HOW YOU FIGURE YOU COME UP WITH THE NUMBER Dumbass
-
Comment -
since you're finally acknowledging you don't know I'll help youOriginally posted by chico2663
Total number of Americans on welfare 110,489,000
Total number of Americans on food stamps 41,700,000 Total number of Americans on unemployment insurance 10,200,000 Percent of the US population on welfare 35.4 % Total government spending on welfare annually (not including food stamps or unemployment) $131,900,000,000 Welfare Demographics Percent of recipients who are white
38.8 %
Percent of recipients who are black 39.8 % Percent of recipients who are Hispanic 15.7 %
lets make sure you understand this.
How many people are on welfare?Comment -
Welfare: A White Secret
Come on, my fellow white folks, we have something to confess. No, nothing to do with age spots or those indoor-tanning creams we use to get us through the | winter without looking like the final stages of TB. Nor am I talking about the fact that we all go home and practice funky dance moves behind drawn shades. Out with it, friends, the biggest secret known to whites since the invention of powdered rouge: welfare is a white program. Yep. At least it’s no more black than Vanilla Ice is a fair rendition of classic urban rap.
Despite prevailing stereotype, Whites, not Blacks, collect greatest share of public aid dollars
SAY the word “welfare” and immediately the image of the lazy Black welfare queen who breeds for profit surfaces in the minds of those who have come to believe the hideous stereotype. It is a myth that persists despite government figures and authoritative studies showing that Whites overwhelmingly reap the lion’s share of the dole.The image of the Black “welfare cheat,” public aid advocates say, is based on misconceptions about poor minorities. The notion, they say, comes from society’s resentment of seemingly able-bodied people getting paid for doing nothing.
“For some people, there is a need to believe that there are
professional welfare recipients who are deliberately trying to get not
only what they need to survive, but more,” says Anne D. Hill, director
of programs for the National Urban League. “People say to themselves: ‘I
work. How come this person who appears to be healthy isn’t working?’ We
tend to equate our condition with others without fully knowing their
circumstances.”
Hill and other welfare supporters argue that numbers, and not erroneous stereotypes, tell the real story about public assistance clients: Some 61 percent of welfare recipients are White, while 33 percent are Black, according to 1990 Census Bureau statistics, the latest figures available.
The federal government defines welfare as all entitlement programs funded through taxes. These programs, listed as “direct benefit payments for individuals” by the Office of Management and Budget, make up $730 billion or 43 percent of the $1.47 trillion the government will spend this fiscal year.
Social Security is the nation’s largest welfare program, although many Whites prefer to call it a retirement plan. The government writes retirement and disability benefit checks to 35.4 million recipients of whom 88.7 percent are White and 9.6 percent are Black. The reason behind this shocking disparity is perhaps the most lamentable of all: The life expectancy rate for Blacks is six years shorter than that of Whites, meaning Black workers spend years paying into a retirement system only to have White retirees reap the benefits for a longer time.
Welfare critics rarely search the Social Security rolls for “welfare cheats,” but train their sights on people getting Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), Medicaid and food stamps, the relief programs with the most Black clients. Yet government figures show that Whites not Blacks make up the bulk of clients on these public aid programs; a fact that dispels the notion that Blacks are scheming for a free lunch courtesy of the American taxpayer.
Among the poorest of the poor–single mothers, living below the poverty line with minor children to support 39.7 percent of AFDC clients are Black single mothers and 38.1 percent are White women with children. Food stamp recipients are 37.2 percent Black and 46.2 percent White. Medicaid benefits are paid to 27.5 percent Black recipients compared to 48.5 percent White clients.
Although the numbers show that Whites get the biggest chunk of public aid dollars, welfare critics still charge that Blacks shouldn’t collect 33 percent of welfare benefits when they only make up 12 percent of the general population. They say the imbalance proves their case that Blacks are too busy complaining and blaming racism for their plight to look for a job
But racism is at the heart of the standard-of-living gap between Blacks and Whites, welfare advocates argue. Unlawful race-based hiring practices, they contend, keep Blacks from getting jobs that pay enough to lift them out of poverty. Until more blue-collar jobs open up to Black workers, Blacks will continue to battle poverty and the freeloader misconception.
Turning welfare reform into a “Black issue” makes racial scapegoating easy and allows stereotypes, like the Reagan era “welfare queen,” to go unchallenged, public aid supporters say. Right wing reformers cast Whites as “deserving” clients who are legitimately unable to pay their own way through no fault of their own. Blacks are labeled “undeserving” recipients who are looking for the feds to subsidize their slothfulness.
Now….reading the facts and truth listed above in this article….who actually are the recipients of welfare in the United States Of America? Caucasians by far.
I will list the facts and truth one more time….for those too ignorant, blind or racist to have comprehended them above….read them again below…..
Some 61 percent of welfare recipients are White, while 33 percent are Black, according to 1990 Census Bureau statistics, the latest figures available.
The federal government defines welfare as all entitlement programs funded through taxes. These programs, listed as “direct benefit payments for individuals” by the Office of Management and Budget, make up $730 billion or 43 percent of the $1.47 trillion the government will spend this fiscal year.
Social Security is the nation’s largest welfare program, although many Whites prefer to call it a retirement plan. The government writes retirement and disability benefit checks to 35.4 million recipients of whom 88.7 percent are White and 9.6 percent are Black. The reason behind this shocking disparity is perhaps the most lamentable of all: The life expectancy rate for Blacks is six years shorter than that of Whites, meaning Black workers spend years paying into a retirement system only to have White retirees reap the benefits for a longer time.
Welfare critics rarely search the Social Security rolls for “welfare cheats,” but train their sights on people getting Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), Medicaid and food stamps, the relief programs with the most Black clients. Yet government figures show that Whites not Blacks make up the bulk of clients on these public aid programs; a fact that dispels the notion that Blacks are scheming for a free lunch courtesy of the American taxpayer.
Among the poorest of the poor–single mothers, living below the poverty line with minor children to support 39.7 percent of AFDC clients are Black single mothers and 38.1 percent are White women with children. Food stamp recipients are 37.2 percent Black and 46.2 percent White. Medicaid benefits are paid to 27.5 percent Black recipients compared to 48.5 percent White clients.
Although the numbers show that Whites get the biggest chunk of public aid dollars, welfare critics still charge that Blacks shouldn’t collect 33 percent of welfare benefits when they only make up 12 percent of the general population. They say the imbalance proves their case that Blacks are too busy complaining and blaming racism for their plight to look for a job.
Who Gets Food Stamps? White People, Mostly
WASHINGTON — Gene Alday, a Republican member of the Mississippi state legislature,apologized last week for telling a reporter that all the African-Americans in his hometown of Walls, Mississippi, are unemployed and on food stamps.
“I come from a town where all the blacks are getting food stamps and what I call ‘welfare crazy checks,'” Alday said to a reporter for The Clarion-Ledger, a Mississippi newspaper, earlier this month. “They don’t work.”
Nationally, most of the people who receive benefits from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program are white. According to 2013 data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which administers the program, 40.2 percent of SNAP recipients are white, 25.7 percent are black, 10.3 percent are Hispanic, 2.1 percent are Asian and 1.2 percent are Native American.
In the two congressional districts that overlap Alday’s state legislature district, more African-Americans than whites receive food stamps, according to USDA data.
Twenty-three million households and 47 million Americans received benefits on an average month in 2013; enrollment declined slightly to 22 million households and 46 million individuals in 2014. Three-quarters of those households included a child, an elderly person or someone with a disability. The average monthly benefit per household was $274 in 2013 and $256 last year.
Republicans are conducting a review of nutrition assistance with an eye toward figuring out how to nudge more people into the workforce. In recent years Republicans have lamented that a growing share of recipients are able-bodied adults without children — a group that made up 10.2 percent of beneficiaries in 2011, up from 6.6 percent before the onset of the Great Recession in 2007. (The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that 1 million people will be kicked off the rolls by next year as states reimpose time limits on childless, non-disabled adults.)
Nearly one-third of food stamp beneficiaries lived in a household where at least one member had some earned income in 2013. Different states have different eligibility rules for the program, but federal law puts the upper income limit at 200 percent of the poverty line, currently $20,090 for a family of three. Many SNAP recipients qualify based on their participation in another means-tested program, such as Medicaid or Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.
Thank you Huffington Post & Arthur Delaney & Alissa SchellerComment -
Originally posted by brooks85
still at the grocery store?
also again.
all SNAP is welfare; not all welfare is SNAP
similarily
all apples are fruit; not all fruit are apples
very simple logic unless you're jtolerComment -
dude you got to be the dumbest person i metComment -
coming from the guy who can't read I'm not too worriedOriginally posted by chico2663
when you get back from the grocery store go ahead and post how many people are on welfare
.
Total number of Americans on welfare 110,489,000
Total number of Americans on food stamps 41,700,000 Total number of Americans on unemployment insurance 10,200,000 Percent of the US population on welfare 35.4 % Total government spending on welfare annually (not including food stamps or unemployment) $131,900,000,000 Welfare Demographics Percent of recipients who are white
38.8 %
Percent of recipients who are black 39.8 % Percent of recipients who are Hispanic 15.7 % Comment -
dude you got to be the dumbest person ihate to break the news to you food stamps is welfare. if you don't believe that talk to gov. kasichComment -
Originally posted by brooks85Originally posted by brooks85
Originally posted by chico2663
lol chico, you're burying yourself buddy.
stop being a coward, answer the question and take your humble pie like a man. We got enough rkelly and khicks types around here.Comment -
there are many forms of welfare. food stamps ,govt assistance in housing, medacaid. i thought you were republican because they all say that food stamps or any govt handout is welfare. under clinton he reformed welfare so that you can only be on it 3 years so most of them try to get ssi.Comment -
dude you are wrong. i had to deal with these fuckerssss for 20 years. i know what i'm talking about!Comment -
it was 5 years but only could be on welfare for 3 consecutive yearsComment -
Brooks and Shruter tied for biggest trumptards on the boardOriginally posted by chico2663Comment -
no, acoochy that has to be me because I lower the bar and argue with them. my father always said don't argue with stupid people because they will never understand. never had argument with shruter but i'll take your word for itComment -
acoochy is the Einstein of SBROriginally posted by ACoochy
Comment -
Dont argue with brooks, when youre right he'll move the goal posts and still be wrong. He's wrong here again.Comment -
Of course you're correct we need legal regulated immigration like every other developed country in the world...this is a fact understood by virtually everyone in the nation but the reason this hasn't been long sinced decided is bc this has become a nation of silent cowards. Home of the brave has become a sick joke...they should change our national anthem to home of the cowardly and the silent.
Nowhere in the Constitution does it suggest permanent unlimited immigration....as we've become a welfare state economy over the last 50 years of course everyone in the world is going to want to come here and get on the welfare wagon it is insane to have unlimited immigration and it's insane to be the largest economy in the country and have half its population on welfare and have that # be increasing. The fact no one remarks on this or shows any concern you can refer to the above. We need to get ppl off welfare not immigrate MORE welfare cases...we've got plenty enough poor to support as it is. I understand its good for the Democrat candidates to have the whole population on welfare but it's a nightmare for the country.Comment -
Btw forget illegal immigration just for a second...google what's going on in Mexico...if you dont think having an open border with that hellhole is not a major security concern you're out of your mind. Mexico has a murder rate of 22 ppl per 100k citizens...the US it's less than 4...now 4 is skyhigh as it is (thanks to the gangs that run rampant in our major cities) but 22 is a warzone. The murder rate isnt 6x higher by accident its bc there are merciless drug cartels that in many respects control that country.Comment -
Billions on unpaid health care and public sevices, so there's thatOriginally posted by Jayvegas420Comment -
Comment -
Comment -
in texas illegals can't use health careOriginally posted by thechaoz
Comment -
Comment -
FLORIDA A.G. CEASED INVESTIGATING TRUMP UNIVERSITY AFTER TRUMP DONATED TO HER: How many politicians/prosecutors/journalists have stopped investigating, after receiving money from Trump?
Comment -
Comment -
Comment -
Chico throwing hay makers here...Comment -
donald trump will be to the republican party what zachary taylor was to the whigs. he may win the presidency. the republicans will look back and wish he never had!Comment -
What don't you understand about Illegal?Originally posted by chico2663Comment -
lefties and righties will keep playing this game until they die. Pretending your guy is better than the other guy just because he is a D or a R. They will pretend only their ideas are correct and will refuse to get along. Look at Obama and Bush. Both sucked.Originally posted by chico2663
The US needs a leader and deal maker. I could give a penetrate what party he belongs to. Hillary or Bernie definitely aren't the answer, that's for certain. Trump is the only choice.Comment -
Clinton Foundation received subpoena from State Department investigators
Confused about the investigations around Hillary Clinton? Here are the basics.
Embed Share
Play Video1:13
There are at least three ongoing investigations into Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's time as Secretary of State. Here's an explanation of who is investigating, and why. (Gillian Brockell/The Washington Post)
By Tom Hamburger and Rosalind S. Helderman February 11
Investigators with the State Department issued a subpoena to the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation last fall seeking documents about the charity’s projects that may have required approval from the federal government during Hillary Clinton’s term as secretary of state, according to people familiar with the subpoena and written correspondence about it.
The subpoena also asked for records related to Huma Abedin, a longtime Clinton aide who for six months in 2012 was employed simultaneously by the State Department, the foundation, Clinton’s personal office, and a private consulting firm with ties to the Clintons.
The full scope and status of the inquiry, conducted by the State Department’s inspector general, were not clear from the material correspondence reviewed by The Washington Post.
[Democratic debate: Clinton receives key endorsement, but faces new questions]
A foundation representative, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing inquiry, said the initial document request had been narrowed by investigators and that the foundation is not the focus of the probe.
Who is Huma Abedin?
Embed Share
Play Video1:28
Huma Abedin has stuck by Hillary Rodham Clinton since she interned for her in the first lady's office. Here's what you need to know about Huma Abedin. (Sarah Parnass/The Washington Post)
A State IG spokesman declined to comment on that assessment or on the subpoena.
Representatives for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and Abedin also declined comment.
There is no indication that the watchdog is looking at Clinton. But as she runs for president in part by promoting her leadership of the State Department, an inquiry involving a top aide and the relationship between her agency and her family’s charity could further complicate her campaign.
For months, Clinton has wrangled with controversy over her use of a private email server, which has sparked a separate investigation by the same State Department inspector general’s office. There is also an FBI investigation into whether her system compromised national security.
Clinton was asked about the FBI investigation at a debate last week and said she was “100 percent confident” nothing would come of it. Last month, Clinton denied a Fox News report that the FBI had expanded its probe to include ties between the foundation and the State Department. She called that report “an unsourced, irresponsible” claim with “no basis.”
[How Huma Abedin operated at the center of the Clinton universe]
During the years Clinton served as secretary of state, the foundation was led by her husband, former president Bill Clinton. She joined its board after leaving office in February 2013 and helped run it until launching her White House bid in April.
Chelsea Clinton defends Clinton Foundation
Embed Share
Play Video1:58
At a Council on Foreign Relations event on women’s rights in New York City, Chelsea Clinton, vice chair of the Clinton Foundation, fielded questions about recent controversies over foreign donations to the foundation. (Council on Foreign Relations)
Abedin served as deputy chief of staff at State starting in 2009. For the second half of 2012, she participated in the “special government employee” program that enabled her to work simultaneously in the State Department, the foundation, Hillary Clinton’s personal office and Teneo, a private consultancy with close ties to the Clintons.
Abedin has been a visible part of Hillary Clinton’s world since she served as an intern in the 1990s for the then-first lady while attending George Washington University. On the campaign trail, Clinton is rarely seen in public without Abedin somewhere nearby.
Republican lawmakers have alleged that foreign officials and other powerful interests with business before the U.S. government gave large donations to the Clinton Foundation to curry favor with a sitting secretary of state and a potential future president.
Both Clintons have dismissed those accusations, saying donors contributed to the $2 billion foundation to support its core missions: improving health care, education and environmental work around the world.
[The inside story of how the Clintons built a $2 billion global empire]
Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.), Clinton’s opponent in the Democratic primary, has largely avoided raising either issue in his campaign. Last spring, Sanders expressed concerns about the Clinton Foundation being part of a political system “dominated by money.”
Local Politics Alerts
Breaking news about local government in D.C., Md., Va.
Sign up
Sanders has batted away questions about the email scandal, famously saying at a debate last fall that, “The American people are sick and tired of hearing about your damn emails.”
The potential consequences of the IG investigation are unclear. Unlike federal prosecutors, who generally use subpoenas issued by a grand jury, inspectors general frequently subpoena documents without seeking approval from a grand jury or judge.
But their power is limited. They are able to obtain documents, but they cannot compel testimony. At times, IG inquiries result in criminal charges, but sometimes they lead to administrative review, civil penalties or reports that have no legal consequences.
The IG has investigated Abedin before. Last year, the watchdog concluded she was overpaid nearly $10,000 because of violations of sick leave and vacation policies, a finding that Abedin and her attorneys have contested.
Republican lawmakers, led by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), have alleged that Abedin’s role at the center of overlapping public and private Clinton worlds created the potential for conflicts of int
Clinton Foundation received subpoena from State Department investigators
Confused about the investigations around Hillary Clinton? Here are the basics.
Embed Share
Play Video1:13
There are at least three ongoing investigations into Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's time as Secretary of State. Here's an explanation of who is investigating, and why. (Gillian Brockell/The Washington Post)
By Tom Hamburger and Rosalind S. Helderman February 11
Investigators with the State Department issued a subpoena to the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation last fall seeking documents about the charity’s projects that may have required approval from the federal government during Hillary Clinton’s term as secretary of state, according to people familiar with the subpoena and written correspondence about it.
The subpoena also asked for records related to Huma Abedin, a longtime Clinton aide who for six months in 2012 was employed simultaneously by the State Department, the foundation, Clinton’s personal office, and a private consulting firm with ties to the Clintons.
The full scope and status of the inquiry, conducted by the State Department’s inspector general, were not clear from the material correspondence reviewed by The Washington Post.
[Democratic debate: Clinton receives key endorsement, but faces new questions]
A foundation representative, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing inquiry, said the initial document request had been narrowed by investigators and that the foundation is not the focus of the probe.
Who is Huma Abedin?
Embed Share
Play Video1:28
Huma Abedin has stuck by Hillary Rodham Clinton since she interned for her in the first lady's office. Here's what you need to know about Huma Abedin. (Sarah Parnass/The Washington Post)
A State IG spokesman declined to comment on that assessment or on the subpoena.
Representatives for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and Abedin also declined comment.
There is no indication that the watchdog is looking at Clinton. But as she runs for president in part by promoting her leadership of the State Department, an inquiry involving a top aide and the relationship between her agency and her family’s charity could further complicate her campaign.
For months, Clinton has wrangled with controversy over her use of a private email server, which has sparked a separate investigation by the same State Department inspector general’s office. There is also an FBI investigation into whether her system compromised national security.
Clinton was asked about the FBI investigation at a debate last week and said she was “100 percent confident” nothing would come of it. Last month, Clinton denied a Fox News report that the FBI had expanded its probe to include ties between the foundation and the State Department. She called that report “an unsourced, irresponsible” claim with “no basis.”
[How Huma Abedin operated at the center of the Clinton universe]
During the years Clinton served as secretary of state, the foundation was led by her husband, former president Bill Clinton. She joined its board after leaving office in February 2013 and helped run it until launching her White House bid in April.
Chelsea Clinton defends Clinton Foundation
Embed Share
Play Video1:58
At a Council on Foreign Relations event on women’s rights in New York City, Chelsea Clinton, vice chair of the Clinton Foundation, fielded questions about recent controversies over foreign donations to the foundation. (Council on Foreign Relations)
Abedin served as deputy chief of staff at State starting in 2009. For the second half of 2012, she participated in the “special government employee” program that enabled her to work simultaneously in the State Department, the foundation, Hillary Clinton’s personal office and Teneo, a private consultancy with close ties to the Clintons.
Abedin has been a visible part of Hillary Clinton’s world since she served as an intern in the 1990s for the then-first lady while attending George Washington University. On the campaign trail, Clinton is rarely seen in public without Abedin somewhere nearby.
Republican lawmakers have alleged that foreign officials and other powerful interests with business before the U.S. government gave large donations to the Clinton Foundation to curry favor with a sitting secretary of state and a potential future president.
Both Clintons have dismissed those accusations, saying donors contributed to the $2 billion foundation to support its core missions: improving health care, education and environmental work around the world.
[The inside story of how the Clintons built a $2 billion global empire]
Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.), Clinton’s opponent in the Democratic primary, has largely avoided raising either issue in his campaign. Last spring, Sanders expressed concerns about the Clinton Foundation being part of a political system “dominated by money.”
Local Politics Alerts
Breaking news about local government in D.C., Md., Va.
Sign up
Sanders has batted away questions about the email scandal, famously saying at a debate last fall that, “The American people are sick and tired of hearing about your damn emails.”
The potential consequences of the IG investigation are unclear. Unlike federal prosecutors, who generally use subpoenas issued by a grand jury, inspectors general frequently subpoena documents without seeking approval from a grand jury or judge.
But their power is limited. They are able to obtain documents, but they cannot compel testimony. At times, IG inquiries result in criminal charges, but sometimes they lead to administrative review, civil penalties or reports that have no legal consequences.
The IG has investigated Abedin before. Last year, the watchdog concluded she was overpaid nearly $10,000 because of violations of sick leave and vacation policies, a finding that Abedin and her attorneys have contested.
Republican lawmakers, led by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), have alleged that Abedin’s role at the center of overlapping public and private Clinton worlds created the potential for conflicts of int
Comment -
Compared to Trump, Hillary can't be that bad. Can she?
Facing Donald Trump could make any candidate look good. Except perhaps this one
Christopher Buckley
Christopher Buckley
12 December 2015
9:00 AM
The presidential campaign here in the land hymned by one of its earliest immigrants as a shining ‘city on a hill’ looks more and more likely to boil down to electing Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton.
It is of course possible that the party of Lincoln and Reagan will not go completely off its meds and nominate Mr Trump. It’s possible, too, that the wretched FBI agents tasked with reading Mrs Clinton’s 55,000 private emails will experience a Howard Carter/King Tut’s tomb moment and find one instructing Sidney Blumenthal to offer Putin another 20 per cent of US uranium production in return for another $2.5 million donation to the Clinton Foundation, plus another $500,000 speech in Moscow. Absent such, Mrs Clinton will be the Democratic nominee. As we say here: deal with it.
Only last summer, her goose seemed all but cooked. Every day she offered another Hillary-ous explanation for why as Secretary of State she required two Blackberries linked to unclassified servers. Eventually this babbling brook of prevarication became so tedious that even her Marxist challenger, Comrade Bernie Sanders of the Vermont Soviet, was moved to thump the debate podium and proclaim: ‘I’m sick and tired of hearing about your damn emails!’ (He has since backtracked, declaring himself now deeply interested in her damn emails.)
Drums, meanwhile, were beating along the Potomac for VP Joe Biden to jump into the race, prompted by a truly heart-wrenching story that his splendid son Beau had begged him to do so on his deathbed. This narrative was corrected; which is to say, Beau did not in fact beg his father to run. But by this point, Biden’s Hamlet turn had run on a bit too long and he withdrew — to heaving sighs of relief in Camp Clinton.
As her path to White House cleared, the Republicans became infatuated with a blow-dried blowhard real-estate developer who makes Ozymandias sound like Little Nell, and an affable but strange neuro-surgeon doppelgänger of Chance the Gardener. Mrs Clinton is not Irish, but luck like this is downright Hibernian.
It’s still a long, boggy slog to Tipperary. But the Republican establishment (what’s left of it) is now seriously bracing itself for a Trump nomination. And so the time has come for us to ask ourselves: what point is there left in opposing Hillary Clinton? Fun as it is to fulminate and decry against her myriad peccadilloes and villainies — to what end? Cui bono? The Orange Ozymandias.
But, OK, let’s rehearse the damn — as Comrade Sanders would put it — arguments.
The presumptive next president of the United States is viewed as ‘honest’ and ‘trustworthy’ by less than 40 per cent of the electorate. Call us naive, but some Americans stubbornly cling to the notion that our leaders shouldn’t always look as though they’re thinking: ‘Which lie did I tell?’ Nor do we like to be played for fools, although this may seem a questionable assertion in the era of Trump Ascendant. Still, when someone who wades hip-deep in Wall Street money — $3 million in speeches, $17 million in campaign contributions — tells us that she will have no truck with the evil barons of finance, it’s hard to keep a straight face.
But never mind us — how does she manage? When you and your husband have banked $125 million in speaking fees from the odious malefactors of wealth, and you insist that you feel the pain of the middle class. How do you maintain the deadpan after you’ve cashed $300,000 for a half-hour speech at a state university — which fee comes from student dues — and then declaim against crippling student loans?
Small lies are often more revealing, especially when there was no need for them. Claiming, say, that you were named after Sir Edmund Hillary when you were born six years before he became a household name; or that you sought to enlist in the US Marines after years of protesting against the Vietnam War, graduating from Yale Law School and working on the campaigns of Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern; or that you dodged sniper fire on the tarmac in Bosnia, when TV footage shows you strolling across it, smiling.
And what — hello? — about that tweet last September about how ‘Every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed, and supported.’ Does that include the women who say they were groped by your husband, and the one who says she was raped? Pace Mary McCarthy on Lillian Hellman: ‘Every word she [says] is a lie, including “and” and “the”.’
Changing one’s position on an issue isn’t the same as lying, but along with the ‘Which lie did I tell?’ thought bubble permanently hovering over Mrs Clinton’s head, one sees too the licked finger held aloft. The American lingo for this is ‘flip-flop,’ as in the rubber sandal thingies you wear on the beach before going inside to give a $200,000 speech to Goldman Sachs.
Mrs Clinton’s flip-flop closet has reached Imelda Marcos levels. There’s the Iraq War vote flip-flop; the gay marriage flip-flop; the Keystone Pipeline flip-flop; the legalising marijuana flip-flop; and most recently, the Trans-Pacific Partnership flip-flop.
And yet, as you work your way down this bill of attainder you feel like an old village scold. Another member of the ‘vast right-wing conspiracy’. A tiresome ancient mariner, banging on at the wedding.
There’s nothing new there. It’s all been gone into, again and again. This election isn’t about the past. It’s about the future.
And before you know it, you too, like Comrade Bernie — the prior version, anyway — are sick and tired of hearing yourself whinge. Because it has all been gone into before. It’s all ‘damn’ stuff now. Mrs and Mr Clinton have been with us since 1992, our political lares et penates — and after all this time, less than half the electorate think she’s honest.
During one of the 2008 Democratic debates, the moderator asked her about the, er, ‘likeability factor’. It was a cringey moment. One’s heart (I say this sincerely) went out to the lady. The shellac deadpan mask melted. She smiled bravely, tears forming, and answered demurely with a hurt, girlish smile and said: ‘Well, that hurts my feelings.’
Whereupon candidate Obama interjected, with the hauteur and sneer of cold command that we’ve come to know so well: ‘You’re likable enough, Hillary.’
The nervous laughter in the auditorium quickly curdled into chill disdain. How could he! But, lest we slip into sentimentality, let me quote Christopher Hitchens on this anniversary of his death, who in 2008 wrote: ‘The case against Hillary Clinton for president is open-and-shut. Of course, against all these considerations you might prefer the newly fashionable and more media-weighty notion that if you don’t show her enough appreciation, and after all she’s done for us, she may cry.’ Christopher, thou shouldst be living at this hour.
When the latest version of Hillary was rolled out like a new product by her campaign apparatus, she was rebranded as a doting granny. What’s more ‘likeable’ than a granny? Unfortunately for her, the meme didn’t stick. But then it’s hard to look like a cooing old sweetie when you’re swatting away snarling congressmen on Benghazi and explaining that you’re suddenly against a trade treaty you promoted for years. None of this does much for the likeability or honesty factor.
Mrs Clinton has her champions to be sure, but it’s been a long slog for them, too, with an awful lot of heavy lifting. When her choir cranks up to sing her praise, one detects the note of obbligato, not genuine ardour.
If it does come down next November to Trump vs Clinton we will — all of us — be presented with a choice even the great Hobson could not have imagined. And those of us who would sooner leap into an active, bubbling volcano than vote for Mr Trump will have to try to convince ourselves that really, she’s not that bad. Is she?
I’ll let Bertie Wooster have the last word: ‘It is no use telling me there are bad aunts and good aunts. At the core, they are all alike. Sooner or later, out pops the cloven hoof.’
Comment -
The filthy mouth of Hillary Clinton
Posted on August 25, 2013 by Dr. Eowyn
It is said that a measure of our character is how well we treat status inferiors – those whom we don’t have to treat well.
By that measure, the character of the woman who has ambitions to be America’s nextpresident is sorely lacking.
FOTM’s joworth [COLOR=#1B8EDE !important]forwarded us an email written by a retired [COLOR=#1B8EDE !important]United States[/COLOR] Marine Corps colonel, Ed Schriber. What Col. Schriber did was to comb through books written about Hillary Rodham Clinton, quoting verbatim from pages in those books on Hillary’s penchant to use obscene blasphemous language, and the utter contempt and disdain she has for those who work for her or more correctly, her husband – Arkansas State troopers, Secret Service agents, and members of the U.S. military.
Since I don’t have those books in my personal library, I went on [COLOR=#1B8EDE !important]Amazon[/COLOR].com to verify those [COLOR=#1B8EDE !important]quotes[/COLOR] by using Amazon’s “Look Inside” feature. In every case where Amazonprovides a “Look Inside” feature, I was able to confirm the quotes and take a screenshot of the relevant passage.
Below is Col. Schriber’s email (colored dark red), interspersed with my [COLOR=#1B8EDE !important]verification[/COLOR] fromAmazon.com.
LANGUAGE WARNING!
The next president of the United States ?
“Where is the G*damn f**king flag! I want the G*damn f**king flag up every morning at f**king sunrise.”
-From the book Inside the White House, by Ronald Kessler, p.244 – Hillary to staff at the Arkansas Governor’s mansion on Labor Day 1991.
**************************************** ************************************
F**k off! It’s enough I have to see you shit-kickers every day, I’m not going to talk to you too!! Just do your G*damn job and keep your mouth shut.”
-From the book American Evita, by Christopher Anderson, p.90 – Hillary to her State Trooper body guards after one of them greeted her with “Good Morning”
Here’s the screenshot I took of the passage, using Amazon.com‘s “Look Inside” feature (high-lighted words are the words I used to search for the quotation):
**************************************** ************************************
“If you want to remain on this detail, get your f**king ass over here and grab those bags!”
From the book The First Partner: Hillary Rodham Clinton, by Joyce Milton p.259 – Hillary to a Secret Service Agent who was reluctant to carry her[COLOR=#1B8EDE !important]luggage[/COLOR] because he wanted to keep his hands free in case of an incident.
I found the passage as described on page 259 of The First Partner, on Amazon.com:
**************************************** ************************************
“Stay the f**k back, stay the f**k back away from me! Don’t come within ten yards of me, or else! Just f**king do as I say, Okay!!?”
-From the book [COLOR=#1B8EDE !important]Unlimited[/COLOR] Access: An FBI Agent Inside the Clinton White House, by Clinton FBI Agent in Charge, Gary Aldrich, p.139- Hillary screaming at her Secret Service detail.
**************************************** ************************************
“Where’s the miserable c**k sucker!”
-From the book The Truth About Hillary: What She Knew, When She Knew It, and How Far She’ll Go to Become President, by Edward Klein, p. 15- Hillary shouting at a Secret Service officer.
Screenshot of the passage from p. 15 of The Truth About Hillary on Amazon.com:
**************************************** ************************************
“You f**king idiot”
From the book [COLOR=#1B8EDE !important]Crossfire[/COLOR], p.84 – Hillary to a State Trooper who was driving her to an event.
**************************************** ************************************
“Put this on the ground! I left my [COLOR=#1B8EDE !important]sunglasses[/COLOR] in the limo. I need thosesunglasses. We need to go back!”
From the book Dereliction of Duty, by Robert Patterson, p.71-72 – Hillary to Marine One helicopter pilot to turn back while en route to Air Force One.
**************************************** ************************************
“Come on Bill, put your d**k up! You can’t f**k her here!!”
From the book Inside the White House, by Ronald Kessler, p.243 – Hillary to Gov. Clinton when she [COLOR=#1B8EDE !important]spots[/COLOR] him talking with an attractive female.
**************************************** ************************************
This ill-tempered, violent, loud mouth, hateful and abusive woman wants to be your next president and have total control as commander and chief of our Military , the very Military for which she has shown incredible disdain throughout her public life. Surely the people of [COLOR=#1B8EDE !important]the United States[/COLOR] can easily do better than this.
– Ed Schriber Col. USMC (Ret.)
“Semper Fidelis”
Both Jewish-born former Clinton consultant Dick Morris and Arkansas Clinton guard Larry Patterson have told of Hillary saying shockingly anti-Jewish things. (More here)
~Eowyn
Dr. Eowyn is the Editor of Fellowship of the Minds and a regular contributor to The D.C. Clothesline.
Don't forget to follow the D.C. Clothesline on Facebook and Twitter. PLEASE help spread the word by sharing our articles on your favorite social networks.
Share this:
[/COLOR]Comment -
It looks like Hillary Clinton has ANOTHER Goldman Sachs problem, this one close to home
Posted at 8:03 pm on May 27, 2016 by Greg P.
Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
Hmm…
Have you heard about Hillary Clinton’s son-in-law, Marc Mezvinsky, and his busted hedge fund? Two years ago, he started a small hedge fund with $25 million (small by hedge fund standards, that is) named Eaglevale Hellenic Opportunity to invest in “Greek bank stocks and government debt.” The New York Times reported earlier this month that Mezvinsky lost 90% of the money and was closing up shop:Now, two years later, the Greece-focused fund is shutting down, after losing nearly 90 percent of its value, according to two investors with direct knowledge of the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity.Now here’s where Hillary Clinton comes in. It turns out that Lloyd Blankfein, CEO of Goldman Sachs, is one of the investors but Hillary won’t say how much (Mezvinsky and his two partners at Eaglevale worked for Goldman):
Investors were told last month that the fund would close. The fund, Eaglevale Hellenic Opportunity, had raised $25 million from investors to buy Greek bank stocks and government debt.
Follow
Frances Townsend @FranTownsend
@HillaryClinton won't say how much #GoldmanSachs CEO invested with her son-in-law http://interc.pt/27VGPKA
3:23 PM - 27 May 2016
Hillary Clinton Won’t Say How Much Goldman Sachs CEO Invested With Her Son-in-Law
A hedge fund co-founded by Chelsea Clinton’s husband, Marc Mezvinsky, was partly financed by Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein.
theintercept.com
Comment -
CROOKED HILLARY LIES AGAIN…This Is Becoming An Everyday Occurrence
By 100% FED Up -
May 7, 2016
Hillary Clinton was asked a question about the FBI contacting her or her representatives and gave a flat out lie…does she not know Americans read and watch the news? This is nutty behavior! Granny needs to get a grip and come clean!
Does Hillary Clinton figure she can say whatever she wants as long as it’s not exposed as a lie that same day?
On Tuesday, MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell asked her outright: “Have you been contacted — or your representatives contacted — by the FBI to set up an interview” over her e-mail mess?
Clinton gave a flat “no.”
Two days later, news broke that the FBI has already interviewed Clinton’s closest confidant, Huma Abedin, and other top aides. And officials close to the probe say Hillary’s to be interviewed in the next few weeks — which means she’s surely been contacted.
READ MORE: NYP
Comment
