October 14, 2012 at 9:54 AM
If the government were to seize your paycheck and deliver to you instead a food card and a small allowance you would have a point. What we have in the states is social programs not socialism. You get to keep most of your check, right? Calm down and consider what our country would be like without the social programs you resent so much.
You want more luxury....then work for it DO NOT USE OUR MONEY FOR IT. We don't qualify for shit because we are just above the bar....I can't afford the treats either because I am to busy paying for other people to get free crap at my expense. Socialism at its best and the leading socialist is Obama.
President Obama has emulated Lenin in striving to increase state control over such “commanding heights” of our economy as energy,health care, finance,and education,with smaller forays into food,transportation and undoubtedly some areas I am overlooking.
Besides mimicking some of Lenin’s policy strategies, Obama also has adopted Karl Marx’s strategies for gradually socializing an economy. Before I spell out the Marxian nature of many of Obama’s policies, let me emphasize that I am not calling Obama a “Marxist-Leninist, period.” “Marxist-Leninist” connotes the brutal totalitarian police state of the late, unlamented Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. There is no comparison between Barack Obama’s statism and the genocidal, gulag-riddled regime of the Soviet Communists. That being said, Obama’s economic program is taken directly, if not deliberately, from the Marxist-Leninist playbook, and on that basis one may say that Obama tends toward Marxist-Leninist economics. Besides adopting the Leninist strategy of seeking greater control over the commanding heights of the economy, if one reviews Marx’s 10-point platform for how to socialize a country’s economy in stages (“The Communist Manifesto,” chapter two), one finds that Team Obama and his congressional progressive allies have taken actions to further the goals laid out in all 10 of the planks in the Marx platform.
CITED - MARK HENDRICKSON, Published 7/26/2012, President Obama's Marxist-Leninist Economics: Fact And Fiction, FORBES.COM, Retrieved 10/12/2012, http://www.forbes.com/sites/markhendrickson/2012/07/26/president-obamas-marxist-leninist-economics-fact-and-fiction/
Exactly. I have a girlfriend who does nails and always does mine for free (I babysit for her for free). I don't understand why people feel the need to tell others what they can and cannot have simply because they're on PA. Gods forbid you give yourself a treat now and then.
Ok, so I've put some thought in to why I find this article so off putting. The writer is quick to point out the 'luxuries' the woman seems to have (clean clothes, nails done, hair done) as if people who receive assistance aren't allowed to have these things, that all people who are on PA should look like scum. That it's impossible that someone may have treated her to these things, or maybe she saved her Pennies to have these things done. It makes it seem like anyone who has "nice" things on PA are somehow abusing the system. It's generalizing and it's wrong. I also don't like how this person automatically points out fraud because they don't understand the different forms of PA. This whole article is disturbing and people are dumb enough to buy it as truth..I just don't like it. It lacks substance. Poods, I'm a little disappointed.
This brings to mind the time hubby told me my nails looked good for fake ones lol. I have never had my nails done but when I was young they were always long and painted. Polish costs very little, do people really have an issue with people havng pretty nails? How do we know who paints their own and who gets them painted?i