The President Does Not Need Congressional Approval for Libya No-Fly Zone (Yet) ". Whats the key word in this statement????? "YET". What Kucinich is pissed about is that his 90 days were up...and he needed congressional approval to stay within the confines of the law for Libya. Even your own freaking article says it: "It could be that Obama is gambling that Gaddafi will be gone within three months, thereby allowing him to beat the clock (aka the 90 days). But if Gaddafi is not gone, then Congressional authorization will be needed."

If you really want to get into the nitty gritty of it, it is debatable that he didn't follow international law (obama), even with the initiation of the war (putting the 90 day deal aside). People can make up their own minds...the first link is your article....the second one is an international lawyer and professor talking about that same subject:

http://jurist.org/forum/2011/03/the-president-does-not-need-congressional-approval-for-libya-no-fly-zone-yet.php

http://jurist.org/forum/2011/03/the-use-of-force-against-libya-another-illegal-use-of-force.php

I accept apologies and retractions against false accusations (calling me a liar). ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

[-] -2 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

Why the hell do you think Kucinich would sue obama????? For shits and giggles?

I've done more than enough research for you today...look it up yourself.

Actually if you want to be technical it's 60 days for congressional approval because obama didn't request more time.

"sorry for making stuff up about you john23"

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28267) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Here ya go - for your comments ( lies ) on an illegal attack on Libya:

JURIST - Forum: The President Does Not Need Congressional Approval

[-] -2 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

"Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) and Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.) announced Wednesday that they are suing Obama in federal court over the constitutionality of leading the U.S. into war with Libya without seeking Congressional approval. Specifically, their lawsuit challenges the executive branch’s circumvention of Congress and its use of international organizations -- namely, the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization -- to authorize the use of military force abroad. "With regard to the war in Libya, we believe that the law was violated," Kucinich said in a statement. "We have asked the courts to move to protect the American people from the results of these illegal policies."

"According to the War Powers resolution, a president who commits troops to war must explain the legal reasoning for doing so within 60 days. That period can be extended to 90 days if the president requests more time from Congress, which Obama did not do. By the 90-day mark, the president is required to obtain congressional approval for action. To date, Obama has not sought such approval and maintains it is not necessary given that military action is expected to be limited in scope and duration."

Or just go directly to president Obama:

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

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/CandidateQA/ObamaQA/

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28267) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

OOOPs - My bad - need some more fresh hot vitamin C .

Sorry it is easy to get the two of you confused.

I will delete the comment.


[-] 1 points by john23 (4) 3 minutes ago

DKA...you jackass....that's not me talking about Glass steagall.

You're taking someone elses comment "JonFromSLC" and claiming it is mine "john23".

Very noble of you to come to your boys rescue.....but use something i actually said. Holy crap. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Sorry I disagree that you proved anything.

Peace, I am not your enemy. We should not be enemies. We should treat each other as if we will be working together for years to come.

Good luck in all your good efforts

[Deleted]

[-] -1 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

DKA...you jackass....that's not me talking about conservatives in the 30's.

You're taking someone elses comment "JonFromSLC" and claiming it is mine "john23".

Very noble of you to come to your boys rescue.....but use something i actually said. Holy crap.

I would claim you're lying..but i think its more stupidity.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I don't see the lies your claiming.

Sorry. We disagree.

Peace. I'm not your enemy. Good luck with all your good efforts.

[-] -1 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

Your lie is saying that i was lying. You said that "Those are all lies" referring to my statements about you. So i sat and went through each one and provided your words quoted to prove that not one thing i said was a lie.....not one. Quit playing stupid.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I disagree.

I supported the Libyan action. I maintain it was not a "war" Same thing with Syria. As such their is no law broken. And there is NO comparison to your boy Bushs decade long illegal oil wars that killed millions. To compare them is outrageous.

I said repeatedly we should get African resources w/o killing anyone.

My comments to other people are not attacks on you so not relevant.

So why don't you take a breath. Stop personally attacking me with these lies. You don't speak for me. And what I believe is not relevant to the issues that affect the 99%.

Peace. I am not your enemy. We just disagree. Good luck to you on all your good efforts.

[-] -1 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

"Stop personally attacking me with these lies. "

Not one thing i said was a lie...not one....i listed it very nicely for you to see with your quotes to back up everything i said..you're the one lying....blatantly...for everyone to see.