patrick.net

Illegals can't actually recieve benefits, but get them on behalf of their citizen children, hahaha. That makes our politicians double-dumb...but none of them is as dumb as all of them.

Bap33 says

would please look for all of the information then you will not seem to be purposely avoiding facts that do not match your chosen political view.

Really ? The truth is, you said open your eyes. I just sought data showing the real trends in welfare outlays, not having any more of clue than you do what is really going on. What I found, were very clear official reports that were made to congress.

The trend seems to be significantly down in avg monthly welfare payments and down significantly in number of families on welfare. Food stamps seems to be oscillating back and forth over the same decades.

But it's all a trick. The way they get these to go down is by redirecting all the increasing welfare in to other categories. I see. You got me.

By the way, I may have a bias, but umm, you're the one who calls undocumented workers "invaders." I'm pretty sure that compared to you, at least on this issue, I'm objective.

This article is somewhat related, on Germany/Europe vs the US:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article26603.htm?source=patrick.net

@ Kevin, are you playing devils advocate, or are you serious? You have always been pretty darn smart, so my guess is you are fully aware of how invaders have accessed the welfare system. If one were to look at Prop 187 and how the vote of California tax payers was destroyed ... a vote to keep invaders from accessing public support, that may show a possible issue.

@marcus, I agree, we have our biases. And yes, we have been invaded in California by mexicans who have no desire, at all, to be Americans. That would be "invader". Since there are mexican nationals that ARE taking the steps to be American's, there MUST be a destinction made between the two. One is an invaders taking short cuts, and one is a CITIZEN, willing to do what it takes to follow the laws of their new country. I choose to not dishonor the efforts of those who follow the law.

Bap33 says

And yes, we have been invaded in California by mexicans who have no desire, at all, to be Americans

Bap, I just don't see it that way. Sure, California's resources are stretched by the undocumented Mexcians.

As to whether the typical Mexican family that comes here has a desire to be American (given the proximity of their original country), that's irrelevant. Resistance is futile. Most will ultimately be assimilated, at least in a way. If they don't aspire for their kids to get a good education, their kids will want it for their kids. Do you have any idea how many Mexican Americans (legal) there are in California ? Do you have any idea how many of them join the armed services, and fight for this country?

Guess what ? Most of those Americans have parents or grandparents or further back who would fit your description of "invader."

I don't argue that it's fair for them to basically "cut" in line ahead of other foreigners who want to come here. But ultimately, in the long run, I do not see it as a negative to our country.

My father was 100% Irish, and my mom was I don't know, with ancestors going way way back in this country. But on my dad's side, his grandparents and great grandparents came over from Ireland. How much different am I from the many millions of people like me that will be here 150 years from now, and who are Mexican American, or half or quarter Mexican american ? Most paying taxes and being good citizens.

Bap33 says

and one is a CITIZEN, willing to do what it takes to follow the laws of their new country. I choose to not dishonor the efforts of those who follow the law.

I agree. And it's not that I fully approve of the illegals, but I think I kind of understand that they want a better life, and that ultimately they are responding to a "market" that we play a part in.

The Iron Lady is in the hospital .... let's hope this great lady gets well soon.

Margaret Thatcher said it best: “The problem with socialism is that you always run out of someone else’s money.”

Dear Duck:

Thatcher came in as a conservative reformist. She inherited a complete mess due entirely to the UK's post war socialism. Remember the nutty Brits turned Churchill out (another true conservative) in order to impliment their socialist/welfare state .... which failed. Under the Iron Lady, the UK began to turn the corner and actually prospered for the first time since before the war. The fact is, Thather, like Ronald Reagan, detested socialism. As the Iron Lady, she worked with Ronald Reagan to help dismantle (along with the Berlin Wall) your socialist dream world; the Soviet Union.

Bap33 says

All,
I was just blowing off steam. Don’t expect some detailed explaination of why having to watch another chubby teen mom of 3 spanish speaking kids buying $400 worth of steaks and cookies and sodas pisses me off … I don’t have one. It just bugs me.

Bap -
I see it both ways. It truly sucks that people are able to continually pop out children and remain on welfare programs. Having worked in a housing authority, it irked the shit outta me when a grandmother added her children, then her grandchildren to the lease, and the unit became multigenerational housing that the people couldn't be evicted out of (sorry about the poor grammar there). It pissed me off when we were forced to create departments designed to help people become self-sufficient when all they appeared to want was the financial assistance (matched funds, case management and referrals, etc). But we did help some people and I guess it was semi-successful.

The welfare moms that bilk the system suck. But do we as a society allow children to starve because the parents are total user idiots? We attempt to discourage the procreating mothers by paying them a minimal amount to keep them in poverty but offering them student loans and childcare... only to have them screwed royally by programs like Everest College that promise the moon and deliver very little. University of Phoenix and other private colleges are accused of having low repayment rates and the graduates seem to have little opportunity for employment. So, not only do we pay welfare and childcare, we eat the costs of their guaranteed student loans. That blows. These colleges should be required to pay back loans if the students don't get jobs in the field that they're being trained for.

But sometimes people do get off welfare. The children have a desire to better themselves, or they're inspired by a teacher (who isn't caught up in politics and nochildleftbehind bullshit)... We spend billions each year on people who don't appreciate it, but every now and then someone does. But I digress.

Do we let the children starve merely because their mothers can't stop popping out kids? It's assault to force them to take birth control - but why isn't there mandatory paternity testing for all these welfare babies? If the fathers had to pay for their welfare babies they'd probably use birth control. If they didn't pay, they should go to jail. If the mothers don't identify the fathers, they should go to jail and the kids put in foster care. They'd cough up names pretty quick.

There are many ideas as to what to do - but there are so many laws and rules that we've been stripped of our ability to implement the ideas. We do need change. I have a friend who works for a state agency and they're talking about eliminating programs - there's a very real possibility that she could lose her job. That sucks, but her program is one of those pilot programs that doesn't do shit except pay about 50 people very well to not help people.

A comment was made that you should make more money. Maybe you should shop elsewhere, where you don't have to stand in line behind these people. While you're at it, perhaps you should find another family because yours is busting with welfare recipients. Other ideas would be to take your paycheck and buy lotto tickets, or sell drugs, or rob a bank. Like our current system, this train of thought negates the fact that the system is broken and needs fixing.

I realize that I'm talking about fixing the program and not throwing out names like Thomas Jefferson, Hitler, Stalin, JFK, Thatcher, Newton, etc... I apologize for inserting thoughtful content, and not attacking anyone or claiming that I won.

Just keeping it real.

Ray - Thatcher did some good things for the UK, helping lift the country out of poverty in the 70s/80s, but the pendulum may have swang too far, just look at where the UK is now, compared with say Scandinavia or Germany, which have been doing much better.

The problem with American political discourse is that people are too anchored in ideological dogmas and not able to have a critical, nonbiased look at policies. Some "socialist" policies turn out to have a very positive economic impact.

Take childcare for example. In Quebec, it's subsidised by the state (province). Quality daycare in your neighborhood costs $7/day, with the province picking up most of the tab. But as a result, most moms work, generating income taxes and helping the labor pool develop. Younger single mothers can go to school (with colleges costing only $1,100/yr). This policy has been credited with almost single-handedly closing the wealth gap between Quebec and Ontario. Quebec used to be a poorer province. Today it has an unemployment rate smaller than either Ontario's or the US.

Freemarket and liberalism tend to be good impulses, but you've got to be able to judge the merit of economic policies without strong preconceived ideological biases. The problem in the US is that most people are too entrenched in a dogmatic mindset to be able to do this.

good post ellie.

yes, it was. Thanks for taking the time. I'd disagree though with the statement "Freemarket and liberalism tend to be good impulses" as I see morality as being independent of these systems, but the rest is fine by me.

Charles Hugh Smith has an interesting take on it:
http://www.oftwominds.com/blogoct10/normalized-pathologies10-10.html

elliemae says

welfare moms

Related, I for one am amazed we're still able to discuss 'welfare moms' as being a scourge on society after our gov has dropped Trillions on the banking system and corporations. I'd love to see a comparison of what the 'welfare moms' "cost us" to what the continuous gifts to corporate america do.

As far as continuing support for 'welfare moms' it actually doesn't bother me that much at all when I know that I live in a society that keeps me generally safe and secure and I have opportunities to develop and grow. Its a small price to pay for all the benefits. Besides, who knows, it may be me there one day and I'm eased by the knowledge that there's some sort of support system in place.

Welfare should be workfare. Got kids? Let some of the welfare moms watch all the kids while the rest do public work. I would have no problem with that.

It appears no one here is aware that welfare was reformed in 96. Lifetime benefits is 5 years, although each state is free to implement more or less than this.

Getting people upset about welfare is an amazing way to get them to ignore the real budget problems, like the ridiculous military spending and all the pork that congressmen send back to their districts.

Kevin, I totally agree with you, but would consider welfare fraud - and there is plenty of it, to be included with all the other ridiculous, mind boggling, rampant spending that is constantly going on. Taxes are crack-cocaine for politicians. I'd like to see all foreign aid money spent right here in America. Come on now, shouldn't we take care of Americans first? Somehow sending OUR money to other countries, while ignoring ourselves, doesn't quite make sense to me.

My problem is that I'm a logical person stuck in an illogical world (beam me up Scotty, there's no intelligent life down here).

Honest Abe says

BTW, it was recently reported that America is now less free than Britain…the country we fought to obtain our freedom from, UGH.

LOL, who reported that ? Was it Colbert again or that other dude with his million moderate march ? I dont think we obtained freedom from Britain, we obtained a whole frickin country from Britain. We the people decided how much freedom we wanted right ?

which one of you wants to be the one to tell this guy, Drew, he's not going to get help if you can possibly block it? I'm sure we can easily get his contact info. Just let me know, I'll pass the info to you so you can tell him personally:

http://www.wimp.com/homelessnessanyone/

and Abey, you're aware I assume that Israel is basically one of the biggest charity cases for the US, right? Shall we quit them, in your educated opinion?

Honest Abe says

Kevin, I totally agree with you, but would consider welfare fraud - and there is plenty of it, to be included with all the other ridiculous, mind boggling, rampant spending that is constantly going on. Taxes are crack-cocaine for politicians. I’d like to see all foreign aid money spent right here in America. Come on now, shouldn’t we take care of Americans first? Somehow sending OUR money to other countries, while ignoring ourselves, doesn’t quite make sense to me.
My problem is that I’m a logical person stuck in an illogical world (beam me up Scotty, there’s no intelligent life down here).

That's nice but the truth is welfare and foreign aid are such a small part of the budget that they represent little more than a rounding error in defense spending. Ranting about them while ignoring defense is illogical.

Honest Abe says

Kevin, I totally agree with you, but would consider welfare fraud - and there is plenty of it, to be included with all the other ridiculous, mind boggling, rampant spending that is constantly going on. Taxes are crack-cocaine for politicians. I’d like to see all foreign aid money spent right here in America. Come on now, shouldn’t we take care of Americans first? Somehow sending OUR money to other countries, while ignoring ourselves, doesn’t quite make sense to me.
My problem is that I’m a logical person stuck in an illogical world (beam me up Scotty, there’s no intelligent life down here).

Your problem is that you act as if welfare spending (and foreign aid, really?) is the big problem, and it isn't. I'd be all for killing all of those programs -- but they're NOT the priority. They're a tiny part of the budget. We need to focus on places where we actually spend money.

Here is where the federal government collects money (2010 est):
$1.061 trillion – Individual income taxes
$940 billion – Social Security and other payroll tax
$222 billion – Corporation income taxes
$77 billion – Excise taxes
$23 billion – Customs duties
$20 billion – Estate and gift taxes
$22 billion – Deposits of earnings
$16 billion – Other

Here is a list of where we are spending:

Mandatory:

$678 billion – Social Security
$453 billion – Medicare
Total: $1.13T

"Welfare"
$290 billion – Medicaid
$200 billion - other (WIC, etc.)
Total: $490B (I'll say $500B to be generous)

Military:
$700B - DoD / War on Terror
$250B - Iraq/ Afghanistan appropriations
$52B - VA
$42B - DHS
Total: $1.1 T (and this doesn't even include indirect spending by other agencies)

Everything else:
$1.1T (includes "bailouts", interest on debt, and all other federal agencies)

So, lets recap:

Social Security + Medicare + Military spending = $2.23T (63% of spending)
Total revenue = $2.3T

So, we DO NOT COLLECT ENOUGH REVENUE TO PAY FOR SS, MEDICARE, AND THE MILITARY.

If we exclude social security and medicare, since they're funded separately, we have a slightly better picture:

- $1.44T revenue
- $2.7T spending

Now, the military would account for 40% of the budget. The remaining 60% could be reduced, yeah -- but probably less than half of it. You're still screwed.

Yeah, go ahead and get rid of welfare. Slash the various federal agencies.

You still have a huge deficit.

You must, must, must address the big 3 as a top priority. There is absolutely no hope of a balanced budget without cutting at least one of the programs dramatically. You could reduce all other spending to zero, and still have a deficit (because of interest on the debt). The country would collapse in on itself and you'd STILL have a deficit!

Only one of those programs is considered discretionary
Only one of those programs lacks dedicated funding

you're right - we're spending too much money on the military for wars we can't win.

hmmmm ... no army = invaded (more than just what mexico has done for the past 30 years)

no gov mandated welfare = no vote buying = no wealth transfers = freedom to give how and where you wish = ACCOUNTABLITY to the supporting public from those who access their support.

hmmm tuff choice.

since the very basic need for a society to survive is safety, DEFENSE has a VERY LOGICAL position in a budget. Creating an entire nation of cradle to grave tit-hangers hooked on dope, and/or hooked on porn, is not good for a society to survive.

Here's the thing folks, the freedom to choose a path is only here becasue we have big guns and use them. If you feel more drugged-up breeders, and invaders, need more money, give them yours ... all of yours ... and then you will feel better. I want to spend my money on secruity, like the founding fathers intended.

Reading comprehension is hard to obtain.

I'm not suggesting ending all military spending. I am suggesting cutting it b y at least half.

Kevin says

I’m not suggesting ending all military spending. I am suggesting cutting it b y at least half.

$500B / $50,000 per job = ten million jobs go bye-bye.

Better hope Honest Abe doesn't cut the social safety net on these newly-unemployed people. Ouch.

I understand the numbers involved. But, one item is needed, and one item is not. The difference could only be in what one views as a need and what one views as a want.

The fact remains, you MUST have security before you have the luxury of any wealth transfer welfare system. You must have security before you can hold elections, pass laws, enforce laws, build jails, schools, churches, roads, trains, whatever society requires ... the very very very first thing needed is a secure environment.

Some low-lifes here in Sunnyvale just slashed my convertible roof to steal my ~$50 iPod Nano. I'm now with Bap -- send them all back. : )

Actually my preferred solution is that Mexicans can only live in towns with Spanish names.

Younstill don't get it. The military budget is more than twice as big as it needs to be to provide security. We don't need to be fighting two wars in the middle east, maintaining army bases in japan, or building f16s to keep invading armies out.

And military spending is a shitty form of job stimulus. Far too much money gets spent on physical material cost and private profits. You'd be way better off employing teachers at free universities or people to build high speed rail lines.

Bap33 says

I understand the numbers involved. But, one item is needed, and one item is not. The difference could only be in what one views as a need and what one views as a want.
The fact remains, you MUST have security before you have the luxury of any wealth transfer welfare system. You must have security before you can hold elections, pass laws, enforce laws, build jails, schools, churches, roads, trains, whatever society requires … the very very very first thing needed is a secure environment.

You can't really consider more than a small amount of the U.S. military budget to be defense (i.e. security); a huge amount of it is offense ("power projection"). For comparison, China spends a little under 100 billion on its military. Lets say for our own defense we need to spend double, triple that - this still would allow us to slash our own military budget (over 650 billion) by more than half.

Kevin says

Younstill don’t get it. The military budget is more than twice as big as it needs to be to provide security. We don’t need to be fighting two wars in the middle east, maintaining army bases in japan, or building f16s to keep invading armies out.

Believe me most people "get it", they just like being able to consider USA as the military superpower able to go where it wants, and take what it wants. You don't invade and occupy countries and control strategic resources, using the Coast Guard and whatever Minutemen you can convince to muster up when they feel like it.

Kevin says

The military budget is more than twice as big as it needs to be to provide security. We don’t need to be fighting two wars in the middle east, maintaining army bases in japan, or building f16s to keep invading armies out.

Why doesn't Obama "CHANGE" things? Last I checked, he's expanding the war in Afghanistan, isn't closing down any "army bases in Japan" or anywhere else in the world? When do you think this "change" thingy is going to kick into gear?

Hey, hey...don't make us consciously acknowledge it.

I'd much prefer to think of it as defense only, against you know the axis of evil and so on.

Probably most of us see it like that, as necessary for defense, that is for who knows what might arise. It's a scary world out there, especially when push comes to shove over natural resources. Sort of a, "hey somebody has to do it."

And then we prefer not to think about the side benefit (cost) that meanwhile it gets used for manipulating strategically (but perceived as bullying) and even as justification for small wars that seem mostly about putting our military resources to use, and justifying corporate welfare to the defense industry.

I know it's not that simple. I just hope that we can get to where a group of leading countries share more in the responsibility and the cost of defending the world against "evil." When too much of it lies on us, we are bound to let special (powerful) interests have too much say in how our military power is used.

"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."
- Maj. General Smedley Butler in "War is a Racket"

RayAmerica says

Kevin says

The military budget is more than twice as big as it needs to be to provide security. We don’t need to be fighting two wars in the middle east, maintaining army bases in japan, or building f16s to keep invading armies out.

Why doesn’t Obama “CHANGE” things? Last I checked, he’s expanding the war in Afghanistan, isn’t closing down any “army basis in Japan” or anywhere else in the world? When do you think this “change” thingy is going to kick into gear?

You got me. My best guess is that he's a coward like most democrats and is afraid to face an attack ad about how he's soft on "defense". Obama for the most part is a middle-of-the road weenie, hardly a radical.

Bap33 says

hmmmm … no army = invaded (more than just what mexico has done for the past 30 years)
no gov mandated welfare = no vote buying = no wealth transfers = freedom to give how and where you wish = ACCOUNTABLITY to the supporting public from those who access their support.
hmmm tuff choice.
since the very basic need for a society to survive is safety, DEFENSE has a VERY LOGICAL position in a budget. Creating an entire nation of cradle to grave tit-hangers hooked on dope, and/or hooked on porn, is not good for a society to survive.
Here’s the thing folks, the freedom to choose a path is only here becasue we have big guns and use them. If you feel more drugged-up breeders, and invaders, need more money, give them yours … all of yours … and then you will feel better. I want to spend my money on secruity, like the founding fathers intended.

That is the most idiotic thing I've ever read. Invaded by who? Russia can barely invade Georgia. China hasn't managed to cross the 100 mile wide Formosa straight to take back Tawain even after 70 years of intense desire to do so. Who's left? Will we have Cuban troops marching down Pennsylvania ave.? Oh right, I forgot about that massive North Korean navy invasion force. The only serious threat to the US since the war of 1812 is a terrorist with a nuclear warhead. You don't need subs with nuclear missiles and aircraft carriers to fight terrorists.

The founding fathers spending money on security??? Feel free to look at the debates of the founding fathers. Almost all, as well as almost all state governments specifically said there should be no standing army. Here is the transcript of the congressional debate about enacting the second amendment.
http://www.constitution.org/mil/militia_debate_1789.htm
Try to at least know something about what you are talking about.

bob ... check the date. 1789
and they did what? debate.
how? they were in a secure location
how? we won a war that we started in 1776
how? bigger balls and God's own hand (Gen. Washington said so, only more fancy than that)

just keep it in proper order, bob:
in 1776 we had enough of the bullshit and we won (alot like this Nov vote about to happen)
in 1787 we were able to sit and draw up the plan to live by (only the mistakes of modern man have fouled the plan.
in 1789 the states were smart enough to not want a common force that the Prez (King) could control so they made sure only Congress could declare war and put the weapon to use. ONE WAY TO ENSURE THE STATES REMAIN SOVEREIGN WAS TO HAVE AN ARMED POPULATION IN EACH STATE - check the 2nd ammendment for details.
2nd ammendment came in 1791 as a result of the mediltia debates. I love you bob for pointing that out.

due to my lack of intellect, I keep it simple. Without a big weapon and it's proper use there is no freedom in America the nation, or in any American state (see Az.), or anyplace else. Thanks bob.

Sorry for being an idot

bob2356 says

You don’t need subs with nuclear missiles and aircraft carriers to fight terrorists.

that is the 2nd most idiotic statement on this thread

You gotta like Bap. He might be a right winger, and you might disagree with him on a lot of things, but his EQ (emotional intelligence) is way above Abe or Ray's. He doesn't let his emotions get the best of him (with the possible exception of one topic).

He's a true southern gentleman.

RayAmerica says

Why doesn’t Obama “CHANGE” things? Last I checked, he’s expanding the war in Afghanistan, isn’t closing down any “army bases in Japan” or anywhere else in the world? When do you think this “change” thingy is going to kick into gear?

We elected Obama President not King. There is a difference. The national security state is supporting 10 million or so jobs, probably twice that when all the velocity of money effects are taken into account. Congress will not give up this jobs program without a major fight. And that's just the economic aspect. The political aspect of "change" is even more frightful. Scaling back offensive operations when the threat of AQ is still very real is very tough in the "optics" of "losing Afghanistan" and the risk one runs in being "soft on the terrorists".

Obama doesn't have a chance with the 40% nutball right, but he does have to rely on keeping the very pro-military states like FL (29 EVs), NC/VA (28), CO (9). The blue states in 2008 will be worth 359 EVs in 2012, so losing these states would bring him down to 293 EVs, putting him just 23 EVs -- eg. Iowa and Ohio -- away from defeat.

Those two states happen to be one of his weaker showings with under 55% of the vote going to Obama in 2008. 55% looks like a solid victory but that's just 11 out of 20 people. 1 voter changing their mind out of 20 and you get a tie.

Not that it matters though. I think he's going to be Cartered easily enough. Even Paiin might take him out in 2012. I'll be back in Japan by then, hopefully.

Bap33 says

bob2356 says

You don’t need subs with nuclear missiles and aircraft carriers to fight terrorists.

that is the 2nd most idiotic statement on this thread

Wow bap, you have a very cargo-cult like appreciation of how the US military works. Build big things and John Frum will come.

Troy says

Obama doesn’t have a chance with the 40% nutball right, but he does have to rely on keeping the very pro-military states like FL (29 EVs), NC/VA (28), CO (9). The blue states in 2008 will be worth 359 EVs in 2012, so losing these states would bring him down to 293 EVs, putting him just 23 EVs — eg. Iowa and Ohio — away from defeat.

An amazing statement. To sum what you are saying; Obama is playing politics with the lives of our military at the expense of possibly losing electoral votes. And you people claim the right is radical. Furthermore, you claim a "40% nut ball right" isn't giving Obama "a chance." That's giving the right far too much credit when you consider Obama has enjoyed control of the House & Senate since he took office.

RayAmerica says

Obama is playing politics with the lives of our military at the expense of possibly losing electoral votes

Did I say that? Where?

What I actually think, and I apologize if I can't word it clearly enough for you to understand, is that he has to cater to the pro-military sentiment in military states like FL (much Navy presence), NC (XVIII Airborne), VA (Navy/Marines), CO (Air Force) . The present military itself wants to go deeper, just like they wanted to expand their mission in Vietnam. If you haven't noticed, Obama has kept around Bush's existing national security apparatus. I think this is to avoid the mistakes Clinton made with eg. Les Aspin. It's better to make the same mistakes a Republican would make than make your own mistakes as a Democrat, politically speaking.

If Obama doesn't "finish the job" then he's betrayed the troops who have sacrificed so much in Afghanistan. If he does go along with the program, he's not Mr Hope & Change.

Thing is, he campaigned on expanding the war in Afghanistan so there should be no surprises here.

“40% nut ball right” isn’t giving Obama “a chance.”

There should be nothing controversial about this. Obama is the diametric opposite to the conservative right in this country on nearly every issue -- he's said this isn't a Christian nation, is pro-abortion, appointed a lesbian to the Supreme Court, wants to raise taxes on wealthy people, etc. Why should these people give him a chance? They oppose his policy preferences with every fiber of their being. If Obama made gold rain from the sky on command the radical right still wouldn't vote for him in 2012.

Troy says

If Obama made gold rain from the sky on command the radical right still wouldn’t vote for him in 2012.

If he made gold rain from the sky, we definitely have some people around here that wouldn't vote for him.