quote Originally posted by newf: If that is true it would have been better if they had of left it there and had the money to deal with more recipients and the higher cost of living but as usual a Government wouldn't be able to let that much money go unspent.

We had to fund the Great Society and the Vietnam war was taking everything.
They promised to pay it back, and it was going to lift everyone out of poverty.

quote Originally posted by partfiero: We had to fund the Great Society

Are we there yet?

We were. It worked so great, and so efficiently, that Congress and Bill Clinton had to have it Reformed in 1996 with the
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act.

quote Originally posted by Boondawg: Are we there yet?

That is what we used SS on really.

Although I would add the Apollo program to that list.

1 out of 3 ain't bad, but we had to kill more than 50,000 Americans and 1-million Vietnamese on one of those mistake.

Welcome to the new Detroit...

quote Originally posted by fierobear: It could be worse. You could be in California. This state is FINISHED. The dumbass liberals elected Jerry f***ing Brown for governor. The same liberal Democrats who have the state on the verge of bankruptcy just removed the last stop by electing a liberal Democratic governor. On top of that, prop 23, which would have suspended the asinine state Cap and Tax until unemployment drops to reasonable level failed, and prop 25, which removes the 2/3 majority requirement to raise taxes and fees, passed. So, here's the scorecard: We now have complete liberal control, no impediments to higher taxes and Cap and Trade in the state goes forward. High unemployment already, higher taxes to come, more taxes and costs with cap and trade, and nothing to stop it. This state is F***ED.

quote Originally posted by texasfiero: Ok, Republicans, push back HARD against GovernmentObama. FORCE OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRATS TO DEFEND THEIR POSITIONS!

Exactly! Even if they don't think they will be successful in overturning anything at the moment, force the Dem's to put their name on everything. Force them to explain their positions. Don't allow them to run and hide. Bring everything into the light. They have nothing to stand on, so if they are forced to show what they are about, the slaughter will continue in 2012. And for those poor diluted souls that think 2 years of a stalemate is a bad thing, they are mistaken. After the raping we just endured for the last two years, a stalemate is a beautiful thing.

Jim

quote Originally posted by maryjane: Another thing I dislike about SS, is that anyone who pays into it can, of course draw it when they reach the minimum age requirement--regardless of their financial status. I have personally known millionaires who were drawing SS and Medicare. Yes, I know they paid in to it--heck, even Warren Buffett is eligible to draw it if he paid in to it-but there is just something to me that doesn't feel right about that.

Social security takes 6.2% of my gross income up to 106,000 (or whatever it is exactly), and takes 6.2% from my employer that they COULD have paid to me but they have to pay to Social Security. That comes to over 12,000 per year. I have worked 25 years now and paid social security taxes over that time. That is $300,000 WITHOUT accounting for ANY interest accumulation over that quarter of a century.

There is just something to me that doesn't feel right about me not getting that money back.

Because if I can't have the money back, then essentially it has been ANOTHER 12% income tax ON TOP OF the ALREADY 32% I currently pay. Something just doesn't feel right about me paying a FORTY FOUR PERCENT INCOME TAX RATE.

I just LOVE when people like t-bone bring up the "wealthy" PAYING THEIR FAIR SHARE.

Uh, if I am paying FORTY FOUR PERCENT OF MY GROSS INCOME just for INCOME TAX, (and not accounting for all the OTHER taxes I pay), have I HIT MY FAIR SHARE YET????


Now you people need to THINK about that before just throwing around "pay my fair share". Just because I worked hard and put myself in a good position, it is only "fair" that I would wind up paying over $90,000 per year in income taxes?? Think about that for a minute. NINETY THOUSAND DOLLARS. PER YEAR. Times 25 years so far. That is 2 1/4 MILLION dollars ALREADY in my life.

So PLEASE tell me again that I'm not paying my fair share, and that it doesn't seem right that I would AT LEAST get back the stinking 300,000 out of 2 1/4 MILLION I've already paid the U.S. government.


Now if you want to have social security place a LIMIT on "rich" people so that after a certain income level, people's withdrawals can't exceed what they paid in if they live a long time, I can get behind that.


Fair share. That's great. I'll be muttering THAT all day now. Fair share...fair share...yeah...fair share.

quote Originally posted by frontal lobe: Social security takes 6.2% of my gross income up to 106,000 (or whatever it is exactly), and takes 6.2% from my employer that they COULD have paid to me but they have to pay to Social Security. That comes to over 12,000 per year. I have worked 25 years now and paid social security taxes over that time. That is $300,000 WITHOUT accounting for ANY interest accumulation over that quarter of a century.

My *income tax* rate is fairly low, but the Social Security, Medicare and other various withholding from my paychecks are more than the income tax withholding.

Obama says now he needs more contact with the people, he may have lost touch a bit........duhhh, Ya think ?

AND NOW, he agrees he needs to work the republicans (enemies). He rammed anything he wanted thru before and ignored them, now hes stuck with NO choice. Hes acting like he wants to work together...but didnt think of that before all his buddies got essentially fired by the people.

quote Originally posted by frontal lobe: Social security takes 6.2% of my gross income up to 106,000 (or whatever it is exactly), and takes 6.2% from my employer that they COULD have paid to me but they have to pay to Social Security. That comes to over 12,000 per year. I have worked 25 years now and paid social security taxes over that time. That is $300,000 WITHOUT accounting for ANY interest accumulation over that quarter of a century. There is just something to me that doesn't feel right about me not getting that money back. Because if I can't have the money back, then essentially it has been ANOTHER 12% income tax ON TOP OF the ALREADY 32% I currently pay. Something just doesn't feel right about me paying a FORTY FOUR PERCENT INCOME TAX RATE. I just LOVE when people like t-bone bring up the "wealthy" PAYING THEIR FAIR SHARE. Uh, if I am paying FORTY FOUR PERCENT OF MY GROSS INCOME just for INCOME TAX, (and not accounting for all the OTHER taxes I pay), have I HIT MY FAIR SHARE YET???? Now you people need to THINK about that before just throwing around "pay my fair share". Just because I worked hard and put myself in a good position, it is only "fair" that I would wind up paying over $90,000 per year in income taxes?? Think about that for a minute. NINETY THOUSAND DOLLARS. PER YEAR. Times 25 years so far. That is 2 1/4 MILLION dollars ALREADY in my life. So PLEASE tell me again that I'm not paying my fair share, and that it doesn't seem right that I would AT LEAST get back the stinking 300,000 out of 2 1/4 MILLION I've already paid the U.S. government. Now if you want to have social security place a LIMIT on "rich" people so that after a certain income level, people's withdrawals can't exceed what they paid in if they live a long time, I can get behind that. Fair share. That's great. I'll be muttering THAT all day now. Fair share...fair share...yeah...fair share.

Ahh the disincentivising of hard work. One of the myriad of reasons for the downward trejectory the nation has been on.

DIVE ! DIVE ! OOOOOGAH ! OOOOGAH !!

Election doesn't end major discord for GOP, Obama
http://apnews.myway.com/art...01104/D9J98NH00.html

quote WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama may have expressed humility over the "shellacking" he took in the midterm elections. But he and his fellow Democrats made it clear they still differ with Republicans on many key issues, and all the talk of a new spirit of compromise could prove tough to follow up on. Leaders of the two parties seemed to draw different lessons from the elections, in which Republicans took over the House and cut deeply into the Democrats' Senate majority. Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky practically threatened Democrats with deeper losses in two years if they don't show more willingness to embrace GOP ideas for health care, taxes and other matters. "They may have missed the message somewhat," McConnell told reporters. Democrats "can change now and work with us to address the issues that are important to the American people," he said, or they can refuse and see that another round of Republican wins "can happen in 2012," when Obama will seek re-election. Obama, in a White House news conference Wednesday, said voters were expressing displeasure with both parties. "I think that part of the message sent to Republicans was, 'We want to see stronger job growth in this country,'" the president said. He tweaked Republicans for almost always pushing tax cuts, regardless of economic conditions. "From 2001 to 2009, we cut taxes pretty significantly," Obama said, "and we just didn't see the kind of expansion that is going to be necessary" to create jobs. Obama and, to some degree, Republican leaders did signal they might reach accords on a few issues, such as energy. Obama abandoned his proposed cap-and-trade system for trying to reduce greenhouse gases, which Republicans sharply opposed. But he said the two parties might reach compromises on other fronts, such as promoting electric cars, nuclear power, energy efficiency and "energy independence." Obama also said there should be bipartisan agreement on a plan to give businesses a tax break by letting them accelerate the depreciation of some equipment. But those are relatively minor issues in the federal government universe. The array of Republican and Democratic postelection news conferences Wednesday gave virtually no hint about how Obama and the next Congress might tackle major issues such as immigration or Medicare's long-term viability. Leaders in both parties talked about cutting spending. But there was barely a word about cutting big programs that consume so much of the federal budget, such as Social Security, Medicare and the military. Obama hinted that he might be willing to extend Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans for a year or two but not make them permanent, as Republicans have advocated. Republicans, meanwhile, spoke of working with Democrats only in vague terms. Mostly, they seemed defiant. The election "was clearly a referendum on the administration and the Democratic majority," McConnell said. "We're determined to stop the agenda Americans have rejected and to turn the ship around." Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said that in light of the election, "Republicans must take the responsibility to solve the problems of ordinary Americans," although he added, "people expect us to work together." Big clashes seem inevitable. On the Democrats' signature health care law, House Speaker-to-be John Boehner, R-Ohio, told reporters, "We have to do everything we can to try to repeal this bill and replace it with common-sense reforms that'll bring down the cost of health insurance." Obama, whose veto powers would seem to make repeal impossible, defended the law's main provisions at length. "When I talk to a woman from New Hampshire who doesn't have to mortgage her house because she got cancer and is seeking treatment, but now is able to get health insurance; when I talk to parents who are relieved that their child with a preexisting condition can now stay on their policy" until age 26, "or the small businesses that are now taking advantage of the tax credits that are provided, then I say to myself, this was the right thing to do," Obama said. He also rejected claims that he spent too much money to stimulate the economy, bail out banks and shore up automakers at the recession's height. Republicans hammered all those programs in the elections. "We've stabilized the economy," Obama said. "We've got job growth in the private sectors. But people all across America aren't feeling that progress. They don't see it." "I've got to take direct responsibility for the fact that we have not made as much progress as we need to make," he said. Leaders of both parties said it will take time for the House, Senate and White House to see where they might find common ground. Meanwhile, Boehner indirectly acknowledged that taming his own Republican caucus won't be easy. Asked how he would find the votes for an all-but-inevitable increase in the federal debt ceiling, given that tea partiers despise the idea, Boehner said, "We'll be working that out over the next couple of months."

quote Obama said. "We've got job growth in the private sectors. But people all across America aren't feeling that progress. They don't see it."

Perhaps that is because the job reports say differently. Altho new jobs have been created last month, they fell way short of the jobs that were lost.

quote Jobless Claims Increase Initial unemployment claims jumped by 20,000 to 457,000 in the week ended Oct. 30, the Labor Department said in its weekly report Thursday. The previous week's figures were revised upward to 437,000 from 434,000. Economists surveyed by Dow Jones Newswires had expected claims would rise by only 11,000. The four-week moving average, which aims to smooth volatility in the data, rose by 2,000 to 456,000 from the prior week's revised average of 454,000.

quote Originally posted by frontal lobe: Social security takes 6.2% of my gross income up to 106,000 (or whatever it is exactly), and takes 6.2% from my employer that they COULD have paid to me but they have to pay to Social Security. That comes to over 12,000 per year. I have worked 25 years now and paid social security taxes over that time. That is $300,000 WITHOUT accounting for ANY interest accumulation over that quarter of a century. There is just something to me that doesn't feel right about me not getting that money back. Because if I can't have the money back, then essentially it has been ANOTHER 12% income tax ON TOP OF the ALREADY 32% I currently pay. Something just doesn't feel right about me paying a FORTY FOUR PERCENT INCOME TAX RATE. I just LOVE when people like t-bone bring up the "wealthy" PAYING THEIR FAIR SHARE. Uh, if I am paying FORTY FOUR PERCENT OF MY GROSS INCOME just for INCOME TAX, (and not accounting for all the OTHER taxes I pay), have I HIT MY FAIR SHARE YET???? Now you people need to THINK about that before just throwing around "pay my fair share". Just because I worked hard and put myself in a good position, it is only "fair" that I would wind up paying over $90,000 per year in income taxes?? Think about that for a minute. NINETY THOUSAND DOLLARS. PER YEAR. Times 25 years so far. That is 2 1/4 MILLION dollars ALREADY in my life. So PLEASE tell me again that I'm not paying my fair share, and that it doesn't seem right that I would AT LEAST get back the stinking 300,000 out of 2 1/4 MILLION I've already paid the U.S. government. Now if you want to have social security place a LIMIT on "rich" people so that after a certain income level, people's withdrawals can't exceed what they paid in if they live a long time, I can get behind that. Fair share. That's great. I'll be muttering THAT all day now. Fair share...fair share...yeah...fair share.

so - why not go somewhere that will allow you get more income?
go to where the paying work is. thats the trick, aint it?

where is this place? what should we be modelling ourselves after?

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: where is this place? what should we be modelling ourselves after?

Where we have been a few times in our past.
Back to the future!

[This message has been edited by partfiero (edited 11-04-2010).]

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: so - why not go somewhere that will allow you get more income? go to where the paying work is. thats the trick, aint it? where is this place? what should we be modelling ourselves after?

Why should I HAVE to go somewhere other than this country?

This IS the place.

Back to the constitutional republic we were in the first place, where we were the land of THE FREE and the home of those brave enough to live like it.

And people took responsibility for their OWN lives. And didn't try to get the government to FORCE people to give up their hard-earned money to give to those that refuse to work and refuse to take advantage of the opportunity.

quote Originally posted by frontal lobe: And people took responsibility for their OWN lives. And didn't try to get the government to FORCE people to give up their hard-earned money to give to those that refuse to work and refuse to take advantage of the opportunity.

And worse, give it to another country.

quote Originally posted by maryjane:

After the jubilation. it only took one day to get back to the realities of failed policies.
Is that "Summer Of Recovery" tour the dems were to take still on?
And don't tell me it has been canceled, my non-refundable ticket was purchased with my offspring's $$$.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: so - why not go somewhere that will allow you get more income? go to where the paying work is. thats the trick, aint it? where is this place? what should we be modelling ourselves after?

ARRRRRRGGHHHHH!!! WE WERE THE MODEL UNTIL OBAMA AND HIS CRONIES GOT THEIR GRUBBY LITTLE HANDS ON IT!!!!
THIS IS THE PLACE! THERE IS NO OTHER PLACE!

It would be a lot simpler if you left. There are a lot of choices for you to pick from, if you want to be ruled over. And NO my caps button was not stuck.

Jim

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: so - why not go somewhere that will allow you get more income? go to where the paying work is. thats the trick, aint it? where is this place? what should we be modelling ourselves after?

Well, It damn sure ain't Detroit Michigan.

quote Originally posted by rogergarrison: Obama says now he needs more contact with the people, he may have lost touch a bit........duhhh, Ya think ? AND NOW, he agrees he needs to work the republicans (enemies). He rammed anything he wanted thru before and ignored them, now hes stuck with NO choice. Hes acting like he wants to work together...but didnt think of that before all his buddies got essentially fired by the people.

In the day or two before the election, he told them "they can ride along, but they have to get in the back seat". After he won the election, to cooperation, he said "I won". Now it's all about cooperation? Is anyone buying that bullshit?

quote Originally posted by Boondawg: I have no children. So I don't have that concern. Pay me. I'm clean! I payed in, I take out. It's a wash.

Really, lucky you. But, I seem to remember some little girl you left back in Alaska that you really cared about. But, I guess she doesn't count in this formula.
(((((shrugg)))))

Ron

Obama Tells Left-Wing MoveOn: I Will Fight GOP
Thursday, 04 Nov 2010 04:14 PM
Article Font Size

President Barack Obama may have expressed humility during his conciliatory news conference Wednesday over the shellacking he took in the midterm elections, but just hours after speaking to the nation, he made it very clear in a phone call to left-leaning activist group MoveOn that he is not willing to compromise his core beliefs.

“We always knew bringing about change in Washington wouldn’t be easy, and it might get tougher in the days ahead,” Obama told the liberal organization's supporters a day after Republicans won the House in a landslide. “The message I took away from the elections is very simple: The American people are still frustrated. They still want change; we just have to work harder to deliver the change the American people want.”

Obama said he and activist organizations like MoveOn must work harder pushing the progressive agenda “until every American sees real change in their own lives . . . We didn’t sign up for doing what was easy, we signed up for doing what was right,” he said of his policies to fix America. “We are going to continue to take all the time it takes –– and all the effort it takes –– to get our country back on track.”

Obama wants MoveOn to keep the spirit of hope and change alive because it helps him translate that spirit into accomplishment.

“To those who began the journey with me almost four years ago, think about how far we’ve come,” Obama said. “Think about the ups and downs we went through during the course of the campaign. There were times when folks counted us out and we always came back. The same thing is going to happen over the next two years, and the next six years.”

http://www.newsmax.com/Insi...al&promo_code=B0E0-1

quote Originally posted by blackrams: Really, lucky you. But, I seem to remember some little girl you left back in Alaska that you really cared about. But, I guess she doesn't count in this formula. (((((shrugg))))) Ron

You DID detect the humor I was attempting in the sentiment and structure of that post, not to mention the smiley face, did you not?

And the fact that my taxes have been putting strangers kids through school since 1974, right?
And the truth that I have raised FAR more then my fair share of OTHER peoples kids?
And the joy I express in the exsistence of all kids?

How could you miss ALL that?!

quote Originally posted by Boondawg: You DID detect the humor I was attempting in the sentiment and structure of that post, not to mention the smiley face, did you not? And the fact that my taxes have been putting strangers kids through school since 1974, right? And the truth that I have raised FAR more then my fair share of OTHER peoples kids? And the joy I express in the exsistence of all kids? How could you miss ALL that?!

I didn't miss it Boonie, I just wanted to ensure that you and everyone else realizes that someone's kids are going to be affected by the decisions being made now. That's one of the main reasons I hate what the current administration is doing to our country. They are destroying my (our) kids futures. Didn't mean to get personal though.

Ron

quote Originally posted by blackrams: Didn't mean to get personal though. Ron

I was not offended by it.
Almost, but I just don't think of you in that way.
Maybe in the future, though...

Are the results all in?
1. What will be senate and house makeup?
2. How many seats did the GOP pick up in each?

quote Originally posted by Boondawg: I was not offended by it. Almost, but I just don't think of you in that way. Maybe in the future, though...

Hey Buddy, I don't go that route.

Ron

quote Originally posted by blackrams: Hey Buddy, I don't go that route. Ron

Whew!

quote Originally posted by maryjane: Are the results all in? 1. What will be senate and house makeup? 2. How many seats did the GOP pick up in each?

10 seat still too close to call.
Conn, the state, may have big problems with the close race they have..
Photo copied ballets some how got mixed in the batch.
This may be known as the devil election.
666, + 6 in the senate, +66 in the house.

[This message has been edited by partfiero (edited 11-04-2010).]

Committee chairmanships could also be up for grabs because of the powershift.

quote While the losses of 16 freshmen "Obama babies" — those elected during the president's 2008 sweep — were expected, the number of long-serving Democrats who lost re-election this week is staggering, and suggests a widespread dissatisfaction with Washington. All told, with about a dozen races still uncalled, Democrats have already shed 376 years of congressional experience, and that could go as high as 430 years if five other Democrats lose races in which returns show they are trailing. Losing outright were 18-term incumbent Minnesota Rep. James L. Oberstar, chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee; 14-term South Carolina Rep. John M. Spratt, chairman of the Budget Committee; and 17-term Missouri Rep. Ike Skelton, chairman of the Armed Services Committee. As bad as the numbers are, they actually understate the total cost of party seniority for the Democrats this year. Appropriations Committee Chairman David R. Obey, a 21-term incumbent from Wisconsin, retired this year rather than seek re-election in his Wisconsin district, while Rep. Alan B. Mollohan, a senior member of the Appropriations Committee, lost in a primary. Republicans won in Mr. Obey's district and appeared likely to capture Mr. Mollohan's old seat in a very tight race. And 10-term Rep. Chet Edwards, a chairman of one of the Appropriations subcommittees, lost his re-election bid in Texas. Trailing on Wednesday morning, though their races were not yet called, were 14-term incumbent Rep. Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas Democrat, and four other Democrats with a total of 13 terms among them.

quote Originally posted by partfiero: Obama Tells Left-Wing MoveOn: I Will Fight GOP

So, which Obama are we supposed to believe, the "bipartisan" Obama, or the "I will fight GOP" Obama?

quote Originally posted by fierobear: So, which Obama are we supposed to believe, the "bipartisan" Obama, or the "I will fight GOP" Obama?

Spots, what spots says the leopard?
He will only move to the right to fake them out, then run hard left.

I wonder, if Tuesday night, when the results started coming in to the White House, If Biden leaned over to Obama and said "This is a big ****ing deal!"?

I wonder if Obama has ever had AF1 pull up next to George Soros's private jet so he could ask if he had any Grey Poupon...

Will Redistricting Be a Bloodbath for Democrats?

Republicans See Historic Victories; Gain Control of At Least 19 Democratic-Held State Legislatures

Republicans gained a historic edge over Democrats in state legislature elections that will have national implications for years to come.

State legislatures in 44 states are responsible for one of the most important political processes: drawing district boundaries for the U.S. House of Representatives.

In a process that usually triggers partisan bickering, the reigning party usually has the upper hand, especially if the governor is also from the same party and cannot veto the legislature's decisions.

Republicans took control of at least 19 Democratic-controlled state legislatures Tuesday and gained more than 650 seats, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. The last time Republicans saw such victories was in 1994, when they captured control of 20 state legislatures.

Republicans haven't controlled as many state legislatures since 1928.

Across the country, the map for state legislatures has turned noticeably red as Republicans now control 55 chambers, with Democrats at 38 and the remaining yet to be decided. At the beginning of this week, Democrats controlled 60 of the country's state legislative chambers and Republicans 36.

Tuesday also was a historic day for many state legislatures. In Minnesota, Republicans won the Senate for the first time ever, while in Alabama, they took control for the first time since reconstruction.

The gains were truly of "historic proportions," said Tim Storey, a senior fellow at the National Conference of State Legislatures, pointing out that the last time there was such a wave of state legislature switches was 1966.

Everything moved in the direction of the GOP," Storey said. "I think Republicans are in the best position for redistricting they have been in since the modern redistricting era began in 1962. And they really have kind of a decided advantage now with the big wins."

The redistricting process that occurs once every decade when the Census is released usually tends to favor the party in power.

Redistricting is important because it not only determines the number of seats a state will get in the U.S. House of Representatives, it also creates boundaries for educational and public institutions.

When the process begins next year, it will mean a big boon for Republicans, who, in addition to state legislatures, also won key governorships.

GOP gubernatorial candidates won races where redistricting battles will be fought most heavily next year such as Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

All other signs also point to a victorious redistricting year for Republicans. In states like Florida, which is expected to gain two House seats, and Texas, which is projected to up its number by four, Republicans maintained their majorities.

Redistricting -- or "gerrymandering," as it's often called by critics because of a salamander-shaped district created by Massachusetts Gov. Elbridge Gerry in 1812 -- is a bitter political process with high stakes for both parties.

"You can win a number of seats just by controlling the boundary," said Darrell West, vice president and director of governance studies at The Brookings Institution.

In an effort to reform the system, California on Tuesday voted to pass a proposition that will test the power of independent commissions formed solely for the purpose of drawing district lines.

(original article continues to a page 2)

quote Originally posted by blackrams: That's one of the main reasons I hate what the current administration is doing to our country. They are destroying my (our) kids futures.

Most people are thinking in financial terms when they talk about destroying our children's future or mortgaging our children's futures. And I understand that.

To me, that is a MINOR issue compared to what is even worse.


The current administration is trying to actively to teach the children of this country that they are dependent on the government.

You don't know how to make sure you get decent health care. You need US to handle that.
You don't know how to go out and get your own employment. You need US to create jobs.
You don't know how to save for your own future. You need US to do that for you.

This administration is trying to brainwash our children into thinking that GOVERNMENT is the solution to life's problems, and that THEY are the ones RESPONSIBLE for taking care of things.


That is the exact OPPOSITE of what people came and started this great country and system to do. And THAT was the gradual slide that was going on until Obama became president, and since then he has tried to DRAMATICALLY accelerate the pace at which people give up their individual responsibilities and destinies, and turn it over to the government.

THAT is the way this administration is destroying our children (except for in the homes where parents actively teach against this evil nonsense).