If George W. Bush had doubled the national debt, which had taken more than two centuriesto accumulate, in one year, would you have approved? IfGeorge W. Bushhad then proposedto double the debt againwithin 10 years, would you haveapproved?
If George W. Bush had criticized a state law that he admitted he never even read would you think that he is just an ignorant hot head?
If George W. Bush joined the country of Mexico and sued a state in the United States to force that state to continue to allow illegal immigration, would you question his patriotism and wonder whose side he was on?
If George W. Bush had put 87000 workers out of work by arbitrarily placing a moratorium on offshore oil drilling on companies that have one of the best safety records of any industry because one company had an accident would you have agreed?
If George W. Bush had used a forged document as the basis of the moratorium that would render 87000 American workers unemployed would you support him?
If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a TelePrompter installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?
If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan’s holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved? If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?
If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia , would you have approved? If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the nonexistent “Austrian language,” would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?
If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current in their income taxes, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had stated that there were 57 states in the United States , would you have said that he is clueless.
If George W. Bush would have flown all the way to Denmark to make a five minute speech about how the Olympics would benefit him walking out his front door in Texas , would you have thought he was a self important, conceited, egotistical jerk?
If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to “Cinco de Cuatro” in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the 5th of May (Cinco de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment?
If George W. Bush had misspelled the word “advice” would you have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potatoes as proof of what a dunce he is?
If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on Earth Day, would you have concluded he’s a hypocrite?
If George W. Bush’s administration had OK’d Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually get what happened on 9-11?
If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans, would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence?
If George W. Bush had created the position of 32 Czars who report directly to him, bypassing the House and Senate on much of what is happening in America, would you have approved.
If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?
So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive?
Americans have a long history of Respecting the Office of the Presidency and will continue to do so as long as the President will have the same respect for that Office and the very Constitution he/she Swears to Uphold.
No one President will ever enjoy the complete support of all Americans at any one time but one thing is for sure. Some will enjoy more success than others. The measure of this success can be measured by one simple yard stick, Re-Election.
While President Jimmy Carter was booted after his first term President Ronald Reagan enjoy a second term with a Land Slide Election that took 49 of our 50 States in his corner. President George W. Bush after taking years of criticism also won a Second Term as our President but with a slimmer margin of Victory. The Jury is still out on President Barack Obama but all indication are pointing to One Term.
History has shown us that Presidents are Re-Elected based on their Records while in Office. Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush ran on a strong record of keeping us safe and prosperity. A Democratically Controlled House and Senate hurt President Bush’s record during his last two years in office and a Democratically Controlled House and Senate also hurt President Obama’s First term in Office thus giving us a worsening economy and fears of Big Government and Socialism.
Respect is something that must be Earned and neither President Carter nor President Obama have done anything to earn the Respect of the American People.
Thus, it is easy for this writer to predict a one term Presidency for Barack Obama.
If George W. Bush had doubled the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had criticized a state law that he admitted he never even read would you think that he is just an ignorant hot head?
If George W. Bush joined the country of Mexico and sued a state in the United States to force that state to continue to allow illegal immigration, would you question his patriotism and wonder whose side he was on?
If George W. Bush had put 87000 workers out of work by arbitrarily placing a moratorium on offshore oil drilling on companies that have one of the best safety records of any industry because one company had an accident would you have agreed?
If George W. Bush had used a forged document as the basis of the moratorium that would render 87000 American workers unemployed would you support him?
If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a TelePrompter installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?
If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan’s holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?
If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia , would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the nonexistent “Austrian language,” would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?
If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current in their income taxes, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had stated that there were 57 states in the United States , would you have said that he is clueless.
If George W. Bush would have flown all the way to Denmark to make a five minute speech about how the Olympics would benefit him walking out his front door in Texas , would you have thought he was a self important, conceited, egotistical jerk?
If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to “Cinco de Cuatro” in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the 5th of May (Cinco de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment?
If George W. Bush had misspelled the word “advice” would you have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potatoes as proof of what a dunce he is?
If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on Earth Day, would you have concluded he’s a hypocrite?
If George W. Bush’s administration had OK’d Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually get what happened on 9-11?
If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans, would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence?
If George W. Bush had created the position of 32 Czars who report directly to him, bypassing the House and Senate on much of what is happening in America, would you have approved.
If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?
NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre and NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox attended a meeting at United Nations headquarters in July to send a simple, unequivocal message to the international bureaucrats who want to eliminate your Right to Keep and Bear Arms: An international Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) that in any way, shape or form affects the constitutional rights of American gun owners is completely unacceptable.
In his address to conference participants from around the world, LaPierre made it clear that NRA will accept no compromise on this critical issue.
“The Right to Keep and Bear Arms in defense of self, family and country is ultimately self-evident and is part of the Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution,” he said. “Reduced to its core, it is about fundamental individual freedom, human worth and self-destiny. We reject the notion that American gun owners must accept any lesser amount of freedom in order to be accepted among the international community.”
In 2009, at the behest of the Obama administration, the United States joined 152 other countries in endorsing a U.N. Arms Trade Treaty Resolution. The resolution establishes an international conference to be held next year, at which leaders from countries around the world—many of which have deplorable human rights records—will draw up an international treaty designed to severely restrict or even outright ban your right to sell, purchase, carry or own a firearm.
In reversing President George W. Bush’s opposition to U.N. mandated global gun control, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared, “The United States is committed to actively pursuing a strong and robust treaty that contains the highest possible, legally binding standard. …”
NRA has alerted American gun owners to be on guard against this ticking time bomb for years. NRA-ILA was the first group to be officially recognized by the U.N. as a “non-governmental organization” determined to protect the freedoms of American gun owners, hunters and shooters. The threat to those freedoms posed by an international Arms Trade Treaty has gained steam under the current administration.
President Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and the U.N. claim that the only purpose of the ATT is to fight terrorism and international crime syndicates. Americans should not be fooled.
In speaking out for the nation’s gun owners, LaPierre warned that, “Those working on this treaty have asked us to trust them. … but they’ve proven to be unworthy of that trust.”
Dissecting the U.N. blueprint, LaPierre concluded that:
• “We are told, ‘Trust us, an ATT will only affect the illegal trade in firearms. ’But then we’re told that in order to control the illegal trade, all states must control the legal firearms trade;
• “We are told, ‘Trust us, an ATT will not require registration of civilian firearms.’ Yet, there are numerous calls for record-keeping and firearm tracking from production to eventual destruction. That’s nothing more than gun registration by a different name;
• “We are told, ‘Trust us, an ATT will not interfere with the lawful international commerce in civilian firearms.’ But a manufacturer of civilian shotguns would have to comply with the same regulatory process as a manufacturer of military attack helicopters.”
LaPierre demanded that proposals affecting civilian firearm ownership that are woven throughout the ATT must be completely removed from the scope of any international agreement, saying, “On this there can be no compromise, as American gun owners will never surrender their Second Amendment freedoms.”
There can be no question that what is taking shape at the U.N. is an all-out attack on the constitutional freedom of American gun owners. U.N. bureaucrats have focused intensely on record-keeping, oversight, inspections, supervision, tracking, tracing, surveillance, marking, documentation, verification, paper trails and data banks, new global agencies and data centers regarding firearms and ammunition. Nowhere are there provisions about respecting citizens’ rights of self-defense, privacy, property, due process or observing personal freedoms of any kind.
International gun-ban activists have demanded ATT provisions that would force America to license firearm owners, severely restrict all firearm purchases, destroy firearms deemed “unauthorized,” ban commonly owned semi-automatic rifles and join an international gun registry.
While a treaty can’t override the Second Amendment, it can become the law of the land either directly—equal to any law passed by Congress—or through implementing legislation. Even if a treaty isn’t ratified by a two-thirds majority of the U.S. Senate, it never dies, and can still affect your rights. The U.S. Senate could take a signed treaty off the shelf and vote to ratify it 10, 20 or 50 years from now—as we know from experience. Just two years ago, NRA fought a push to consider a 1997 Organization of American States (OAS) gun control treaty in the Senate. Although the U.S. never ratified that treaty, the Clinton administration used it as an excuse to restrict exports of gun parts and accessories to Canada.
In a 2010 speech to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Hillary Clinton’s Under Secretary for Arms Control told the audience: “We will work between now and the U.N. Conference in 2012 to negotiate a legally binding Arms Trade Treaty, and we’ll need your help in achieving it. We have made that a fundamental policy commitment.”
So you can bet that if President Obama wins a second term he’ll move full-speed ahead for Senate ratification and implementation of the ATT’s mandates.
Obama and Clinton have spent their entire careers demonizing American gun owners and doing everything in their power to make firearm ownership more expensive, more difficult and, in many cases, illegal. Now they want to unleash the U.N. gun-ban axis on our Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
It’s time for all Americans to sound the alarm on this treacherous assault on U.S. sovereignty and join the NRA in this all-out fight to oppose any ATT that includes civilian firearms within its scope.
The cornerstone of our freedom is the Second Amendment. Neither the United Nations, nor any other foreign influence, has the authority to meddle with the freedoms guaranteed by our Bill of Rights, endowed by our Creator and due to all humankind.
In all of this, as the full measure of the Obama administration’s sell-out of our nation unfolds, NRA members must stand united to prevent and reverse the damage the administration’s “change” is inflicting on American freedom and our sovereignty.
To read the full text of Wayne’s speech before the U.N. and get the latest news on the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty, go to: www.nraila.org/unArmsTradeTreaty.
You’re sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom door. Half-awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers. At least two people have broken into your house and are moving your way.
With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun. You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and openit.
In the darkness, you make out two shadows. One holds something that looks like a crowbar. When the intruder brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire.
The blast knocks both thugs to the floor. One writhes and screams while the second man crawls to the front door and lurches outside.
As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you’re in trouble.
In your country, most guns were outlawed years before, and the few that are privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make them useless..
When you talk to your attorney, he tells you not to worry: authorities will probably plea the case down to manslaughter.
“What kind of sentence will I get?” you ask.
“Only ten-to-twelve years, “he replies, as if that’s nothing.
“Behave yourself, and you’ll be out in seven.”
The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local newspaper.
Somehow, you’re portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you shot are represented as choirboys.
Their friends and relatives can’t find an unkind word to say about them. Buried deep down in the article, authorities acknowledge that both “victims” have been arrested numerous times.
But the next day’s headline says it all: “Lovable Rogue Son Didn’t Deserve to Die.”
The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters.
As the days wear on, the story takes wings. The national media picks it up, then the international media.
The surviving burglar has become a folk hero.
Your attorney says the thief is preparing to sue you, and he’ll probably win.
The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several times in the past and that you’ve been critical of local police for their lack of effort in apprehending the suspects.
After the last break-in, you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time. The District Attorney uses this to allege that you were lying in wait for the burglars.
A few months later, you go to trial. The charges haven’t been reduced, as your lawyer had so confidently predicted.
When you take the stand, your anger at the injustice of it all works against you.
Prosecutors paint a picture of you as a mean, vengeful man. It doesn’t take long for the jury to convict you of all charges. The judge sentences you to life in prison.
This case really happened!
On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk , England , killed one burglar and wounded a second. In April, 2000, he was convicted and is now serving a life term… How did it become a crime to defend one’s own life in the once great British Empire?
This seemingly reasonable law forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and established that handgun sales were to be made only to those who had a license.
The Firearms Act of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms except shotguns.
Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by private citizens and mandated the registration of all shotguns. Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the Hungerford mass shooting in 1987.
Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed man with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the streets shooting everyone he saw. When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead.
The British public, already de-sensitized by eighty years of “gun control”, demanded even tougher restrictions.
(The seizure of all privately owned handguns was the objective even though Ryan used a rifle.)
Nine years later, at Dunblane, Scotland, Thomas Hamilton used a semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher at a public school.
For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as mentally unstable, or worse, criminals. Now the press had a real kook with which to beat up law-abiding gun owners.
Day after day, week after week, the media gave up all pretense of objectivity and demanded a total ban on all handguns.
The Dunblane Inquiry, a few months later, sealed the fate of the few sidearms still owned by private citizens.
During the years in which the British government incrementally took away most gun rights, the notion that a citizen had the right to armed self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism.
Authorities refused to grant gun licenses to people who were threatened, claiming that self-defense was no longer considered a reason to own a gun.
Citizens who shot burglars or robbers or rapists were charged while the real criminals were released.
Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as saying,
“We cannot have people take the law into their own hands.”
All of Martin’s neighbors had been robbed numerous times, and several elderly people were severely injured in beatings by young thugs who had no fear of the consequences.
Martin himself, a collector of antiques, had seen most of his collection trashed or stolen by burglars.
When the Dunblane Inquiry ended, citizens who owned handguns were given three months to turn them over to local authorities.
The few who didn’t were visited by police and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn’t comply.
Police later bragged that they’d taken nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens.
How did the authorities know who had handguns? The guns had been registered and licensed. Kind of like cars. Sound familiar?
WAKE UP AMERICA ; THIS IS WHY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS PUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT IN OUR CONSTITUTION.
It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate,tireless minority keen to set brush-fires in peoples minds” Samuel Adams
If you think this is important, please forward to everyone you know. You had better wake up, because Obama is doing this very same thing, over here, if he can get it done. And there are many stupid people in Congress, and on the street, that will go right along with him.
Speaking with “Fox & Friends” host Gretchen Carlson, the Florida congresswoman grew increasingly impatient on the subject of rising gas prices after Carlson played a video of her criticizing then-President George W. Bush over the same issue and asking why President Barack Obama doesn’t deserve similar treatment when prices are even higher.
“You I think back then felt the president could have done something about lowering the gas prices,” Carlson started off. “What do you say now that gas prices are going to reach $5 a gallon under President Obama?”
“What I was referring to in that speech, as I have for many years, is that focusing on fossil fuels and continuing the ‘drill baby drill’ strategy that President Obama rightly referred to the other day in south Florida as a bumper sticker, not an energy policy, is not the way to go,” Wasserman Schultz said. “We are not going to address gas prices over the long-term because there is — there is no president in the short-term that can really change policy and impact gas prices in a significant way.”
She went on to point out that the U.S. has seen “more domestic energy production than we’ve had in eight years” and now needs to make sure to invest in wind, solar and hydroelectric power.
“But a lot of Americans are wondering what’s going to happen now and a lot of those things take time,” Carlson said.
“You brought up drilling and I want you to look at this map, because under President Bush versus under President Obama, there is a stark difference as to the amount of drilling that’s going on here domestically,” Carlson said as the map was shown on screen. “This is under President Bush and this is under –”
“I’m sorry, Gretchen,” Wasserman Schultz interjected. “I can’t see the map here.”
“Basically it shows that there was a lot more drilling going on under President Bush than under President Obama,” Carlson said.
“No, right now there is more — ” Wasserman Schultz began.
“Do you believe also — ” Carlson cut in.
“No, no, no, excuse me. Excuse me!” Wasserman Schultz said.
“The policies were enacted by President Bush,” Carlson said.
“Come on Gretchen!” Wasserman Schultz chastised. “If you’re going to make a comment, please let me respond. There’s more domestic energy production now than at any time in the last eight years.”
“I’m running out of time and I really want to get to the question about whether or not a president can actually do something about gas prices,” Carlson said.
With Wasserman Schultz again acknowledging no immediate short-term to alleviate rising prices, she went back to the importance of an “all of the above” strategy, repeating the point about expanded domestic energy production under Obama.
“Right, and I went back to the fact that many people say that was because of the policies enacted under President Bush,” Carlson responded.
“No, no, that would be the policies enacted under President Obama,” Wasserman Schultz said.
Watch the full exchange below, via Fox News. Comments about gas prices begin at the 3:55 mark:
Since the beginning of the War on Poverty, government has spent vast sums on welfare or aid to the poor; however, the aggregate cost of this assistance is largely unknown because the spending is fragmented into myriad programs.
As this report shows, means-tested welfare or aid to poor and low-income persons is now the third most expensive government function. Its cost ranks below support for the elderly through Social Security and Medicare and below government expenditures on education, but above spending on national defense. Prior to the current recession, one dollar in seven in total federal, state, and local government spending went to means-tested welfare.
Means-tested welfare spending or aid to the poor consists of government programs that provide assistance deliberately and exclusively to poor and lower-income people. By contrast, non-welfare programs provide benefits and services for the general population. For example, food stamps, public housing, Medicaid, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families are means-tested aid programs that provide benefits only to poor and lower-income persons. On the other hand, Social Security, Medicare, police protection, and public education are not means-tested; they provide services and benefits to persons at all income levels.
In fiscal year (FY) 2008, total government spending on means-tested welfare or aid to the poor amounted to $714 billion. This high level of welfare spending was the result of steady permanent growth in welfare spending over several decades rather than a short-term response to temporary economic conditions.
Of the $714 billion in welfare spending, $522 billion (73 percent) was federal expenditures, and $192 billion (27 percent) was state government funds. Nearly all state government welfare expenditures are required matching contributions to federal welfare programs. These contributions could be considered a “welfare tax” that the federal government imposes on the states. Ignoring these matching state payments into the federal welfare system results in a serious underestimation of spending on behalf of the poor.
Of total means-tested spending in FY 2008, 52 percent was spent on medical care for poor and lower-income persons, and 37 percent was spent on cash, food, and housing aid. The remaining 11 percent was spent on social services, training, child development, targeted federal education aid, and community development for lower-income persons and communities. Roughly half of means-tested spending goes to disabled or elderly persons. The other half goes to lower-income families with children, most of which are headed by single parents.
Total means-tested welfare spending in FY 2008 amounted to around $16,800 for each poor person in the U.S.; however, some welfare spending goes to individuals who have low incomes but are not below the official poverty line (about $22,200 per year for a family of four). Typically, welfare benefits are received not just by the poor, but also by persons who have incomes below 200 percent of the federal poverty level ($44,400 per year for a family of four). Around one-third of the U.S. population falls within this lower income range. On average, welfare spending amounts to around $7,000 per year for each individual who is poor or who has an income below 200 percent of the poverty level. This comes to $28,000 per year for each lower-income family of four.
Welfare spending has grown enormously since President Lyndon B. Johnson launched the War on Poverty. Welfare spending was 13 times greater in FY 2008, after adjusting for inflation, than it was when the War on Poverty started in 1964. Means-tested welfare spending was 1.2 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP) when President Johnson began the War on Poverty. In 2008, it reached 5 percent of GDP.
Annual means-tested welfare spending is more than sufficient to eliminate poverty in the United States. The U.S. Census Bureau, which is in charge of measuring poverty and inequality in the nation, defines a family as poor if its annual income falls below official poverty income thresholds. If total means-tested welfare spending were simply converted into cash benefits, the sum would be nearly four times the amount needed to raise the income of all poor families above the official poverty line.
One may reasonably ask how government can spend so much on welfare and still have great inequality and so many people living in apparent poverty. The answer is that the Census ignores nearly the entire welfare system in its measurements. In its conventional reports, the Census counts only 4 percent of total welfare spending as income. Most government discussions of poverty and inequality do not account for the massive transfers of the welfare state.
Since the beginning of the War on Poverty, government has spent $15.9 trillion (in inflation-adjusted 2008 dollars) on means-tested welfare. In comparison, the cost of all other wars in U.S. history was $6.4 trillion (in inflation-adjusted 2008 dollars).
In his first two years in office, President Barack Obama will increase annual federal welfare spending by one-third from $522 billion to $697 billion. The combined two-year increase will equal almost $263 billion ($88.2 billion in FY 2009 plus $174.6 billion in FY 2010). After adjusting for inflation, this increase is two and a half times greater than any previous increase in federal welfare spending in U.S. history. As a share of the economy, annual federal welfare spending will rise by roughly 1.2 percent of GDP.
Under President Obama, government will spend more on welfare in a single year than President George W. Bush spent on the war in Iraq during his entire presidency. According to the Congressional Research Service, the cost of the Iraq war through the end of the Bush Administration was around $622 billion. By contrast, annual federal and state means-tested welfare spending will reach $888 billion in FY 2010. Federal welfare spending alone will equal $697 billion in that year.
While campaigning for the presidency, Obama lamented that “the war in Iraq is costing each household about $100 per month.” Applying the same standard to means-tested welfare spending reveals that welfare will cost each household $560 per month in 2009 and $638 per month in 2010.
Most of Obama’s increases in welfare spending are permanent expansions of the welfare state, not temporary increases in response to the current recession. According to the long-term spending plans set forth in Obama’s FY 2010 budget, combined federal and state spending will not drop significantly after the recession ends. In fact, by 2014, welfare spending is likely to equal $1 trillion per year.
According to President Obama’s budget projections, federal and state welfare spending will total $10.3 trillion over the next 10 years (FY 2009 to FY 2018). This spending will equal $250,000 for each person currently living in poverty in the U.S., or $1 million for a poor family of four.
Over the next decade, federal spending will equal $7.5 trillion, while state spending will reach $2.8 trillion. These figures do not include any of the increases in health care expenditure currently being debated in Congress.
In the years ahead, average annual welfare spending will be roughly twice the spending levels under President Bill Clinton after adjusting for inflation. Total means-tested spending is likely to average roughly 6 percent of GDP for the next decade.
Robert Rector is Senior Research Fellow in the Domestic Policy Studies Department at The Heritage Foundation. Katherine Bradley is Visiting Fellow and Rachel Sheffield is Visiting Fellow in Welfare Studies in the Richard and Helen DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society at The Heritage Foundation.
President George W. Bush brought us through that Horrific Day with Grace and Dignity leading us forward and keeping us Safe everyday thereafter. I remember the Comfort and Pride I felt when he said these words:
I hear you, the rest of the World hears you, and the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon!
The Marxist Liberal Leaning Media has poisoned the waters of American Opinion and the results are an ill informed American Public and Voting based on Misinformation.
It’s the Stories they Refuse to Report on that Hurt America the Most!
We don’t need Obama Lap Dogs reporting only the stories Obama wants us to hear. We don’t need to have the Truth spun around to make Obama look good. We simply need for the Media to report on both sides of an issue and give us the Facts and only the Facts. We the People will decide how we feel and what we think of any given issue based on the True Facts!
Sadly, most Americans I talk to only know what they have heard on the Main Stream Media and rarely are aware of the whole story nor the true facts concerning any given news story.
The Marxist Liberal Leaning Media has poisoned the waters of American Opinion and the results are an ill informed American Public and Voting based on Socialist Propaganda and Misinformation.
Yet Unsuspecting Americans Welcome them into their Homes Everyday!
Like Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing they Deceive the Multitudes
I am amazed how the Main Stream Media has the ability to actually shape Popular Public Opinion to their very Ideology and Agenda.
From the hateful rants by the Media against Christianity, Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman, Rick Perry, and of course their newest target, the Tea Party to the blatant Worship we see of Barack Obama.
The Liberal Media will not Tolerate any Opposing Points of View!
There can be no question of the fact that the Media has long since left the Ethics of Journalism to pursue a Political Agenda and Ideology of Socialism/Marxism and Anti Capitalism.
News stories that cast this Socialist Ideology in a bad light will rarely if ever make the news thus leaving the multitudes of Americans in the dark concerning the facts of hearing both sides to any given news story.
America is wise to what has gone on in our so-called Main Stream Media. This is why they have been re-named the Lame Stream Media. It is very obvious to us all that CNN,MSNBC,ABC,NBC,CBS and others are on the extreme end of Liberalism in all they report. Slandering and Insulting anyone who opposes the Liberal Views is what they do best.
Well, were sick of it and your Ratings are the Proof in the Pudding that America will Tune You Out and go to the Internet where at least we will be getting both sides of a story and have both Liberal and Conservative pundits debate the many issues we face today in America.
Your days of Selective Reporting are over!
Your idea of what America should become is Not Our idea of what we want Our America to be. We are Americans and will remain Americans. We love what the Founding Fathers Created here and we aim to keep it that way. There is no room in Our America for your Socialism so either get with the Program or move your Corporate Offices to Russia, China, or France.
We the People will no longer stand for this kind of Propaganda and I am calling for a Boycott of these Networks and their Sponsors! Your Responsibility to US is to report the News, until you start doing exactly that, you can expect to see your Ratings fall until the last dollar is drained from your Till’s.
It should now be very clear to all Americans that President Obama and Department of Justice Chief Eric Holder had full knowledge of and ordered this scandalous program to change course from former President Bush’s original intent. The denial by this Administration to the findings of this hearing is nothing short of Treasonous and should be acted upon accordingly
I am an “American” free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall Govern my Country.
