You are here: Home // Civil Rights // Buying the 2012 Election

Buying the 2012 Election

by Jeff Davis

Shortly before election day, A CNBC article had Larry Kudlow asking: “With the unprecedented budget explosion of means-tested, welfare-related entitlements, does Team Obama think it can buy the election?”

The Democrats have been buying American elections for the past 150 years. Does the name Boss Tweed mean anything to you? Tammany Hall? Lyndon Baines Johnson? Mayor Daley? Willie Brown? Ted Kennedy?

The article goes on “It’s a cynical question. But I wouldn’t put it past that cynical bunch. Remember Harry Hopkins, Franklin Roosevelt’s close aide? It was Hopkins who argued tax and tax, spend and spend, elect and elect. Sound familiar? And if I’m not mistaken, the high-tax, anti-rich, big-spending, redistributionist FDR is one of President Barack Obama’s idols.”

“So let’s take a look at some of the recent budget-explosion data points: According to Jeff Sessions, the ranking Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, means-tested welfare programs soared to over $1 trillion last year. The federal government accounted for $750 billion of that, while $250 billion came from the states, which leveraged federal payments into even larger expenses. Between 2008 and 2011, federal welfare payments have jumped 32 percent. Food stamps have surged, with 71 percent more spending on the program in 2011 compared with 2008. Health payments, principally Medicaid, have climbed 37 percent.

“By the way, it’s not just the deep recession and weak recovery that’s driving up these programs. It’s a substantial eligibility expansion, which started under George W. Bush, but has gone much further under President Obama. In a larger budget context, reporter Jeffrey H. Anderson uses a Treasury Department study to chronicle the 7-Eleven presidency. In fiscal year 2012, ending Sept. 30, the government spent nearly $11 for every $7 of revenues taken in.”

I have to interrupt here. Are these people genuinely out of their freaking minds? How the hell do they think they’re going to sustain this kind of lunatic spending? Or do they think at all? Are they capable of seeing more than 30 days into the future? Apparently it’s all a big party on Uncle Sam’s credit card until it gets maxed out.

The article notes “The exact figures are $2.5 trillion in tax revenues and $3.5 trillion in spending. In other words, it spent 44 percent more than it had coming in. Previous fiscal years look even worse: The government spent 56 percent more than revenues in fiscal year 2011 and 60 percent more in fiscal year 2010. All in all, according to Anderson, the government under the Obama administration received $6.8 trillion in taxes and spent $10.7 trillion — 56 percent more than it had available.”

“What’s going on here is fiscal profligacy on the grandest scale in American history. And there are consequences. Massive amounts of capital are being drained from the private sector and transferred to the government. This is one reason why American businesses have gone on a virtual capital-investment strike. Small businesses, in particular, can’t get the capital being drained by Uncle Sam. After four years of trillion-dollar deficits, both businesses and individuals have held back investment because they fear massive tax increases are on the way. That’s a big reason why the so-called recovery has been so weak.” (Or non-existent.)

“In addition, in our new entitlement nation, growing government dependency is ruining the very moral fiber and backbone of America’s traditional work ethic. Increasingly, the feds are paying more to not work, rather than providing after-tax incentives to go back to work. Mitt Romney has taken a lot of flak for raising the issue of growing government dependency. But however inartfully he may have expressed his view, his basic story is correct. The sheer volume of spending going on in this country is bringing us ever closer to bankruptcy. And consider this: The spending explosion for means-tested welfare programs is outpacing spending on Social Security and Medicare, which are themselves veering toward bankruptcy.”

OK, Larry, you’re definitely on the right track here. Now, any chance we can get you to so much as whisper the forbidden “R” word? Race? Some races are more productive than others, and politicians have in the past relied on White inventors to come up with some great new invention, whether it’s the software industry, the Internet or the I-phone, to create an economic boom to pull the economy out of the hole, they’ve spent it into.

The big problem now is that there are 100 million people of Third World ancestry in the US today. There’s too much non-productive dead weight for White people to carry –or subsidize with our taxes.

Right, right, that’s probably a bridge way too far for you. How about the forbidden “I” word? Illegal aliens? I mean, that’s not completely taboo yet, is it?

Just before the election, there were about 47 million people receiving Food Stamps (also known as SNAP or EBT). Obama won the election with 65 million votes, ignoring all the signs of vote fraud, failure to count military votes and the Democrats’ lawsuits to ban voter ID laws. 47 million would be 72 percent of all the votes that the Democrats received.

Add to that, all the millions of people on welfare, all the millions of Blacks and Latinos who benefit from government-imposed racial quotas.

Barack Obama was a clearly failed president, who ran up the National Debt six trillion dollars, failed to improve the economy to any significant degree, caused the credit rating of the US to be lowered twice and who was involved in two major scandals: The Fast and Furious debacle and the Benghazi scandal.

Obama managed to get reelected thanks to racist minority voters, who ignored his failings, self-hating White liberals, the vast army of government-dependent voters and good-old fashioned Democrat vote fraud.

All of these voting blocks are cancer for a republic or democracy, and there’s no easy solution in sight.

comment closed

Copyright © 2012 White Civil Rights. All rights reserved.
. .