What The Election Is All About

 

Thanks to IBD for publishing the above graph & Bill O'Reilly for his April 23 FNC Talking Points Memo (below) – both of which confirm the points made in the February blog posting entitled Evidence Shows November Election Only Important To Some.

 

Discerning readers of the graph, memo, & blog posting realize that the November presidential election is not about the Arab world, the budget deficit or national debt, the creation of jobs, China's military build up, Iran's uranium enrichment, Venezuela, the price of gasoline, or even Dubya.  Don't be fooled by TV talking-heads, who support the two party system – whatever the outcome of the election, who pretend that it is about the aforementioned issues & the swing of the majority of the detestable Independent voters. 

 

The election is about how many of the 150 million Americans who live in households that receive some kind of government assistance can comprehend that the government programs they have become dependent upon are not sustainable & whether or not they can dare great enough to help turn this mindset around.  The deterioration of the work ethic that has torn the heart out of the people who only know living on government checks each month, a point that Bill's memo does not even mention, is even more dangerous than the memo's statistics themselves illustrate.  The choice regarding creating wealth or redistributing wealth is really a choice between prosperity or poverty for America.  This is what the election is all about.

 

---O'Reilly Factor Talking Points Memo – April 23, 2012---

 

We are about to give you some amazing stats about America becoming a welfare state. During the last two years the feds have spent more than $1 trillion on programs to help poor Americans. Most of that money goes to direct assistance - Medicaid, food stamps, child care, nutrition, things like that. Since 1970, means-tested entitlements have increased by an unbelievable 5,500% and right now an astounding 150 million Americans live in households that receive some kind of government assistance. There is no question that the feds and states have loosened standards under which Americans receive entitlements. Since President Obama has been in office, federal welfare spending is up about 41%; food stamps are up about 135% since 2007; disability payments are up 116% from a decade ago. Those who advocate cutting entitlements or making it more difficult to receive them will be immediately branded as 'bad people.' Just for telling you this I'll be labeled a horrible guy. But what's worse? A bad economy for all Americans and a $16-trillion debt, or a responsible entitlement agenda that gets spending under control? All sane people know that safety nets are needed, but when standards are so lax that the system becomes easy to game you know you have a problem. And we do.