Myth that cutting benefits would leave the poor starving in the streets

You've heard Democrats argue that one before... Republicans with all their pushing to cut on the federal level want poor people homeless and starving in the streets.

A story came out today in the NY Times showing that this isn't true.  Government in recent years has grown so far out of control that now the middle class are part of those leaching off the tax payers.  You can read the story in full HERE.

A new analysis from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities underscores that the poor are no longer the primary beneficiaries of the government safety net.

...

The finding is broadly consistent with the data we reported Sunday that the poorest households received 36 percent of benefits in 2007, down from 54 percent in 1979, numbers that came from a study published last year by the Congressional Budget Office.

...

The study found that older people received slightly more than half of government benefits, while the nonelderly with disabilities received an additional 20 percent.

...

Furthermore, the study notes that politicians have shifted benefits away from the "jobless poor," through reductions in traditional welfare, and increased benefits for working families, for example through tax credits.

...

Another finding of the study is that the distribution of benefits no longer aligns with the demography of poverty. African-Americans, who make up 22 percent of the poor, receive 14 percent of government benefits, close to their 12 percent population share.

White non-Hispanics, who make up 42 percent of the poor, receive 69 percent of government benefits - again, much closer to their 64 percent population share.

What I see in those results is that politicians are no longer just using government to help the poor but instead using government to buy slaves who live off government in return for votes to keep their masters in power.

Troubling.

Of course if you suggest cutting away at the redistribution of wealth or even stopping the government from taking our own money away just to give it back to us in the form of a government program you are blasted as wanting to leave the poor starving in the streets.

Obama Job Growth

By now I'm sure you've seen the chart popping all over the internet showing jobs decreasing under Bush and everything turning around bright and sunny under Obama.  If you haven't here it is:

First thing off the bat that caught my eye was how they start the chart at Jan 2008.  This is well after Democrats took control of both the House and Senate and had plenty of time for their policies to begin taking effect.

Then I noticed it stopped at March 2011, why?  The data is available well after that date, why stop showing how well Obama has been doing.  Oh wait, in April 2011 job growth fell another -190 and in June 2011 it feel another -445.

Here is the data in full as provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics:

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec	Annual
2002	-346	737	-261	-51	413	-124	-2	292	597	-294	-487	-95	379
2003	991	65	-48	199	-89	246	-316	75	60	375	440	-13	1985
2004	61	70	-89	227	172	322	382	17	-86	245	499	-106	1714
2005	120	140	269	600	355	105	312	408	-33	147	-49	253	2627
2006	398	307	284	20	328	264	-151	423	190	499	220	436	3218
2007	58	29	263	-734	317	160	-158	-223	562	-298	649	-322	303
2008	124	-240	-49	22	-201	-191	-208	-334	-137	-267	-714	-750	-2945
2009	-1141	-527	-906	-100	-360	-291	-112	-433	-683	-374	206	-639	-5360
2010	532	165	171	470	34	-203	2	199	6	-272	-135	283	1252
2011	110	221	213	-136	180	-423	65	304	353	190	317	176	1570
2012	847												847

(numbers in thousands)

We took a hit after 9-11 and you can see the economy was unstable going into 2002 but Bush with Republican control kept the country headed in the right direction.

It wasn't until well into 2006 after Democrats swept the house and senate that we saw any real down turn.

In 2010 the government dumped a ton of money into the economy with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, otherwise known as the Obama stimulus.  One of the criticisms of the stimulus however is that the money spent will be divided over several years, we're currently in those years.  What happens when the spending stops?

Of the 3,669,000 jobs created since 2010 how many are permanent that can sustain themselves without government having to take wealth from others to create the impression of job growth?

The other factor this chart doesn't account for is underemployment.  This would be someone working at a high paying job who became unemployed settling for half or even less of their current salary just to get back to work.

The other question to ask is at what cost are the jobs we're seeing coming at?  Obama's new budget has nearly 1 trillion in deficit spending, a debt that will be passed on to our children.  And even with this out of control spending we still have over 4.6 million jobs still to be created just to get us back to close to where we were before Democrats took control of the House and Senate.

Shaheen Vs. The Free Market

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen announced that she plans to step into a contract dispute between Direct TV and WHDH, the Boston affiliate of NBC.

WMUR quotes her as stating:

"Through no fault of their own, subscribers have become bargaining chips in these negotiations and are being denied access to the TV programming they've paid to receive," Shaheen said. "Blacking out the Super Bowl would be a disservice not only to Patriots fans, but also to sports bars and restaurants across Southern New Hampshire that are counting on the game for much-needed revenue."

Problem is the free market has already worked out a solution.  Direct TV has announced to their local customers that channel 392 is the national NBC station and that too will cover the big game.

Shaheen called on the Federal Communications Commission to try to broker an agreement to ensure that the channel is restored by the time the Super Bowl airs.

What Shaheen has done is ensured the waste of tax dollars in a dispute that the government has no business being part of.

If Direct TV didn't offer an alternative station and wasn't able to resolve the problem they would lose customers who would most likely switch to either Comcast or an alternative satellite provider.

And Depending on how the government resolves the dispute, they may end up forcing Direct TV to have to push unnecessary rate increases down to their customers in order to pay higher costs involved in carrying that station.

If Shaheen wants to but her nose in a disagreement then why not focus on why her boss has squashed the Keystone pipeline and killed the creation of tens of thousands of new jobs.

One More Example of Obama Harming This Country

If you were told there was a possibility to create tens of thousands of permanent jobs tomorrow would you think it's a good thing?  I certainly would.

Now what if you were told that it had bi-partisan support of both Republican and Democrats?  Sounds even better right.

What if on top of both of those if I told you it would also give the ability for us to create a product we export to other countries for profit?

And now what if I told you it would also give our country the ability to lessen our dependency on oil from the Middle East and lower our costs for fuel and heating oil?

Who in their right mind would ever say no to that?

Obama would.

The Keystone XL Project would do all of those things but ignoring his own party's support Obama instead used this as an opportunity to play politics and claim Republicans want dirty air and dirty water.

What makes matters even worse is now Canada's Priminister has stated that he will instead pursue plans to instead to sell that oil to China.

The Washington Times wrote the following in an article you can read in full HERE:

the Obama administration Wednesday rejected the proposed route for the Keystone XL oil pipeline that would provide up to 20,000 jobs on a project stretching from Canada to the Texas coast.

The pipeline, which would have been the largest infrastructure project in the country, has been a political nightmare for President Obama, with top business groups, Republican presidential candidates, the Canadian government, unions and even some of Mr. Obama’s fellow Democrats all slamming Wednesday’s rejection.

After Obama was first elected didn't we hear time and time again from Democrats that their increased spending was necessary because we needed to build up a better infrastructure in this country?  Yet here we have one of the largest ever that would bring great benefit to our country and Obama shoots it down.

“This political decision offers hard evidence that creating jobs is not a high priority for this administration,” U.S. Chamber of Commerce head Tom Donohue said. “The president’s decision sends a strong message to the business community and to investors: Keep your money on the sidelines, America is not open for business.”

Hard to argue with that.  When unemployment continues to hover close to 10% (many argue that true unemployment is well over 10%) how do you not look for ways to make a project work that will bring tens of thousands of permanent new jobs to this country?

The application has been under review by the government for three years, and Mr. Obama unsuccessfully tried to put off a final decision until after the November elections.

This quote is what worries me the most.  Obama is clearly playing politics pushing off things like this as much as he can so not to tick off too many people before his re-election but if he is re-elected and doesn't have to worry about coming off popular enough to keep independent voters on his side what more will he do?  How many other things like this that he knows will outrage voters has he been successful at pushing off under after the November elections?

Mr. Obama issued a statement Wednesday afternoon saying he agreed with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s decision to reject the project that would carry oil from tar sands in Alberta to refineries on the Gulf Coast, saying the project as proposed “would not serve the national interest.”

Really?  It would not serve the national interest?  New jobs, less dependent on Middle Eastern oil?  Our ability to refine the oil we bring in into gas which we then export for profit?

“I’m disappointed that Republicans in Congress forced this decision, but it does not change my administration’s commitment to American-made energy that creates jobs and reduces our dependence on oil.”

Ah the old green pipe dream.  Problem is our country runs on oil and there is no current alternative.  So instead of living in the here and now and moving forward with a project that would help produce jobs and lower the cost of oil he instead pushes a political agenda.

Oh and did I mention that oil is also needed for things like plastics?  By shooting this project down, Obama has approved the continued rise in the cost of oil to our nation increase costs not just of fuel and heating oil but also increases costs of every day items.  That plastic lawn chair for instance that you sit in during the summer, or the plastics that make your children's toys, the casing for your computer mouse and keyboard and so on.  This is increasing the costs of living on the poor of this country.

Don't just take my word on it, here are the statements from other Democrats on this project:

Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA): “Landrieu says she’d support Keystone in payroll/ui/doc fix bill. Says ‘good deal’of D & R support for it.” (Trish Turner, Twitter, 12/15/11)

Sen. Mark Begich (D-AK): “Another sticking point is that Republicans inserted in their bill language that would fast-track the proposed Keystone X-L oil pipeline extension from Canada down to the Lower 48.  …Senator Begich is supportive of moving the project forward and his office says that’s not a problem.” (Alaska Public Radio, 12/14/11)

Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND): “I personally think the pipeline is absolutely in the national interest.  It’ll help us reduce our dependence on foreign energy, at least foreign sources that are hostile to our interests… I, for one, on this side would hope that this could be part of a final package…” (Floor remarks, 12/14/11)

Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO): “Well, let’s hope we can negotiate something like that… if states’ rights are being protected and if this is going to be something maybe that we can try to jumpstart the approval process, make it go more quickly.” (MSNBC, 12/14/11)

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV): “I am for the Keystone pipeline. …  everyone’s for it, it creates thousands of jobs!” (Fox News, 12/12/11)

Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT): “I am proud to again offer my support for the Keystone XL pipeline and the jobs it will create. We need a quicker decision, based on the merits of this project.” (Floor Remarks, 12/13/11)

Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC): “I’m very much for the pipeline. There is no question about that.”  (MSNBC, 12/14/11)

Rep. Dan Boren (D-OK): “I commend the Speaker for including the construction of the Keystone XL pipelinethat is supported by business and labor.” (Release, 12/12/11)

Rep. Dennis Cardoza (D-CA): “‘I think the president’s wrong on this,’ said Cardoza, who is retiring after this Congress.  ‘He can veto whatever he wants, but those are both policies I support.’” (POLITICO, 12/7/11)

Rep. Gene Green (D-TX): “Rep. Gene Green (D-Texas) said he’s not swayed by Obama’s veiled veto pledge. … ‘The Keystone is awfully important,’ Green said.” (POLITICO, 12/8/11)

Votes of the Living Dead

The New Hampshire voting scene has caught fire with discussions regarding the renegade reporting showing how easy it is to walk into a NH polling site, give the name of a deceased voter and get a ballot to vote.  In fact they were able to pull this off 5 out of 6 times with the last exception only due to the fact the person had just recently died and one of the people working the polls knew them.  Even then they were able to walk out of the polling site and able to continue their attempts at other locations.

The only reason they were "caught" is because their video has been posted online for all to see.

What I find most amusing in this is that the very group who scream the loudest in opposition to voter ID bills are the same ones pushing to have charges filed in this case despite the fact this case proves how easy it is to get away with voting illegally.

Personally I would have like to have seen two addition examples shown in the videos.

Example 1: Walk into a polling location and state you are between addresses, offer to show your valid out of state license and state you are "staying" in that current town and would like to be allowed to vote.  Make sure you point out you just arrived in town that morning too.

Example 2: Walk into a polling location and give a completely bogus name and address.  If you really want to push the envelope offer the name of a street that doesn't even exist or use house numbers that don't exist but are between two valid numbers that do.

Before attempting either of these, I should advise you the 2nd example is clearly illegal under current NH laws but since a poll worker can't ask for ID how would they know you are giving a fake name?  The address they may be able to catch just as the worker in Manchester caught the name of the deceased by chance of knowing the person, likewise you may find a worker who knows the streets well enough to catch a bogus address.  The first example however wouldn't fall under any NH laws.  Geoff Wetrosky is living proof of that, he came here working on a national campaign, walked into a polling site and registered with the address of the Democratic Party's Chairs home and voted.  He then turned around and left for his home state.  Even though he was stopped by police after voting here for stealing political signs and gave his valid out of state address as his legal address proving he never lived here no charges were ever filed for his voting here.

Either we need to agree illegal voting is wrong and seek the necessary changes to prevent it or those unwilling to make the changes need to accept that what happened here can happen and admit they are ok with it.