Obama care $$$ handout without verifying validy of recipients!!!!

[Guest]

ANother example of how "liberal" our government has become (yes pun intended).

After being so incompetent to hand out $750 million they then have the nerve to even talk about recovering the money...:1rotfl:....from folks they have no idea where they are from? where they live? who they are?...:1rotfl:

Example after example of why the government should not be involved in our lives any more than neccessary.

Senate report: Illegal immigrants benefited from up to $750M in ObamaCare subsidies | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/02/08/senate-report-illegal-immigrants-benefited-from-up-to-750m-in-obamacare-subsidies.html)

And the people who obey the laws of the land get the shaft once again.

A way to get equal benefits is to go to Mexico and come back with one of the hordes coming across and then just follow them to the hand out windows!! Give them a fake name and address just like everybody else. And then head for home.

[Guest]

All for the voters! I mine more voters, how to turn illegal to legal, I'm on Obamacare legal as it gets to vote.

[Guest]

All for the voters! I mine more voters, how to turn illegal to legal, I'm on Obamacare legal as it gets to vote.

I give up....:shrug:

[Guest]

It's all part of the plan....

"The Cloward–Piven strategy is a political strategy outlined in 1966 by American sociologists and political activists Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven that called for overloading the U.S. public welfare system in order to precipitate a crisis that would lead to a replacement of the welfare system with a national system of "a guaranteed annual income and thus an end to poverty".[1][2]

History
Cloward and Piven were both professors at the Columbia University School of Social Work. The strategy was formulated in a May 1966 article in the liberal magazine The Nation titled "The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty".[1][2]

The two stated that many Americans who were eligible for welfare were not receiving benefits, and that a welfare enrollment drive would strain local budgets, precipitating a crisis at the state and local levels that would be a wake-up call for the federal government, particularly the Democratic Party...."

There would also be side consequences of this strategy, according to Cloward and Piven. These would include: easing the plight of the poor in the short-term (through their participation in the welfare system); shoring up support for the national Democratic Party-then splintered by pluralistic interests (through its cultivation of poor and minority constituencies by implementing a national "solution" to poverty); and relieving local governments of the financially and politically onerous burdens of public welfare (through a national "solution" to poverty).[2]

Wikipedia

[Guest]

As you join in to beat down Obama on this website I remember the super conservative Reagan promising a new dept that would root out wasteful spending. I think he said they would be as mean as "junk yard dogs". Well I also remember those junk your dogs getting nutured and forgetting what they were there for. When it comes to giveaways there is not difference between the parties, only the recipients of the government largess changes. Kind of like promising tax cuts to get elected when we have a 19T debt and 120T unfunded promises. Obama is not the problem.

[Guest]

As you join in to beat down Obama on this website I remember the super conservative Reagan promising a new dept that would root out wasteful spending. I think he said they would be as mean as "junk yard dogs". Well I also remember those junk your dogs getting nutured and forgetting what they were there for. When it comes to giveaways there is not difference between the parties, only the recipients of the government largess changes. Kind of like promising tax cuts to get elected when we have a 19T debt and 120T unfunded promises. Obama is not the problem.

:22yikes:

[Guest]

As you join in to beat down Obama on this website I remember the super conservative Reagan promising a new dept that would root out wasteful spending. I think he said they would be as mean as "junk yard dogs". Well I also remember those junk your dogs getting nutured and forgetting what they were there for. When it comes to giveaways there is not difference between the parties, only the recipients of the government largess changes. Kind of like promising tax cuts to get elected when we have a 19T debt and 120T unfunded promises. Obama is not the problem.

Nope, he will no longer be the problem. He has been part of the problem for the past ten years, though. Jan 20th 2017 Obama will no longer be part of the problem. He will be SNL's problem. :thumbup: