That's funny, in a way. The congress is stuffed with politicians who
take money from corporations to get re-elected, and in return do the
bidding of these corporate interests.
That's the direct, inevitable result of your bigger and bigger,
centralized government as a solution. The more intrusive they are,
the more they impact people and business' daily lives, the more people
and businesses have to get involved just to survive. Otherwise, the
lawyers in Congress--who have no idea have to do anything--make quite
a muddle of running all the rest of us.
One of the most lucrative
activities for a politician is therefore opposing regulations, and
opposing expenditures in the common good.
Complete bollocks--the easiest thing for a politician is to spend
money, common good or not. Then spend more, and more, and more.
In this case the
beneficiaries are mostly poor people - these are the easiest and safest
to deny help to, since they tend not to vote.
Your victim here was a high school honors student, now a 21-year-old
single mom with her own apartment. How did that happen? A clever
young woman, how was she able to do that, and why did she think she
should/could?
Failing first to ban lead
paint for years, then failing to rectify the health problem that had
been created, is not just immoral, it carries an enormous social cost.
Creating the entitlement network that financially and socially
encourages bright young women in these ways--the nanny state--is what
created the enormous social cost.
The main reason Republicans hate and fear Obama is that he has inspired
many poor people to vote for the first time.
I'm independent, not Republican, but my complaints about Obama stem
from how he's hurting the poor, wiping out jobs and their road up out
of poverty to the middle incomes; creating and encouraging dependence
over work, constantly race-baiting and denigrating when he could be
uniting and uplifting. "Obama's" society is one founded on creating
dependent self-victims like this one en masse, and telling them
they're entitled, there's nothing they can do, and it's not their
fault.
That's *dis*-empowering. That's telling people they're helpless
victims of other people's decisions, and, implicitly, that they should
be.
Ignoring the fact that he's economically incompetent, never having had
a real job, he's easily the most divisive, radical president in my
life time, an uncompromising, inflexible, dogmatic, mean-spirited
demagogue. For example, he recently had Medicare denying cancer
patients treatment, so that he could blame the sequester (that he
himself invented).
