Barack Obama's Demolition of America
by Josh Greenberger
(October 3, 2012) This is probably the first time in history that a bad economy has worked in favor of a president. It seems, no matter which way the unemployment figures go, very little negatively impacts Barack Obama's polls.
Excerpts from the following two articles inadvertently give some insight into this:
Heritage Foundation, September 7, 2010: "One in Six Americans Receives Government Assistance:"
"Fifty million [people] are on Medicaid, a record high and a whopping 17 percent increase since December 2007. Food stamp enrollment has climbed nearly 50 percent since 2008 [the year Obama won the election] and now stands at 40 million, or one in seven people. Ten million Americans receive unemployment benefits, and 4.4 million get direct cash assistance, an 18 percent increase from two years ago.
"And these are the numbers from only four of the more than 70 welfare programs funded by the federal government."
Two years later - InfoWars.com, August 9, 2012: "More Than 100 Million Americans Are On Welfare:"
"According to the Survey of Income and Program Participation conducted by the U.S. Census, well over 100 million Americans are enrolled in at least one welfare program run by the federal government."
That's 1 out of 3. That is, the number of people on public assistance more than doubled in only two years.
How does this help Obama? Well, in better economic times, many people who were out of work would rather get back to work than remain on public assistance for one simple reason; their jobs paid better.
Things today are different. The job market has so deteriorated that many people on public assistance are more afraid of losing their assistance than they are of not finding a job; because many of them have already long given up on finding a job, or finding a job that pays enough for them to get off public assistance.
So, when you have a president who is constantly promising to give you some one else's money ("spreading the wealth") and offering you easy access to public assistance, the natural response, under such dire circumstances, is to welcome such assistance with open arms. And the worse the economy gets, and the greater the increase in the number of people becoming dependent on public assistance, the greater the support for the candidate people perceive as most likely to help them maintain their public assistance.
I spoke to one woman who said she did not care for Barack Obama but planned on voting for him because she didn't want to lose her government benefits. What some people don't seem to realize is that a president with a greater economic sense than Barack Obama (Mitt Romney, for example), could greatly improve the economy, creating a plethora of jobs, thereby eliminating the need for many people to require public assistance. But that's besides the point.
The point is that the distressing economic situation we're in at the moment may not be an accident. There may be more than Barack Obama's incompetence at play here. It's beginning to look more like our sharp economic downturn during the Obama presidency may have been deliberately orchestrated from the start.
Many of the economic hardships thrust upon the U.S. by Obama -- from excessive business regulations to oil-drilling restrictions to tax increases -- was, I'm convinced, a deliberate prelude to eventually handing out easy government assistance, which, in turn, would prompt voters, out of necessity, to vote for Obama.
If this is so, the Obama presidency, without having created any significant new products or services to stimulate the economy, could be the biggest ponzi scheme in history; people are being given billions of dollars in assistance from a stagnant economy that's already in the red. This ponzi scheme is likely to blow up long after the 2012 elections. You'd think a president would recognize this. I believe Obama does.
Every vote for Barack Obama is, in my opinion, another nail in the coffin of America, as we know it. If this is all just too mind boggling for you to accept, perhaps you should just ask yourself a simple question: If Obama couldn't fix the mess (allegedly) left by George W. Bush, what are the chances of him fixing the even greater mess left by himself? Probably between slim and nil.
(October 3, 2012) This is probably the first time in history that a bad economy has worked in favor of a president. It seems, no matter which way the unemployment figures go, very little negatively impacts Barack Obama's polls.
Excerpts from the following two articles inadvertently give some insight into this:
Heritage Foundation, September 7, 2010: "One in Six Americans Receives Government Assistance:"
"Fifty million [people] are on Medicaid, a record high and a whopping 17 percent increase since December 2007. Food stamp enrollment has climbed nearly 50 percent since 2008 [the year Obama won the election] and now stands at 40 million, or one in seven people. Ten million Americans receive unemployment benefits, and 4.4 million get direct cash assistance, an 18 percent increase from two years ago.
"And these are the numbers from only four of the more than 70 welfare programs funded by the federal government."
Two years later - InfoWars.com, August 9, 2012: "More Than 100 Million Americans Are On Welfare:"
"According to the Survey of Income and Program Participation conducted by the U.S. Census, well over 100 million Americans are enrolled in at least one welfare program run by the federal government."
That's 1 out of 3. That is, the number of people on public assistance more than doubled in only two years.
How does this help Obama? Well, in better economic times, many people who were out of work would rather get back to work than remain on public assistance for one simple reason; their jobs paid better.
Things today are different. The job market has so deteriorated that many people on public assistance are more afraid of losing their assistance than they are of not finding a job; because many of them have already long given up on finding a job, or finding a job that pays enough for them to get off public assistance.
So, when you have a president who is constantly promising to give you some one else's money ("spreading the wealth") and offering you easy access to public assistance, the natural response, under such dire circumstances, is to welcome such assistance with open arms. And the worse the economy gets, and the greater the increase in the number of people becoming dependent on public assistance, the greater the support for the candidate people perceive as most likely to help them maintain their public assistance.
I spoke to one woman who said she did not care for Barack Obama but planned on voting for him because she didn't want to lose her government benefits. What some people don't seem to realize is that a president with a greater economic sense than Barack Obama (Mitt Romney, for example), could greatly improve the economy, creating a plethora of jobs, thereby eliminating the need for many people to require public assistance. But that's besides the point.
The point is that the distressing economic situation we're in at the moment may not be an accident. There may be more than Barack Obama's incompetence at play here. It's beginning to look more like our sharp economic downturn during the Obama presidency may have been deliberately orchestrated from the start.
Many of the economic hardships thrust upon the U.S. by Obama -- from excessive business regulations to oil-drilling restrictions to tax increases -- was, I'm convinced, a deliberate prelude to eventually handing out easy government assistance, which, in turn, would prompt voters, out of necessity, to vote for Obama.
If this is so, the Obama presidency, without having created any significant new products or services to stimulate the economy, could be the biggest ponzi scheme in history; people are being given billions of dollars in assistance from a stagnant economy that's already in the red. This ponzi scheme is likely to blow up long after the 2012 elections. You'd think a president would recognize this. I believe Obama does.
Every vote for Barack Obama is, in my opinion, another nail in the coffin of America, as we know it. If this is all just too mind boggling for you to accept, perhaps you should just ask yourself a simple question: If Obama couldn't fix the mess (allegedly) left by George W. Bush, what are the chances of him fixing the even greater mess left by himself? Probably between slim and nil.
Source...