Obama: Income inequality a defining challenge

President Barack Obama speaks about the economy and growing economic inequality, Wednesday, Dec. 4, 2013, at the Town Hall Education Arts Recreation Campus in Washington. The president said the income gap between America's rich and poor is a 'defining challenge of our time.' Obama said income inequality has jeopardized the nation's middle class. And he is urging Washington to take steps to ensure that the economy works for everyone. (AP Photo/ Evan Vucci)

President Barack Obama speaks about the economy and growing economic inequality, Wednesday, Dec. 4, 2013, at the Town Hall Education Arts Recreation Campus in Washington. The president said the income gap between America's rich and poor is a "defining challenge of our time." Obama said income inequality has jeopardized the nation's middle class. And he is urging Washington to take steps to ensure that the economy works for everyone. (AP Photo/ Evan Vucci)

— President Barack Obama prodded Congress to raise wages and secure the social safety net as he issued an overarching appeal Wednesday to correct economic inequalities that he said make it harder for a child to escape poverty. "That should offend all of us," he declared. "We are a better country than this."

Focusing on the pocketbook issues that Americans consistently rank as a top concern, Obama argued that the dream of upward economic mobility is breaking down and that the growing income gap is a "defining challenge of our time."

"The basic bargain at the heart of our economy has frayed," the president said in remarks at a nonprofit community center a short drive from the White House in one of Washington's most impoverished neighborhoods.

Though he offered no new initiatives, Obama blended a call for Congress to act on pending short-term economic measures with an ambitious vision aimed at rectifying a growing level of income inequality in the United States. Amid public doubts over Obama's stewardship of the economy, the speech served as a guide for the remaining three years of his term.

Still, by drawing attention to past policy proposals that have dead-ended in a divided government, Obama also laid bare the political failures and economic difficulties he has faced trying to halt widening inequality trends.

He acknowledged his administration's "poor execution" in rolling out the flawed health care website that was supposed to be an easy portal for purchasing insurance, while blaming Republicans for a "reckless" shutdown of the government.

"Nobody has acquitted themselves very well these past few months," Obama said. "So it's not surprising that the American people's frustrations with Washington are at an all-time high." Worse for Americans, he added, are their growing difficulties in trying to make ends meet no matter how hard they work.

The speech coincided with growing national and international attention to economic disparities — from the writings of Pope Francis to the protests of fast-food workers in the U.S. Obama recalled the pope's words, the deeds of past presidents as well as his own personal story as a young boy with a financially struggling mother.

And he noted that in the United States, a child born into the bottom 20 percent of income levels has less than a 5 percent chance of making it to the top income levels and is 10 times likelier to stay where he is — worse than other industrial countries such as Canada, Germany and France.

House Speaker John Boehner blamed Senate Democrats and Obama for the lack of action on jobs-related legislation. He said bills passed by the Republican-controlled House that would help the economy and create jobs have been blocked in the Democratic-controlled Senate. "The Senate and the president continue to stand in the way of the people's priorities," he said on the House floor.

Obama conceded that "the elephant in the room" is the political gridlock that has prevented congressional action. But he pointed to the health care law, despite its troubled enrollment launch, as one example that he said is already helping families by providing insurance coverage to more Americans and by pushing down the costs of health care.

Obama specifically called on Congress to increase the federal minimum wage from the current $7.25 an hour. A Democratic bill by Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa would raise the threshold to $10.10 an hour in three steps and tie automatic annual increases to changes in the cost of living.

A vote in the Senate is not expected in December, when the chamber will mostly focus on stalemates over the budget and other issues. Whenever it is debated, the measure seems unlikely to win the 60 votes it would need to clear the Senate due to GOP opposition.

Obama also pressed Congress to extend jobless benefits to 1.3 million long-term unemployed people. The benefits are set to expire just three days after Christmas. The additional weeks of benefits have been extended each year since 2009, but a senior Republican lawmaker, Rep. Tom Cole of Oklahoma, said Tuesday that lawmakers in his party oppose yet another extension.

  • Discuss
  • Print

Comments » 35

RayPray writes:

The true defining challenge is between the 2/3 of the economy, from pool boys & lawn guys to scientists & engineers, that actually accomplishes something big or small...

...and the 1/3 of the tax-eating & rent-seeking parasite economy that either 'works' for the government, federal or municipal, either directly or as 'contractors', military for worthless foreign adventures, militarized kops in the never-ending war against drugs, child porno, & terrorism, TSA thugs & 'educrats' sucking in resources like some Black Hole; added to which are the millions lolling in the Food Stamp & Disability nation who don't even have to pretend to do anything.

Organ grinder Obama and his pet monkey Kinnock Biden perfectly embody the latter, whose entire life is sailing along on affirmative action and the output of others, contributing absolutely zero....

August8 writes:

Man is this guy's crud getting old or what, I am exhausted.

MIOCENE (Inactive) writes:

Actually, RAYPRAY is not far off the mark. Let me explain it this way:

Over the last 25 years; while penniless immigrants were crossing the border; Congressional Conservatives were obsessed with anti abortion, prayer, god, the ten commandments, the definition of marriage, creationism and crippling Planned Parenthood.

So don't blame Obama. HE didn't create this mess. It was the conservatives who should have been looking out for us when the illegal immigration was in high gear fifteen years ago.

Instead they were too absorbed in trying to evangelize America.

Now the bill has to be paid for allowing millions of poor to come here and have large numbers of children born to families ALREADY on Medicaid.

We let them come here to “do the jobs Americans didn’t want to do“; clean our toilets, wash our cars and cut our grass.

Now you find that they can’t survive on the Coolie Wages we paid them; and we are stuck with the bill for food stamps, medical, housing and education.

Even if Obama and the Liberals were out tomorrow; we would still be STUCK WITH THE BILL; current and future.

The poor have a Revolving Charge Account with the American Middle Class.

The poor will continue to have children, the middle class will continue to pay the bill;
-while the rich laugh all the way to the bank.

Add to this the problem with the American Catholic Bishops discouraging contraception in the impoverished Hispanic Communities; leading to more dependent children.

All because the once-great Republican Party traded in it's traditional role of fiscal responsibility and prudent foreign policy; for social and religious conservatism.

So there you have it. The hopeless poor are still coming to America; and as their population expands, the Middle Class sinks lower and lower as the gulf between the rich and the poor grows wider.

You know what's interesting? The Middle Class people who complain most about being overtaxed; are the same ones who refuse to pay for universal contraception; contraception which would go toward reducing the number of babies being born to penniless mothers.

MIOCENE

Konfuzius writes:

"Great President Barack Obama specifically called on Congress to increase the federal minimum wage from the current $7.25 an hour. A Democratic bill by Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa would raise the threshold to $10.10 an hour in three steps and tie automatic annual increases to changes in the cost of living."

That is the right political way. This President is for the Americans not for some lobbyists. Any smart thinking American has to support him. His spot in history is fixed. No doubt about that. And the facts are on his side.

It is has become more difficult for Americans to rise socially. This is in countries such as Canada, Germany or France easier. Great President Barack Obama quoted Pope Francis (not my leader), who in the past week with his Apostolic Letter "the joy of the Gospel" had criticized the global capitalism!!!!! Specially addressed Marco Island and the Marriott project. Francis had written that it was "incredibly that there is no sensation when an old man, forced to live on the streets, freezes, while a decline to two points on the stock exchange makes headlines".

Great President Barack Obama said, in view of the political stalemates in the Congress was not to be expected that the problems of inequality in this or next year will be able to be solved. However, great President Barack Obama would continue to fight his economic policy ideas.
Good so! Great ideas for the American people. I am happy with this President.

1Paradiselost writes:

With this issue, forget about politics, Does anyone really think $7.25 an hour is a living wage?

"What are poverty thresholds and poverty guidelines"

http://www.irp.wisc.edu/faqs/faq1.htm

If we increase the minimum wage we will get 68% or 2/3rds of the working poor off Food Stamps (SNAP), and Welfare!

I would rather pay 25 cents more for a hamburger than pay 3% more in federal taxes to support someone who works for Walmart or McDonalds. The way the system works now WE the taxpayers are subsidizing corporations.

Corporations today are now reporting record profits. One just needs to look at the stock market.

This is not a left or right issue. Have an open mind and do the math folks.

MIOCENE (Inactive) writes:

in response to 1Paradiselost:

With this issue, forget about politics, Does anyone really think $7.25 an hour is a living wage?

"What are poverty thresholds and poverty guidelines"

http://www.irp.wisc.edu/faqs/faq1.htm

If we increase the minimum wage we will get 68% or 2/3rds of the working poor off Food Stamps (SNAP), and Welfare!

I would rather pay 25 cents more for a hamburger than pay 3% more in federal taxes to support someone who works for Walmart or McDonalds. The way the system works now WE the taxpayers are subsidizing corporations.

Corporations today are now reporting record profits. One just needs to look at the stock market.

This is not a left or right issue. Have an open mind and do the math folks.

Good points; expecially the one about getting people off Food Stamps by increasing the M.W.
Would it work?

panola60 writes:

No one has doomed more people to a lifetime of poverty than Obama . . . .

Under Obama we have 8.5 million fewer people working than 5 years ago , only 47% of adults have full time jobs, black unemployment way up, Hispanic unemployment way up, female unemployment up, youth unemployment way up, 47 million on food stamps, 1 in 6 live in poverty, 49% pay no Federal tax and 3 out of 4 jobs created since 2010 have been part-time jobs because of Obamacare. Record use of food stamps, unemployment, and disability insurance have been hallmarks of the Obama economy.

Obama proved he discourages people being self-sufficient and successful when his Administration opposed food stamp recipients from seeking employment so that millions of families on welfare will no longer be engaged in job preparation activities to help them re-enter the workforce and become self-sufficient. This has resulted in the number of able-bodied adults without children on food stamps to double in just 1 year, increasing from 1.7 million people in 2009 to 3.9 million in 2010. Obama knows better than most that keeping the poor down and dependent on government assistance will insure a steady stream of reliable democrat voters doomed to a lifetime of poverty.

August8 writes:

in response to Konfuzius:

"Great President Barack Obama specifically called on Congress to increase the federal minimum wage from the current $7.25 an hour. A Democratic bill by Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa would raise the threshold to $10.10 an hour in three steps and tie automatic annual increases to changes in the cost of living."

That is the right political way. This President is for the Americans not for some lobbyists. Any smart thinking American has to support him. His spot in history is fixed. No doubt about that. And the facts are on his side.

It is has become more difficult for Americans to rise socially. This is in countries such as Canada, Germany or France easier. Great President Barack Obama quoted Pope Francis (not my leader), who in the past week with his Apostolic Letter "the joy of the Gospel" had criticized the global capitalism!!!!! Specially addressed Marco Island and the Marriott project. Francis had written that it was "incredibly that there is no sensation when an old man, forced to live on the streets, freezes, while a decline to two points on the stock exchange makes headlines".

Great President Barack Obama said, in view of the political stalemates in the Congress was not to be expected that the problems of inequality in this or next year will be able to be solved. However, great President Barack Obama would continue to fight his economic policy ideas.
Good so! Great ideas for the American people. I am happy with this President.

I think they should reduce the wage to $ 4.53 per hour.

Konfuzius writes:

in response to August8:

I think they should reduce the wage to $ 4.53 per hour.

Especially for member of our MIPD!

RayPray writes:

in response to Konfuzius:

Especially for member of our MIPD!

Paid in donuts?

1Paradiselost writes:

Panola60

If your going to blame anyone for the economy being so bad one needs only to look at congress.

As any good American you should know your Constitution. Not just he parts you like. Congress makes the laws in this country, NOT the President.

No. He can't even PROPOSE laws by himself (in America). He has to ask the public to ask their congressman to submit it.

Contrary to what Fox News and Rush Limbaugh tells you!

A bill passed by both houses of Congress does not become law until it is presented to the president for his approval and signature. If the president disapproves a bill, he returns it to Congress along with his written objections. This action is referred to as a "veto". Congress then reconsiders the bill and votes again. If two-thirds or more members of each house of Congress approve the bill it becomes law notwithstanding the president's veto. If a reconsidered bill receives fewer than a two-thirds favorable vote in either body, the bill fails. If the original bill sent to the president was passed by two-thirds of the members of the House and Senate it is considered "veto proof". It becomes a law whether or not it is approved by the president.

After Congress sends the president a final bill, he has 10 days to act on it in one of two ways:

Sign it into law. If he doesn't want to sign it but doesn't want to veto it, he can simply ignore it and it becomes law in ten days (excepting Sundays) while Congress is in session.

Veto it. The word "veto" literally means "I refuse" in Latin, and the president has the constitutional power to stop a piece of legislation in its tracks, even after it's been through the entire legislative process. It's the Constitution's ultimate executive check on legislation.

So, Two question PAN.... which laws has CONGRESS passed which you unhappy with that concern the economy?

Which bill has congress passed helping the American poor get off food stamps and welfare, saving us American taxpayer?

deltarome writes:

Employers pay what people are worth. If the employee thinks it is too low and they have skills that are worth more, they will change jobs and get one that pays more. The problem with low wage earners now is they aren't worth more as they lack anything other than basic skills. Legislating employers to pay more will only raise all costs of goods made or serviced here. What employers will do is use cheaper labor outside of our borders where possible and where not possible, they will seek alternatives to reduce the number of jobs by automating or reengineering jobs so less labor is needed. if you want to have more employment, reduce wages. If you want higher wages, the number of employees will be reduced. it is simple economics but so many people think that just paying people more to do the same amount of work will solve all our problems. They are short sighted at best.

Konfuzius writes:

in response to deltarome:

Employers pay what people are worth. If the employee thinks it is too low and they have skills that are worth more, they will change jobs and get one that pays more. The problem with low wage earners now is they aren't worth more as they lack anything other than basic skills. Legislating employers to pay more will only raise all costs of goods made or serviced here. What employers will do is use cheaper labor outside of our borders where possible and where not possible, they will seek alternatives to reduce the number of jobs by automating or reengineering jobs so less labor is needed. if you want to have more employment, reduce wages. If you want higher wages, the number of employees will be reduced. it is simple economics but so many people think that just paying people more to do the same amount of work will solve all our problems. They are short sighted at best.

I am 100% agree with you.You blame the American school and education system. Second worse in the world. Take a look to the latest PISA study. America is behind China, Russian, all European countries, middle east of course Israel and on top of all African nations except Namibia and South Africa.
Hallelujah!
Northwestern or Harvard or MIT and a handful others are not America. 90%is below average. Students with high school degree can not read or count. 5% of 100$ is - I have no idea! That is the truth.
Great President Barack Obama is fighting a very responsible battle to change this. But read August and you know, how hard it will be.

Konfuzius writes:

Support our state f the art academy. They do a good job I hear.

RayPray writes:

in response to Konfuzius:

Support our state f the art academy. They do a good job I hear.

True, Go Jane, a world class institution, state rating lowered to 'D', much better than 'F'

1Paradiselost writes:

Go Jane GO..... Thank you Ray for bring up the subject!

Four schools fell from a B to a C: Shadowlawn Elementary, Golden Gate Middle, Corkscrew Elementary and Cypress Palm Middle. Seven schools fell from a C to a D — Pinecrest Elementary, Highlands Elementary, Golden Gate Elementary School, Village Oaks Elementary, Golden Terrace Elementary, Sabal Palm Elementary and Marco Island Academy.

http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2013/j...

August8 writes:

in response to RayPray:

Paid in donuts?

No, we make $5.85 and we do love those donuts !

August8 writes:

Someone just explain why we respond to this Konfuzious guy, why?????????????

multi_million_heir writes:

in response to MIOCENE:

Good points; expecially the one about getting people off Food Stamps by increasing the M.W.
Would it work?

The cost of all goods and services will go up if the minimum wage is raised, not just the price of hamburgers. All other wage earners not in that minimum wage bracket will then have a reduction of their dollar value unless they get raises of 3 dollars an hour also. And the fed would rake in more income tax money that they will use to grow government, not lower your tax bill. How about demanding further education for the handouts the trough lappers receive on our dime. The current minimum wage is a good incentive to want to better someone's skill set and earn a higher wage.

MIOCENE (Inactive) writes:

in response to multi_million_heir:

The cost of all goods and services will go up if the minimum wage is raised, not just the price of hamburgers. All other wage earners not in that minimum wage bracket will then have a reduction of their dollar value unless they get raises of 3 dollars an hour also. And the fed would rake in more income tax money that they will use to grow government, not lower your tax bill. How about demanding further education for the handouts the trough lappers receive on our dime. The current minimum wage is a good incentive to want to better someone's skill set and earn a higher wage.

Yes; maybe so. -But I think big government is the wave of the future.

If you read my earlier post (way up at the top); you will see that the "poor" population is increasing each year; meaning that babies are being born to poor people who cannot afford to support their large families without government assistance.

This makes big government and socialism inevitable.

I am not saying that I LIKE it; it's just that
with the powerful Jesus Cult controlling much of Congress and fighting abortion and contraception; expect the number of trough lappers to increase as millions are born to penniless mothers.

A low birth rate is not good for an expanding ecomomy; but we have to face the problem of overpopulation.

The old rules which made America great in the past; no longer apply.

harrisbill239#279036 writes:

in response to 1Paradiselost:

With this issue, forget about politics, Does anyone really think $7.25 an hour is a living wage?

"What are poverty thresholds and poverty guidelines"

http://www.irp.wisc.edu/faqs/faq1.htm

If we increase the minimum wage we will get 68% or 2/3rds of the working poor off Food Stamps (SNAP), and Welfare!

I would rather pay 25 cents more for a hamburger than pay 3% more in federal taxes to support someone who works for Walmart or McDonalds. The way the system works now WE the taxpayers are subsidizing corporations.

Corporations today are now reporting record profits. One just needs to look at the stock market.

This is not a left or right issue. Have an open mind and do the math folks.

Boy! You guys have been drinking the kool-aid way too long. It's affected your brain cells. By raising the minimum wage, prices will increase, which means that we (you, me, and all the working public) will be paying more so that those minimum wage people can earn more. But, they will also have to pay out more to maintain the same economic position. Minimum wage jobs like Micky-D's are not intended to support families; they are only meant to supplement families, and for people just starting out. Most of them are part time or second jobs for high school and college kids, who don't have families. Or for people already drawing social security (that they paid for out of their wages, over the course of their lifetimes), who want or need to supplement their income. The other large pool of minimum wage employees are those just starting out in the work force. The normal transition is that you start out with minimum wage jobs, and as your experience and education increases, you move up to other, better paying jobs. Raising the minimum wage is like negotiating higher salaries and benefits for union contracts - they both serve to drive up the prices of all consumer goods, which means that we all must pay higher prices to maintain the same level of living that we currently have.

August8 writes:

in response to harrisbill239#279036:

Boy! You guys have been drinking the kool-aid way too long. It's affected your brain cells. By raising the minimum wage, prices will increase, which means that we (you, me, and all the working public) will be paying more so that those minimum wage people can earn more. But, they will also have to pay out more to maintain the same economic position. Minimum wage jobs like Micky-D's are not intended to support families; they are only meant to supplement families, and for people just starting out. Most of them are part time or second jobs for high school and college kids, who don't have families. Or for people already drawing social security (that they paid for out of their wages, over the course of their lifetimes), who want or need to supplement their income. The other large pool of minimum wage employees are those just starting out in the work force. The normal transition is that you start out with minimum wage jobs, and as your experience and education increases, you move up to other, better paying jobs. Raising the minimum wage is like negotiating higher salaries and benefits for union contracts - they both serve to drive up the prices of all consumer goods, which means that we all must pay higher prices to maintain the same level of living that we currently have.

Do you really expect this guy to understand what you pointed out if he does not already?

1Paradiselost writes:

Economic research supports raising the minimum wage!

By Ross Eisenbrey, vice president, Economic Policy Institute

Saltsman’s economics are no better than his legislative research. The old Economics 101 textbook theory he recites – that a higher minimum wage will necessarily reduce employment – was not supported by empirical research. As a 1995 paper in the Journal of Economics Literature put it, “There is a long history of empirical studies attempting to pin down the effects of minimum wages, with limited success.” No one found significant employment losses when President Truman raised the minimum wage by 87% in 1950. When Congress raised the minimum wage by 28% in two steps in 1967, businesses predicted large employment losses and price increases. As the Wall Street Journal reported six months later, “Employment and prices show little effect from $1.40-an-hour guarantee.” Empirical studies even before Card and Krueger’s landmark New Jersey study found no increase in the unemployment rate for teens and young adults from a 10% rise in the minimum wage, while it was clear that higher wages were bringing housewives into the workforce.

Saltsman wants readers to believe that economists have discredited Card and Krueger’s finding that a 19% increase in New Jersey’s minimum wage did not cause job loss. He’s just wrong. Nobel laureate Paul Krugman says the study “has stood up very well to repeated challenges, and new cases confirming its results keep coming in.” And even the most ardent conservative critics could not claim that the New Jersey increase caused statistically significant job loss. Furthermore, a groundbreaking peer-reviewed 2008 paper (that Saltsman chooses to ignore),“Minimum wage effects across state borders: Estimates using contiguous counties,” generalizes the landmark Card and Krueger study to all contiguous county-pairs in the US that straddle a border, finding no adverse employment effects of increases in the minimum wage.

University of California, Berkeley (and former Economic Policy Institute) economist Sylvia Allegretto wants policy advocates to know about recent economics research about the minimum wage because it is so clear and convincing. Allegretto and colleagues Michael Reich and Arindrajit Dube carefully studied data on teen employment from 1990 to 2009 and found “that minimum wage increases—in the range that have been implemented in the United States—do not reduce employment among teens.” Previous studies to the contrary used flawed statistical controls and “do not provide a credible guide for public policy.”

The fact that more than 550 economists signed a statement calling for an increase in the minimum wage in 2007 cannot be dismissed because they were not all “labor economists.” No one claimed they were, and it’s irrelevant: agricultural economists and macroeconomists understand, just as labor economists do, that when reality doesn’t fit a model, it’s the model that has to change.

1Paradiselost writes:

PART TWO.....

Saltsman has a loose regard for facts, but the fact is that economists no longer unthinkingly accept a nineteenth-century model that doesn’t fit the data, which show that modest minimum wage increases of the kind we have enacted in the past do not cause job loss.

Eisenbrey is vice president at the Economic Policy Institute.

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blo...

August8 writes:

See What I Mean !!!

RayNetherwood writes:

How about an honest day's pay for an honest day's work?

Where Libertarians abhor the thought of wage dictation to employers, what hasn't been mentioned thus far is the corporate welfare that many employers receive when they pay "minimum wage" -- it's called Earned Income Tax credit. Those not receiving a living wage are subsidized by the tax payers (effectively raising their wages -- but employers are off the hook), so McDonalds, Home Depot, or Target (any stock traded company) gets a boosted bottom line because a portion of their employee wages is tax payer subsidized.

I also have a problem with those who come up with the "entry level job" line. Go to rural towns where a good employer is Dairy Queen or K-Mart, and people work there for 10 or 20 years. Not everyone is destined to be a brain surgeon, what's wrong with being the best shelf stocker or burger flipper? And, if that's the only game in town, at what point should longevity in the job approach someone receiving a living wage?

The only truth at the end of the day is that Federal govt intervention, whether it's dictating wages or secretly redistributing the wealth, is something to be avoided.

Konfuzius writes:

"I also have a problem with those who come up with the "entry level job" line. Go to rural towns where a good employer is Dairy Queen or K-Mart, and people work there for 10 or 20 years. Not everyone is destined to be a brain surgeon, what's wrong with being the best shelf stocker or burger flipper?"

I am reminded of a meeting of the former US-president John F. Kennedy - great President too - with a simple worker in a hangar in Cape Canaveral. The workers swept the hangar, as the President asked him what he is doing. "A man on the Moon," said the workers. And the President said: "Carry on."

The same with great President Barack Obama. He will give people their self-respect back. Give them a monthly fee that they can afford a normal life. That is the level for a great nation. Not 10 useless wars fighting for nothing.

multi_million_heir writes:

in response to Konfuzius:

"I also have a problem with those who come up with the "entry level job" line. Go to rural towns where a good employer is Dairy Queen or K-Mart, and people work there for 10 or 20 years. Not everyone is destined to be a brain surgeon, what's wrong with being the best shelf stocker or burger flipper?"

I am reminded of a meeting of the former US-president John F. Kennedy - great President too - with a simple worker in a hangar in Cape Canaveral. The workers swept the hangar, as the President asked him what he is doing. "A man on the Moon," said the workers. And the President said: "Carry on."

The same with great President Barack Obama. He will give people their self-respect back. Give them a monthly fee that they can afford a normal life. That is the level for a great nation. Not 10 useless wars fighting for nothing.

Fast forward 50 years from the great JFK. The loafers lounged slothfully as the president strolled proudly through the neighborhood. And the great Obama asked the loafers "what are you doing"? "Having some moon pies and beer, now move, I can't see the t.v. Shouldn't you be back in D.C. working on our next handout?" replied the loafers.

Konfuzius writes:

in response to multi_million_heir:

Fast forward 50 years from the great JFK. The loafers lounged slothfully as the president strolled proudly through the neighborhood. And the great Obama asked the loafers "what are you doing"? "Having some moon pies and beer, now move, I can't see the t.v. Shouldn't you be back in D.C. working on our next handout?" replied the loafers.

Your picture of your fellows American is not the best. If I will post junk like that, I will be removed by some button pusher. For you Americans are loafers! Interesting. The biggest loafers for me are government worker. Nobody else. Worldwide. I bet you. I will be removed for this comment.

1Paradiselost writes:

Back on subject....

I can understand all the right wing Obama haters, However please tell us which bill has John Boehners congress passed helping the American poor get off food stamps and welfare? How have they saved us the American taxpayer money?

I love the spin, however how about some facts?

Konfuzius writes:

in response to 1Paradiselost:

Back on subject....

I can understand all the right wing Obama haters, However please tell us which bill has John Boehners congress passed helping the American poor get off food stamps and welfare? How have they saved us the American taxpayer money?

I love the spin, however how about some facts?

The answer is simple: NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

multi_million_heir writes:

in response to 1Paradiselost:

Back on subject....

I can understand all the right wing Obama haters, However please tell us which bill has John Boehners congress passed helping the American poor get off food stamps and welfare? How have they saved us the American taxpayer money?

I love the spin, however how about some facts?

I work 3 jobs now, and still have time for all the leisure activities I enjoy such as hunting, fishing, weightlifting, guitars and grandkids, gardening, motorcycles, trucks and cars, wood splitting, keeping the other half happy, and the list goes on..... The combined income is over 100k a year from my jobs, they aren't low paying jobs. Under 70 hrs a week. If I wanted I am certain I could find even more employment. If people want to work, the opportunities are there. They pass up many help wanted signs on the way to the food banks, walmarts and cell phone stores. A little effort and soul felt desire to make it goes a long way.

1Paradiselost writes:

Good for you! 70 Hours a week and you have grandchildren? However as you know your the exception not the rule.

Try to enjoy your life, 7 ten hours days wow, does not leave much time for leisure activities & keeping the little lady happy... God Bless you!

If you were working at Wal-Mart 70 hours a week you would make $26,390 a year. think about that.

Still looking for an answer to my above question...

BTW. Wood Splitting! not here in Florida?

multi_million_heir writes:

in response to 1Paradiselost:

Good for you! 70 Hours a week and you have grandchildren? However as you know your the exception not the rule.

Try to enjoy your life, 7 ten hours days wow, does not leave much time for leisure activities & keeping the little lady happy... God Bless you!

If you were working at Wal-Mart 70 hours a week you would make $26,390 a year. think about that.

Still looking for an answer to my above question...

BTW. Wood Splitting! not here in Florida?

As we age we sleep less. I get 3 -6 hrs a night. When I tire occasionally I will sleep 7. I am the happiest guy I know. No I am not in FL anymore. Lived on Marco for ten years. I worked 120- 130 hrs a week there. I decided God's waiting room was not for me! I thankfully found the true meaning of life in my time there. I greatly miss the shark fishing though. The main problem with society is that people are taught that happiness in life results from consumption and consumerism. And they no longer are willing to wait for anything, especially if it means working towards that end. Not when things are handed to them. And that infects all parties of the political spectrum. Look around on Marco, home of people of means for the most part. Having owned several businesses there I can tell you first hand there are a lot of miserable people there. They are unable to buy true happiness even though they try at any cost. That is why alcohol and drug use there is rampant among all age groups. Yes there are some good folks there, and I have some dear friends there. But they are the exception. This is not the great country of yore with morals and values being the impetus that drove us to better our society. The downfall started when women left the home to work and t.v. became the great babysitter. The innate behaviors ingrained are a result of that and have all but eliminated the instinctual behavior needed to survive and progress through innovation. Education is not rewarded. Acting and playing ball are. People are kinder and more neighborly when they truly earn their advancement through innovative work and cooperation, and not through accumulating mass quantities of stuff by demand or habit. Time to see the other half before I head out and do what I love, filling a vitally needed role in society making potable water, and trying to spread happiness along the way.

Konfuzius writes:

in response to multi_million_heir:

As we age we sleep less. I get 3 -6 hrs a night. When I tire occasionally I will sleep 7. I am the happiest guy I know. No I am not in FL anymore. Lived on Marco for ten years. I worked 120- 130 hrs a week there. I decided God's waiting room was not for me! I thankfully found the true meaning of life in my time there. I greatly miss the shark fishing though. The main problem with society is that people are taught that happiness in life results from consumption and consumerism. And they no longer are willing to wait for anything, especially if it means working towards that end. Not when things are handed to them. And that infects all parties of the political spectrum. Look around on Marco, home of people of means for the most part. Having owned several businesses there I can tell you first hand there are a lot of miserable people there. They are unable to buy true happiness even though they try at any cost. That is why alcohol and drug use there is rampant among all age groups. Yes there are some good folks there, and I have some dear friends there. But they are the exception. This is not the great country of yore with morals and values being the impetus that drove us to better our society. The downfall started when women left the home to work and t.v. became the great babysitter. The innate behaviors ingrained are a result of that and have all but eliminated the instinctual behavior needed to survive and progress through innovation. Education is not rewarded. Acting and playing ball are. People are kinder and more neighborly when they truly earn their advancement through innovative work and cooperation, and not through accumulating mass quantities of stuff by demand or habit. Time to see the other half before I head out and do what I love, filling a vitally needed role in society making potable water, and trying to spread happiness along the way.

" The downfall started when women left the home to work...."

Are you really sure with this statement? I like to hear momfaces respond! And all other woman on this blog.

Share your thoughts

Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.

Comments can be shared on Facebook and Yahoo!. Add both options by connecting your profiles.

Features