Rush carefully explained his definition of "poor":
Half of the people defined as poor by the Census Bureau "have a personal computer, and one in seven have two or more computers. More than half of poor families with children" defend as poor by our government "have a video game system, such as an Xbox or PlayStation." More than half! I don't even have an Xbox or a PlayStation! The poor have something that I don't have. Well, more than half of the poor. "43% have Internet access. One-third" of the people our government considers poor "have a wide-screen plasma or LCD television." (interruption)
How is are you gonna watch Jerry Springer? That's right. Or Jersey Shore or Glee. One-fourth, 25% of the people our country defines as poor have a "digital video recorder system, such as a TiVo. As for hunger and homelessness, Rector and Sheffield point to 2009 statistics from the U.S. Department of Agriculture showing that 96% of poor parents stated that their children were never hungry at any time during the year because they could not afford food, 83% of poor families reported having enough food to eat, and over the course of a year, only 4% of poor persons become temporarily homeless, with 42% of poor households actually owning their own homes." Forty-two percent of households our government categorize as poor own their own homes. Ever heard of subprime? "The average poor American has more living space than the average Swede or German," and there's even more of all these facts in their report: "Understanding Poverty in the US." This is not to say the poor have it easy, don't misunderstand this. It's all about how poor and poverty is categorized in this country versus anywhere else.
Now, Obama's brother living in the shack, that's poor.
and
RUSH: By the way, what percentage of poor children in America get two free meals a day at school even in the summertime? Yeah. It's an amazing thing, poverty in this country.
RUSH: Now, interesting thing about this business with the poor, and I know that some of you are waiting out there, you're probably dialing the phone trying to call in and catch me in something you think that I haven't caught on to, you think I've missed. I know that some of you, you're waiting out there, you're thinking I'm purposely forgetting something or purposely not mentioning it to you in order to mislead people to make my point. With most other hosts, you would be correct. It is this. We got the poor. We got all these numbers on the new poor. All these people living in poverty. Numbers are way up, and yet I just told you all the stuff the poor have.
So if we say that more poor people have been created under Obama and then we say but the poor really aren't poor, then we have an interesting conflict there. Very, very, very carefully is how we must navigate this. I mean you can't complain about all the poor Obama's creating with his policies and then downplay what it is to be poor. So the way to hit this is to simply say that Obama is creating more and more people who are defined as poor in this country. The point is that Obama is creating more and more food stamp recipients, more and more unemployed, more and more homeless, and let's be honest: Why do the poor have all of this stuff? Well, yeah, government stash, but where does the government get it?
The point is that they have it because of redistribution. Many of them do not work. We could have some fun with this because you could define poor today as simply saying somebody who is dependent on the government. And if you are dependent on the government, look at all you get and look at why you're likely to vote Democrat. It is a problem. If somebody loses their job and their home, but their kids have two meals a day, the point is that Obama's policies have severely harmed that family. What Obama is doing is converting middle-class families into poor families. Now, I know some of you been waiting out there, I know, I just know you've been waiting to call me on this, "Hey wait, Limbaugh, you can't do this, you can't sit there and start claiming all these poor people and all this poverty and Obama created it and then follow it up about how it isn't so bad." And you have a point.
The point is that as our government defines poverty, Obama and his policies are putting more and more people into it. So the question then becomes, did Obama save or create more poor people? Just as we debate did Obama save or create X numbers of jobs, how many poor people did Obama save versus how many poor people did he create? Because what's happening in America is that Obama is turning middle-class families into poor families by destroying the economy. There aren't enough jobs. It's just a shame, folks, it's depressing to see what's happening to the country.
And again I stress, this is nothing compared to what our country's going to look like once Obamacare begins full implementation in 2014. Being poor today simply means being dependent on the government, which is exactly what Obama and the Democrat Party wants. The more dependent people are on the government, the more dependent they are on the Democrat Party. That's the theory. The way it shapes up here, only the very rich and the very poor can afford to be Democrat.
___________
My Schedule of Regular Posts:
*Monday through Friday morning - schedules of President, VP and Secretary of State and her diplomats
*Monday through Friday afternoon - List of topics Limbaugh discussed on his program that day
*Monday through Friday throughout the day - My posts on anythi
ng that I feel like talking about. At least one or two a day, sometimes more.
*Saturday through Sunday morning - An addition to my booklist of political books - covering Democrats, Republicans and other interested parties.
No comments:
Post a Comment