I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view

and the media hacks will obey their superiors as always. they’ll turn on obama as they won’t have a choice. more and more is coming out on barry that can’t be ignored.

A feckin’ Kenwood Mansion, no less. I’d really hate to pay to heat the place, though.

For a young fella that came to do good, he certainly has done well.

Let the whataboutry begin.

Nice platitude, but in practice, the emphasis seems to be on confiscating the fish. The fisherman-training bit never seems to get funded.

That’s a concept that flaming liberals don’t appreciate, and it’s effects on minorities that take the hook, is horrid. It was a self-serving and ugly policy of BUYING VOTES. Meanwhile, letting them sink lower into the depths of hell.

Then there are the flaming a**holes, who claim they want to end welfare for the recipients’ own good, but when the rubber hits the road appear interested mostly in tossing them out of the lifeboat.

I don’t disagree that the old system seemed designed to be hated by all sides more or less equally, but it’s pretty well accepted by those who’ve studied it that helping people get out of this vicious cycle requires investment on the front-end, with the true savings realized only in the out years.

On the other hand, reports I’ve seen on the success of this ending of welfare talk about the number of people who are no longer on welfare, but not much about what they are doing now. Are they going to community college and working towards some kind of certification? Unlikely, unless they’re getting some help with transportation and daycare. Do “flaming conservatives” care? Not that I can tell.

Even under the old system, there were apparently quite a few people who were on welfare for a limited time (meaning less than two years), because they were temporarily in some kind of trouble, but recovered and got off welfare. Those people were never part of the “culture of dependence,” but were kicked off the rolls too.

In practice, the “moderate,” DLC Democrats never met a liberal position they won’t fall over themselves to abandon, or a Republican position they won’t acquiesce to, though they’ll furrow their brows and reassure their base that they feel really bad about it

That’s your view. Others see it differently, like being practical.

Like the issue of Bill signing into law the end of “welfare as we knew it.” No flaming liberal would’ve advocated it, but it needed to be done.

You teach people to fish for themselves, not be depended on being fed by others. Self-reliance and independence is a godsend, as it’ll pull anyone through.

That’s a concept that flaming liberals don’t appreciate, and it’s effects on minorities that take the hook, is horrid. It was a self-serving and ugly policy of BUYING VOTES. Meanwhile, letting them sink lower into the depths of hell.

Bill, of that DLC, broke those chains. In the process, minorities can rise to the occassion, not be held down in chains.

It took a moderate approach to a social problem that the far Left wouldn’t compromise upon. It was good for everyone, even if it hurt in the beginning — break a leg and see how painful it is to walk again, too!

Sure, that’s the theory. In practice, the “moderate,” DLC Democrats never met a liberal position they won’t fall over themselves to abandon, or a Republican position they won’t acquiesce to, though they’ll furrow their brows and reassure their base that they feel really bad about it.

So you have to wonder if they’re really too lamebrained to see that the Republicans have figured out that all they have to do is keep moving the goalposts and the DLC will keep finding a way to compromise with the redefined “center.” Or if they’re not so much lamebrained as they are in on the game.

Lobbyist in most administrations have produced more problems than solutions.
NO LOBBYIST IN THEIR ADMINISTRATIONS.

Kathleen, I suggest that you go and read Lou Dobb’s book on the “War on the Middle Class”. He goes into detail about lobbyists, and how deep they’re involved in the political process.

To remove them as you want it, will collapse the government. Because the government now is dependent on them FOR INFORMATION. Those think tanks are full of them, and government relies on their scholarship.

So no, you can’t remove them overnight with a wand. The only way is to replace the system with a more non-political information storehouse, instead.

Problem there is, no one would want to fund it, as it’s not in their own self-interests.

Politics is promoting self-interests (why the “grassroots” even exists). Can’t remove itself from itself.