Commander in Chief

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

KOM

Senior Member
10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2006
Messages
1,241
Reaction score
5
You know guys, I know this will be controversial, but I must say that listening to Obama's presidential address to congress is a breath of fresh air.

Republican/Democratic boundaries aside, this guy can form coherent sentences and speak intelligently on the issues that face America.

Members don't see this ad.
 
Last edited:
You know guys, I know this will be controversial, but I must say that listening to Obama's presidential address to congress is a breath of fresh air.

Republican/Democratic boundaries aside, this guy can form coherent sentences and speak intelligently on the issues that face America.

What is controversial about this? No one has ever doubted Pres. Obama's ability as a speaker. He pays good money for folks to write for him.

What you are really saying is that our last president couldnt form coherent sentences or speak intelligently. This is not a new charge, but it is unfair. Everyone can be made to sound like a dufus. Besides if you had to constantly deal with an unfriendly press all the time (unfriendly being the charitable name for it) you might also choose your words so carefully as to appear stupid.

Obama doesnt have to deal with an unfriendly press. They love him. He can say all manner of ridiculous things (just google Obama Gaffes, and you will see what I mean) and he gets away with it in a way that Dan Quayle or Bush never could have. Quayle misspelled ONE word and was labeled a ****** for it.

I am not faulting Obama in the least for this. It's his job to put his best foot forward. The Press, on the other hand, has sold its soul and is not to be trusted. The point of all this? Yes Obama is a good speaker. But our last president was a decent speaker as well, but the press never gave him credit.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Hitler was a great speaker as well. I mean, I'm just saying.

It's not what they say, but what they do.
 
What is controversial about this? No one has ever doubted Pres. Obama's ability as a speaker. He pays good money for folks to write for him.

What you are really saying is that our last president couldnt form coherent sentences or speak intelligently. This is not a new charge, but it is unfair. Everyone can be made to sound like a dufus. Besides if you had to constantly deal with an unfriendly press all the time (unfriendly being the charitable name for it) you might also choose your words so carefully as to appear stupid.

Obama doesnt have to deal with an unfriendly press. They love him. He can say all manner of ridiculous things (just google Obama Gaffes, and you will see what I mean) and he gets away with it in a way that Dan Quayle or Bush never could have. Quayle misspelled ONE word and was labeled a ****** for it.

I am not faulting Obama in the least for this. It's his job to put his best foot forward. The Press, on the other hand, has sold its soul and is not to be trusted. The point of all this? Yes Obama is a good speaker. But our last president was a decent speaker as well, but the press never gave him credit.


Well said.
 
You know guys, I know this will be controversial, but I must say that listening to Obama's presidential address to congress is a breath of fresh air.

Republican/Democratic boundaries aside, this guy can form coherent sentences and speak intelligently on the issues that face America.

Is that before, during or after the Uh, uh, uh, uh.
 
I agree it is refreshing. He's pretty poor from the hip though.

What's disturbing is how the presidential election is turning into American Idol. Let's face it, the guy is president because of superficial qualities.

Wow, a great READER?!?!?!? Does he need a teleprompter in the oval office when addressing his cabinent?

Obama = EMPTY SUIT.
 
Obama's gonna get hit hard come election 2012.

"Just Words" will be the catch phrase that sticks.
 
Oh I know ... I just think that one is really funny!

I hear ya, I was trying to prove the point that they are both (Bush and Obama) human and have their moments. Unfortunately, Obama's buddies in the media never exploit his blunders too. I personally relate better with a leader that is more realistic.
 
I hear ya, I was trying to prove the point that they are both (Bush and Obama) human and have their moments. Unfortunately, Obama's buddies in the media never exploit his blunders too. I personally relate better with a leader that is more realistic.

How dare you say the "MessiUH" is anything less than perfect. :eek:
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I hear ya, I was trying to prove the point that they are both (Bush and Obama) human and have their moments. Unfortunately, Obama's buddies in the media never exploit his blunders too. I personally relate better with a leader that is more realistic.

I totally agree ... anyone who speaks publicly as much as the president is going to make a lot of mistakes. Does anyone have stats on how many speeches the president gives during a term?
 
I totally agree ... anyone who speaks publicly as much as the president is going to make a lot of mistakes. Does anyone have stats on how many speeches the president gives during a term?


Agreed, but anyone who's taken Public Speaking 101 also know that Cardinal Sin numero UNO is to scrap the empty noises like Ugh, oh, hmmm, etc. Obama is by far the worst speaker I've ever Heard as President. The press surrounding him is delusional in accepting ANYTHING this guy tries to offer. It's pitiful.
 
based on the "Defeat Obamunism!" and your avatar im going to assume you didnt vote for the winner in this election ...
 
But our last president was a decent speaker as well, but the press never gave him credit.

:laugh:

Nope...not in the slightest.

You're all right...it's not "talking the talk, but walking the walk." No arguments there.
 
Wow, a great READER?!?!?!? Does he need a teleprompter in the oval office when addressing his cabinent?

Obama = EMPTY SUIT.

I'm sure George W would have appreciated a telepromter as well if he were literate. Or even McCain if he were able to see it. ;)

I do think Obama is an empty suit as well just like all politicians, but I will continue to appreciate the fact that I can at least understand his English.
 
I'm sure George W would have appreciated a telepromter as well if he were literate. Or even McCain if he were able to see it. ;)

I do think Obama is an empty suit as well just like all politicians, but I will continue to appreciate the fact that I can at least understand his English.

You appreciate the fact that in his one month in office, has grown the defecit by 10%, doubled his disapproval rating, and says a 180 degree different thing than he does - you appreciate being lied to.

The omnibus bill that he was so proud to pass that 'doesn't have any pork/earmarks' has over 8000 EARMARKS. Either someone needs to explain to this derelict what an earmark is, or he's just lying through his teeth and telling you what you 'want' to hear because the majority of his lemmings don't want to let facts get in the way of their fanhood of the 'MessiUH'.

Oh and don't you love how AFTER wrecking the budget and borrowing a near trillion dollars from a country looking to overtake the U.S. as THE World Power, put our future in debt to China that NOW we'll have a 'Pay as we go' system from government????
Sorry you don't borrow and then make that claim. I mean these are TWO HUGE gaffes/lies THIS WEEK ALONE.
 
based on the "Defeat Obamunism!" and your avatar im going to assume you didnt vote for the loser in this election ...


As Americans, we're ALL losers after this past election.

Obama = Jimmy Carter + FDR which equate to the WORST PRESIDENT this country has EVER seen. And I guarantee that history will back me up on this.
 
You appreciate the fact that in his one month in office, has grown the defecit by 10%, doubled his disapproval rating, and says a 180 degree different thing than he does - you appreciate being lied to.

Oh and don't you love how AFTER wrecking the budget and borrowing a near trillion dollars from a country looking to overtake the U.S. as THE World Power, put our future in debt to China that NOW we'll have a 'Pay as we go' system from government????
Sorry you don't borrow and then make that claim. I mean these are TWO HUGE gaffes/lies THIS WEEK ALONE.

No, never said I appreciate it. I truly do hope this "stimulus" stops the downward spiral, but at what cost?

1) As you said...the US taking more and more from a country like China.

2) Throwing money at car industries that STILL ASK FOR MORE even after getting billions of dollars and may very well still tank.

3) And this is the one that concerns me the most...he wants to raise taxes on those making more than 250K to something like 40%!! WHERE IS THE INCENTIVE TO BE PRODUCTIVE WHEN ALMOST HALF OF EVERYTHING YOU MAKE GOES STRAIGHT TO THE GOVT?

4) Scratch that...this concerns me the most...the govt plugging billions of borrowed money into every sector of the economy and creating internal regulations so that they will have a ball and chain around every man, woman, and child in this country. Land of the free? Land of the shackled by govt.

...all I hope is that he isn't as horrible for this country as GW. That's all I ask. :scared:

You'd think with all the people in this country we could find someone better than those on the ballot the past few elections.
 
No, never said I appreciate it. I truly do hope this "stimulus" stops the downward spiral, but at what cost?

1) As you said...the US taking more and more from a country like China.

2) Throwing money at car industries that STILL ASK FOR MORE even after getting billions of dollars and may very well still tank.

3) And this is the one that concerns me the most...he wants to raise taxes on those making more than 250K to something like 40%!! WHERE IS THE INCENTIVE TO BE PRODUCTIVE WHEN ALMOST HALF OF EVERYTHING YOU MAKE GOES STRAIGHT TO THE GOVT?

4) Scratch that...this concerns me the most...the govt plugging billions of borrowed money into every sector of the economy and creating internal regulations so that they will have a ball and chain around every man, woman, and child in this country. Land of the free? Land of the shackled by govt.

...all I hope is that he isn't as horrible for this country as GW. That's all I ask
. :scared:

You'd think with all the people in this country we could find someone better than those on the ballot the past few elections.

He's done MORE harm to the long term well being in one month than George W. could have ever have during his 8 year term.

The housing market collapse stems directy to Bill Clinton's last 2 months(November 2000) in office when he signed a bill into law that REQUIRED lenders to have a quota of sub-prime mortgage loans to make housing 'FAIR AND AFFORDABLE' for EVERYONE, even if those people had no ability or right to PAY for those mortgages. Thus leaving the banks with the "BAD PAPER" that they have today.

The markets stated going NUTS after 2006 when the democrats took office in both the house and the senate. From 2001-2006 the country experienced the greatest 'wealth' and economy EVER. During that span MUCH of the credit stems from the Bush tax cuts that left employers with CASH IN HAND to create jobs, and move MARKETS. Markets work 100% of the time they're tried. Through good times and through bad times. You HAVE to experience the bad at times to have the GREAT wealth. What we're doing now is EXACTLY what Hoover and FDR did during the late 20. Researchers at UCLA did a study that if government had done NOTHING. Absolutely NOTHING, that the 'Great Depression' would have been nothing more than a MILD recession. But because of the similar GOVERNMENT intervention...the depression strung out to YEAR on a LARGE and INTENSE poverty scale. Because they didn't 'trust' the markets to SELF-CORRECT which they do.

Since 2001 there has NOT been another terrorist attack on U.S soil. Bush deserves 100% credit here.

I didn't and don't agree with everything Bush did as President. However, when I look at the overall job he did. I'd say he did a pretty damn good job, even in spite of irrational bush haters like yourself. The man is very intelligent. Graduated from Yale and if you listen to people who KNOW the man on a personal level regardless of political affiliation. They ALL admit he's a very eloquent, gracious and intelligent person. For whatever reason he had issues in articulating his message via speech. But the man KNEW HIS MESSAGE.

Obama on the otherhand certainly is a wonderful READER. He can read ANYTHING that is prepared for him.

His economic philosophy is absolutely INCOHERENT and ridiculously misguided. This guy is DRIVING us into what is not labeled an economic 'depression'. Extended the Bush Tax CUTS and lowering the PAYROLL tax would go much further in alleviating the economic issues we face today. But Obama's more worried about receiving the CREDIT for FIXING our nation's problems, than actually doing so. Because only the MARKETS can fix this mess, not one self-promoted 'MessiUH'

His moral values are inexistent. I look at his post-partem abortion stance and think, this man condones MURDER of innocent babies who have survived a botched abortion. Also, ANYONE who views pregnancy/babies as 'PUNISHMENT' is a moral DERELICT.

Obama's foreign policies rival that of Jimmy Carter who can essentially be blamed for the rise of groups like Hezbollah and Al-queda.

So don't go on to me about the beauty of Obama's articulation of words via teleprompter. That man is easily already the WORST president in United States has EVER had. And he's one month into the term. I don't think the other 47 months could even come close to fixing the damage he's already caused in 1 short month. And I guarantee he has no INTENTIONS of changing his current path either.

One
Big
A $$
Mistake,
America.
 
He's done MORE harm to the long term well being in one month than George W. could have ever have during his 8 year term.


That's a silly statement to make concerning we won't truly see many of the impacts from Obama's change in policy for years to come.

Only time will tell. In the meantime GW is gone forever and this country is better off for it. Period.
 
I'd say he did a pretty damn good job, even in spite of irrational bush haters like yourself. The man is very intelligent. Graduated from Yale and if you listen to people who KNOW the man on a personal level regardless of political affiliation. They ALL admit he's a very eloquent, gracious and intelligent person. For whatever reason he had issues in articulating his message via speech. But the man KNEW HIS MESSAGE.

One problem I see here is that you seem to think that somehow my dislike of GW translates to a direct insult on you and your beliefs. You then feel compelled to become defensive because no doubt, YOUR beliefs are correct.

I find this line of thinking extremely dangerous and strangely enough, is one of the major problems I had with GW. He thought he was right on almost every issue and completely disregarded any contrasting viewpoints. He was in absolute disbelief when someone actually challenged his beliefs...but I forgot, God spoke to him so clearly he was correct.

Yale...come on...daddy got GW into Yale.

Abortion now Smills? Geeze. Don't get your panties in a bunch.

Well, I believe that I posted Obama was articulate long enough ago that I could care less anymore.

At this point, you're preaching to the choir Smills. I truly agree with much that you say, and then there's some other stuff I'm sure you'll figure out some day.
 
Last edited:
He thought he was right on almost every issue and completely disregarded any contrasting viewpoints. He was in absolute disbelief when someone actually challenged his beliefs...

Hmmm.... I seem to recall that when Pres. Obama was confronted with "contrasting viewpoints" regarding the stimulus his response was "well... we won." That is the type of arrogant rejoinder that earned him a grand total of 3 votes from the opposition party in as many tallies.

Bush was the re-elected governor of Texas (which is impressive if you follow that states' politics). He had years and years of being responsible for bringing together folks with dissenting viewpoints. That is why governors usually make good presidents, if you wanna get something done, you gotta bring both sides to the table consistently. If you can do it well on the state level, then chances are you can do it well on the national level.

Therefore I find it amusing to suggest that Bush would be stunned by opposition. (He may have been surprised by a treasonous press and the treachery of countries like Oil for Food France, but I digress). Obama, on the other hand, has had no experience being in charge of anything or anyone that didn't worship him or that he couldn't fire. It is he who is stunned and in absolute disbelief by the opposition. It is this lack of experience that is most damning when considering the Obama presidency. This shortcoming was exposed during the leadup to the passage of the Stimulus package. The smug arrogance that prompted the "bitter american" quip in SF last year reared its ugly head again when he gloated over republicans (the "we won" comment mentioned earlier) and ram-roded his bloated mess into law. Instead of forging ahead with a coalition of support from both parties, he got himself a Pyrrhic victory that will definitely come back to haunt him.

All this nonsense about Bush being confused, or strictly unilateral and dumb just doesn't fly. Facts are stubborn things and history will vindicate him once The Establishment pulls its collective head out.
 
let me help the OP explain what he meant.....

he meant that Chairman Maobama is a good speaker when he has a teleprompter in front of him.
 
Bush was the re-elected governor of Texas (which is impressive if you follow that states' politics). He had years and years of being responsible for bringing together folks with dissenting viewpoints. That is why governors usually make good presidents, if you wanna get something done, you gotta bring both sides to the table consistently. If you can do it well on the state level, then chances are you can do it well on the national level.

Therefore I find it amusing to suggest that Bush would be stunned by opposition.

All this nonsense about Bush being confused, or strictly unilateral and dumb just doesn't fly. Facts are stubborn things and history will vindicate him once The Establishment pulls its collective head out.

I won't defend Obama on his recent actions. His fiscal irresponsibility is driving me up the wall.

The thing that drives me even more nuts was GW's fiscal irresponsibilty. You expect that kind of BS from a democrat..but I didn't vote for a "conservative" to come in and have absolutely no sense for the party values. He literally drove the republican party into the ground and now we're reeling to establish a foothold again.

Bush...opposition...Texas? I agree that governors do tend to make better President's, but to surmise that Bush was afflicted with great opposition in one of the most Republican states in the country is ridiculous.
 
let me help the OP explain what he meant.....

he meant that Chairman Maobama is a good speaker when he has a teleprompter in front of him.

PRECISELY. That's all I'm saying...and the reason I mentioned it is because GW was such a belligerent idiot that opened the door for Obama.

They're already planning the next republican candidate. I like Romney...smart, conservative values. Religion shouldn't be an issue!
 
Bush...opposition...Texas? I agree that governors do tend to make better President's, but to surmise that Bush was afflicted with great opposition in one of the most Republican states in the country is ridiculous.


Texas has had 39 Democrat Governors to 6 Republican, not exactly a Republican powerhouse.
 
That's a silly statement to make concerning we won't truly see many of the impacts from Obama's change in policy for years to come.

Only time will tell. In the meantime GW is gone forever and this country is better off for it. Period.

Excuse me? His budget proposal is projected to spend more money in his first 6 effing weeks, than all presidents from Washington to W. Bush COMBINED That's some serious negative impact
 
PRECISELY. That's all I'm saying...and the reason I mentioned it is because GW was such a belligerent idiot that opened the door for Obama.

They're already planning the next republican candidate. I like Romney...smart, conservative values. Religion shouldn't be an issue!


Wow, I'm shocked! :eek: We found some common ground.
 
Excuse me? His budget proposal is projected to spend more money in his first 6 effing weeks, than all presidents from Washington to W. Bush COMBINED That's some serious negative impact

Holy crap! If this is true, the US is in deep ****. How does he propose to cut the deficit in half in the next 4 years as he has previously said?

That's why I mention only time will tell with this guy, but I believe you're right...he's all talk - we'll see if he can follow through with anything.
 
How does he propose to cut the deficit in half in the next 4 years?

Taxes. Limiting deductions for charitable contributions (a blow to conservatives since the Left is notoriously cheap as per a report by the NYT).
 
Last edited:
Holy crap! If this is true, the US is in deep ****. How does he propose to cut the deficit in half in the next 4 years as he has previously said?

That's why I mention only time will tell with this guy, but I believe you're right...he's all talk - we'll see if he can follow through with anything.
How many politicians follow through with half the things they say? Must be nice.
 
How many politicians follow through with half the things they say? Must be nice.

It'd be refreshing if he followed through on ONE thing he said.
 
The less he follows through on the better. Actually the less he does the better.

True, I was operating under the assumption of things he 'promised' that were actually beneficial to the country. Even if these were only half-truths. But you're spot on with your analysis.
 
It's funny because when you compare Clinton to Obama: Clinton wasn't willing to risk his re-election to pass something, while I definitely think Obama is willing to sink, aka risk re-election, in order to get his agenda into law.

The whole thing is just scary. And what's unfortunate is that it is those that work hard who will suffer.
 
It's funny because when you compare Clinton to Obama: Clinton wasn't willing to risk his re-election to pass something, while I definitely think Obama is willing to sink, aka risk re-election, in order to get his agenda into law.

The whole thing is just scary. And what's unfortunate is that it is those that work hard who will suffer.

Markets have one bias...they reward those who work harder, smarter, better than the person who doesn't.

Obama has multiple biases. Who have to be a left-wing kook fringe groupie that doesn't work, doesn't provide and must have a sense of entitlement.

The fact that he wants to lower the tax-savings to those who GIVE freely of their OWN money is very revealing. He doesn't care about the low-income families/people of America. He cares about CONTROLLING POWER in America and HIM receiving the credit for 'fixing' people lives, which is just a flat out lie.

Obamanation, er, ABOMINATION!
 
It's funny because when you compare Clinton to Obama: Clinton wasn't willing to risk his re-election to pass something, while I definitely think Obama is willing to sink, aka risk re-election, in order to get his agenda into law.

The whole thing is just scary. And what's unfortunate is that it is those that work hard who will suffer.

That's kind of what I'm afraid of.... *sigh*

At least I've finally come across a political thread I pretty much agree with.
 
I won't defend Obama on his recent actions. His fiscal irresponsibility is driving me up the wall.

The thing that drives me even more nuts was GW's fiscal irresponsibilty. You expect that kind of BS from a democrat..but I didn't vote for a "conservative" to come in and have absolutely no sense for the party values. He literally drove the republican party into the ground and now we're reeling to establish a foothold again.

Bush...opposition...Texas? I agree that governors do tend to make better President's, but to surmise that Bush was afflicted with great opposition in one of the most Republican states in the country is ridiculous.

Texas? No opposition? Democrats seeking exile in Oklahoma and New Mexico? :laugh:
 
That's kind of what I'm afraid of.... *sigh*

At least I've finally come across a political thread I pretty much agree with.

well, when he says he wants to give a tax break to 98% or americans, all he is doing is trying to buy votes for the next election.

50% of those 98% of people don't pay taxes.
if you get MORE of a check back, at the end of the year, than you paid in taxes, YOU DIDN'T PAY TAXES. that is the situation that 50% of that 98% are in.

obama wants to give MORE money back to those people.

that isn't a TAX BREAK. it is FREE MONEY!!!!!:mad::mad::mad:

obama is trying to create dependance on goverment and buying voters. making those who are responsible take on more responsibility for no/less reward....and reward others for being irresponsible.
 
Texas? No opposition? Democrats seeking exile in Oklahoma and New Mexico? :laugh:

A quick little note I dug up mentions that "Republicans control all statewide Texas offices, both houses of the state legislature and have a majority in the Texas congressional delegation. The state has continued its Republican voting trend in presidential elections. This makes Texas one of the most Republican states in the U.S."

I said "great opposition" not "no opposition." Nice try though.
 
well, when he says he wants to give a tax break to 98% or americans, all he is doing is trying to buy votes for the next election.

50% of those 98% of people don't pay taxes.
if you get MORE of a check back, at the end of the year, than you paid in taxes, YOU DIDN'T PAY TAXES. that is the situation that 50% of that 98% are in.

obama wants to give MORE money back to those people.

that isn't a TAX BREAK. it is FREE MONEY!!!!!
:mad::mad::mad:

obama is trying to create dependance on goverment and buying voters. making those who are responsible take on more responsibility for no/less reward....and reward others for being irresponsible.

You say to-may-to I say to-ma-to, right?

Don't try to use facts and logic with an Obama groupie now. Only irrational hatred and emotional feelings matter.
 
A quick little note I dug up mentions that "Republicans control all statewide Texas offices, both houses of the state legislature and have a majority in the Texas congressional delegation. The state has continued its Republican voting trend in presidential elections. This makes Texas one of the most Republican states in the U.S."

I said "great opposition" not "no opposition." Nice try though.

Touche.
 
Markets have one bias...they reward those who work harder, smarter, better than the person who doesn't.

Obama has multiple biases. Who have to be a left-wing kook fringe groupie that doesn't work, doesn't provide and must have a sense of entitlement.

The fact that he wants to lower the tax-savings to those who GIVE freely of their OWN money is very revealing. He doesn't care about the low-income families/people of America. He cares about CONTROLLING POWER in America and HIM receiving the credit for 'fixing' people lives, which is just a flat out lie.

Obamanation, er, ABOMINATION!

SO true. Haha. This is honestly one of the reasons, I am so excited about the military; a lot more people with similar views. There are times where here at my Liberal Arts school, I feel like all there are are liberals in the world. At least the people of the county were smart--even with all the liberal students voting, the county still went Republican. I wish I could say the same for the state of OH.
 
obama wants to give MORE money back to those people.

that isn't a TAX BREAK. it is FREE MONEY!!!!!:mad::mad::mad:

obama is trying to create dependance on goverment and buying voters. making those who are responsible take on more responsibility for no/less reward....and reward others for being irresponsible.

Awe, but I want to pay more taxes to help raise "Octomom's" 14 children.

You're absolutely right umkcdds. Unfortunately, there are those in that lower tier that have a firm desire to gain a foothold, but can't for whatever reason...be it insurmountable health care expenses, dead-beat parents, etc.

Unfortunately again, the govt can't single these people out without rewarding all the other losers out there hoping to stay on welfare and buy their cigarettes. So...do you punish a majority of hard working citizens to attempt to reach those few people or not? Prob no eh?
 
Awe, but I want to pay more taxes to help raise "Octomom's" 14 children.

You're absolutely right umkcdds. Unfortunately, there are those in that lower tier that have a firm desire to gain a foothold, but can't for whatever reason...be it insurmountable health care expenses, dead-beat parents, etc.

Unfortunately again, the govt can't single these people out without rewarding all the other losers out there hoping to stay on welfare and buy their cigarettes. So...do you punish a majority of hard working citizens to attempt to reach those few people or not? Prob no eh?

While I see the point you are trying to make I think the big mistake is the governments belief that throwing money at them will solve the problem.

Unless the individuals and children take it upon themselves to make something positive out of their lives, dead-beat parents with free healthcare or money in their pockets are still deadbeat parents. Truth is, we get most of our beliefs and behaviors from our parents and what we see them do. If our parents are content with taking hand-outs from the government and never having to work it's no wonder that their children are just as content with the same kind of life.

I don't buy into the sob story of how generation after generation of families are forced to live in poverty because of all the obstacles they had to overcome. Especially when there are just as many stories of people who came to this country with nothing and somehow miraculously become productive members of society, own homes, businesses and get educations, all in one generation. How did they do this?? It's called hard work and motivation, not settling with the life they now live.
 
Unless the individuals and children take it upon themselves to make something positive out of their lives, dead-beat parents with free healthcare or money in their pockets are still deadbeat parents. Truth is, we get most of our beliefs and behaviors from our parents and what we see them do. If our parents are content with taking hand-outs from the government and never having to work it's no wonder that their children are just as content with the same kind of life.

I don't buy into the sob story of how generation after generation of families are forced to live in poverty because of all the obstacles they had to overcome. Especially when there are just as many stories of people who came to this country with nothing and somehow miraculously become productive members of society, own homes, businesses and get educations, all in one generation. How did they do this?? It's called hard work and motivation, not settling with the life they now live.

While I see your point, don't discount the challenges of coming from a not so priviledged background. You made the argument that we learn from our parents. If our parents didn't go to college and didn't work to be productive and provide for their family than in many cases that is what the children pick up. They have plenty of opportunity and intelligence but struggle to hurdle the mental roadblocks that have never in the history of their family been overcome.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing for more entitlements or welfare programs. I believe we already have too many. The heart of poverty is within the family and only through changing longstanding family attitudes and traditions will we do away with poverty. We do need to be sensitive however to the challenges that others face. We'll never know unless we walk in their shoes.
 
Top