The Ugly Truth Of America’s Welfare Class

By 152 Comments 5,250 views

Engraved at the base of the statue of Liberty

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

Emma Lazarus, 1883

There is a group of people within America’s Welfare Class that is metastasizing into a downward spiral of decadence and depravity. The nature of a Welfare System replicates itself and gains in power and funding by rewarding those who exist as parasites, fuels the cancer of degeneracy or an entitlement of the most useless.

Unfortunately, there are Americans who have factors in their life that predispose them to being wards of the state. This article is not meant to demean their plight or condition, but rather, this sense of victimhood that is building among ever increasing group of able bodied that see the Welfare System as means of existence to be manipulated in order to work their way up the ladder of life and success.

These are generations lost, their numbers are growing and the system is encouraging their sloth, laziness, and degeneracy. The Bouchards epitomize the darkest side of this entitlement system.

Alicia Bouchard Encouraged Sexual Relations Between Her Husband And A 12 YO To Gain Extra Government Money

A child of 12 years of age was placed in the care of the Bouchards and was encouraged to have sex with the “Man” of the house so that the couple could claim welfare money and benefit when she became pregnant.

The Carefree Husband And Playboy Was Willing To Work To Get Ahead

An investigation started when the girl was suspected of being sexually molested. Apparently the 41 year old Alicia Bouchard encouraged the sexual relations, but made sure the relations were within certain standards of decency by serving as a chaperone and observing the statutory rapes committed by her husband Mathew, 26 upon the 12 year old girl.

Normally, the case is filled with alleged and suspect phrases, but in this particular case, that has yet to go to trial, Ms Bouchard wrote the girl a letter apologizing for forcing the girl to watch she and her husband have sexual relations and that it was wrong for her to have watched the girl and her husband having sex. Ms Bouchard has also expressed regrets; she wrote, ‘dang sure [she] should not have allowed [her] to have sex with Matt.”.

It is obvious that Ms Bouchard is overwhelmed with remorse as to the whether the incident was a wise decision; especially, now that she and her husband are in jail awaiting trial. Ms Bouchard has been booked on charges of being a principal to sexual battery, soliciting sexual activity with a child, and being a principal to child abuse, her bond has been set at $70,000.

If this were not a Liberal program, they would be asking whether Matt was at for committing the rapes or was it the circumstances that raped the girl for the purposes of getting welfare benefits.

Promoting dependency, of able bodied people, upon government creates a parasitic relationship that inevitably causes individuals to lose their integrity and self respect. The system is self-perpetuating since it works to their advantage to breed more to get more dollars, normal considerations concerning the middle class play no part in the decision to have a child.

From personal experience, I have talked to my workers who feel it is okay for very young girls to have a baby because the government pays them to have children and it is seen as an alternative to having a job. Actually, it is seen as a job; the government is paying young girls to have babies and to raise them. In the mind of the welfare recipient, the government is seen as a very benevolent government that is encouraging this explosion of the welfare class. Thus the government is promoting the concept being fruitful and multiplying among those least able to care for the new wards of the state. Liberalism provides for its own increase in funding and power by creating a breakdown of traditional values and the eventual tyranny of the welfare class.

Epilogue: This is a disgusting subject with despicable people. I hesitated publishing this for several days because of the ugliness it represents; unfortunately, the events and people are real and many more are thriving in this welfare system that has been allowed to run amuck with corruption and fraud. Until the system is overhauled, we should know that degenerates like these will be working the system to their advantage.

A professional horseman for over 40 years, Skook continues to work with horses. He is in an ongoing educational program, learning life's lessons from one of the world's greatest instructors, the horse. Skook has finished an historical novel that traces a mitochondrial line of DNA from 50,000 years ago to the present. The book Fifty-Thousand Years is awaiting me to finish a final proofread and it should be sent to the formatter in a matter of days. I am still working, so it is not easy to devote the time I need to finish the project. The cover is a beautiful wok of art. I would put it up here if I could figure out how to make it work.

152 Responses to “The Ugly Truth Of America’s Welfare Class”

  1. 51

    Skookum

    author

    Rose, thank you for your heartfelt post, perhaps the most honest and poignant post of all. Obviously, we had no idea of the true measure of “abuse” within the system. Beyond the political corruption that will continue, regardless of who is in office, the human tragedy is beyond measure. It is reassuring to know that kind hearted people like you are in the system and trying to make a difference. Thank You!

  2. 52

    Hard Right

    Don’t get me started on the food stamps abuse/fraud I’ve seen. While there are those that need them, I’ve seen and worked with too many who would rather bilk the system than work hard.

  3. 53

    retire05

    @AJ Hill:

    Yeah, drive through a housing project. You will be amazed at the number of able bodied people who live in them. These are NOT people who are physically incapable of working. They are mostly people who have made really poor choices in their lives (quitting school, having children out of marriage, drugs, alcohol, etc) but think they deserve to be taken care of by the people who made better choices.

    Frankly, if you have a child that you cannot afford because you are a slacker, that, in my book, should constitute child abuse.

    And I would remind you that your study on the military food stamp problem was from the days of Bill Clinton’s administration. That should tell you all you need to know. Perhaps that is why the attrition rates in the military were so dismal under Clinton.

  4. 54

    ilovebeeswarzone

    we need to stay focus on the next election success and we cannot afford splitting .
    we have to unite and win together and be tolerant with each other, everyone is so intelligent here but we get to bring our negatives here and that must not happen, we have to regain our control and let live our free mind positively, without the personal negative behaviors of each of us,
    we are not the WEATHER CHANGING FROM SUNNY TO EXTREME , FROM ONE MINUTE TO THE OTHER,

  5. 55

    AJ Hill

    @sick of the lies: @sick of the lies: If indeed you’re sick of lies, you might stop swallowing them so enthusiastically. The misbehavior you attribute to Dems at polling stations is actually characteristic of Republicans, but lying to establish the opposite of what happened is a time honored right wing tactic. It succeeds primarily because rebutting the lies is so time consuming and tedious; and because right wingers respond, even to documented proof, by simply denying the evidence and repeating the lies. This is why I don’t trouble to summarize the evidence to which the followingt articles refer. Anyone open minded enough to be curious or concerned enough about honest elections to want to know the truth can read these pieces (and others) for herself and make up her own mind.

    The Republican voter fraud hoax

    I will challenge you, however, to provide citations to back up your accusations or to provide evidence that Dems have committed crimes like those that Diebold carried out.

    Diebold Memos Disclose Florida 2000 E-Voting Fraud

    Diebold, Electronic Voting and the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy

    Republican Election Fraud: The Evidence Mounts

    As for your suggestion that I can’t find a job, I’ve been retired since I was fifty, but, if I needed a job, I wouldn’t have any trouble. Lots of small hospitals would be happy to have me. I have degrees in physics and biology, so I could also teach – or write; I’ve had two books published.

    How about you?

  6. 56

    AJ Hill

    @MataHarley: – I see you’re still unable to comprehend plain English. I didn’t complain about who can vote. That’s a right wing hobby horse, not mine!

    Minor detail: it’s fascinating that you still regard the FICA issue as some kind of intellectual victory for you. The fact that 20% or so of FICA designated for Medicare isn’t capped hardly changes the reality that 80% still is capped; but I forget, you’ve already demonstrated that you’re math challenged too.

    But let’s move on to your belief that the Florida recounts supported Bush’s “election” in 2000? You really are a mooncalf. Did you ever think of reading beyond the headlines or questioning what you hear on right wing radio.?Here are the facts:

    The definitive Florida recount was conducted by a consortium composed of six major news organizations–the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Tribune Co. (parent of the L.A. Times), Associated Press and CNN–plus two Florida papers, the Palm Beach Post and St. Petersburg Times.

    Completed data were released to the consortium around the first anniversary of the election. Each news outlet analyzed the votes independently according to nine different scenarios and published the findings simultaneously on November 12, 2001.

    Pay attention now. This important: Under any scenario where all of the votes were counted, Al Gore won! The only scenarios where Bush won were those where significant numbers of votes were not counted.
    Did you get that? In case you found the sentence too complex, here’s the way two news organizations reported it:

    Associated Press: “Under any standard that tabulated all disputed votes statewide … Gore erased Bush’s advantage and emerged with a tiny lead that ranged from 42 to 171 votes.”

    Palm Beach Post (which did its own analysis): Out of 9 recount scenarios, Gore won all 6 of those in which all of the votes were counted.
    In fact, if overvotes had been counted, Gore would have won by over 46,000 votes, which means that, if Florida voting machines had been equipped with simple error correcting mechanisms to prevent overvoting, Gore would have won by over 46,000.

    Rather than report honestly, editors of the newspapers took a politically expedient way out by publishing the results under headlines which implied that Bush had won the recount. Anyone who read the entire articles (as you obviously did not!) would have seen that the headlines refered to scenarios in which only partial recounts were done.

    Am I “bent out of shape” by the stolen 2000 election? You bet! If you possessed enough intellectual honesty to read the entire Supreme Court decision that gave the election to Bush, you’d see that its principle justification was that a recount (which the justices obviously suspected would go to Gore) would harm Bush’s interests.

    No kidding! It’s hard to get more blatant than that.

  7. 57

    AJ Hill

    @Aye: Sure, I’ll try again. At last, a challenge I can answer succinctly! Your caveats are reasonable enough, although I can’t see why you couldn’t track this down by yourself. This isn’t my original source, which I couldn’t find again, but it ought to do. It’s from an article on the website, Military.com: “Military members and their families are using more food stamps than in previous years – redeeming them last year at nearly twice the civilian rate, according to Defense Commissary Agency figures.”

  8. 58

    AJ Hill

    @sick of the lies: Economics is a dauntingly complex subject, so you can be forgiven for not understanding the origins of the financial meltdown; but there’s no excuse for imbibing patently nonsensical hocum about the Community Reinvestment Act. I’ll try to make this simple and short for you.

    Let’s start with McCain’s purported attempt to forestall disaster by regulating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. He wasn’t even aiming at the real problem. As Politifact puts it: ““McCain was talking mostly about potential fallout from accounting troubles, not freewheeling lending standards based on a housing bubble. He said nothing about major financial institutions becoming badly leveraged on bad loans and new securities products. … When McCain talks about this legislation, it’s not the cure-all he suggests it may have been; the focus then was on corruption in Fannie and Freddie, which isn’t really what the financial crisis is about”

    What about the Community Reinvestment Act? Passed in 1977 it required commercial banks & savings associations to meet credit needs of entire communities in which they were chartered – i.e. – to discontinue “redlining”. Beyond that, however, in Section 802 it stipulated that this must be done consistent with safe & sound banking principles. In a 1997 study lenders complying with the act were found to be just as profitable as other commercial banks. Yet we’re supposed to believe that this suddenly turned around and sank the economy in less than a decade? That’s bunk!

    Here’s why:
    (1) CRA rules affected only commercial banks and thrifts, not the investment banks and non-bank lenders which dominated the subprime market. As a result only 1 of the top 25 subprime lenders in the country was subject to the CRA.
    (2) Only a third of CRA loans had interest rates high enough to be called subprime.
    (3) Enforcement of the CRA was progressively weakened by the Bush administration during the ’90s, as the worst wave of subprime lending began.

    Were Freddie and Fannie the primary cause of the meltdown? No!
    (1) F/F’s market share fell as the subprime bubble grew during the first decade of the 2000s. From 50.1 % in 2002 it decreased to 34.8 % in 2006.
    (2) F/F’s average default rate during the worst of the subprime bubble was 1.2% , while the national rate was more than 5%.
    (3) But don’t believe me! During hearings into the financial crisis, when the Chairman of the Banking Committee, Henry Waxman, asked witnesses “Do any of you believe that [Fannie & Freddie] were the cause of the financial crisis?”, former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan answered in one word: “No!” So did SEC Chairman, Christopher Cox, and former Treasury Secretary, John Snow.

    What did cause the meltdown? First of all, it wasn’t primarily the subprime crisis. That was just the fuse. How do we know this? As economist and TV personality, Ben Stein, put it, “The amount of subprime [real estate] that defaulted was at most – after recovery in liquidation – about $250 billion. A huge sum but not enough to torpedo the US economy.”

    I won’t go into a long-winded explanation of what really happened, but here’s a helpful summary. You can google these topics, if you really want to understand.
    · 1999: The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999, which partially repealed the Glass-Steagall Act, allowed commerical banks to act as investment brokers, which they couldn’t do before. (Here’s where Republican Senator, Phil Gramm, steps into the picture. To understand why he wanted to do this, look up his wife’s financial interests at the time!)
    · 2000: The Commodity Futures Modernization Act (Phil Gramm at work again. Read in particular the shady way he snuck this into law.) The bill opened the way for banks to trade in credit default swaps and other financial “derivatives”, which were unsupervised by the SEC, or by any federal or state insurance regulators.
    · 2001-03 – The Federal Reserve dropped federal fund rates to 1% and kept them there for a year, forcing fund managers to seek other sources of revenue.
    · 2004 – The SEC waived leverage rules, allowing large brokerage firms to borrow 30-40 times their cash in hand (previously they’d been limited to 12 times their cash reserves.)
    · 2003-07 – The Fed allowed lenders to abandon their usual loan-making standards.

    This progression of deregulation allowed commercial banks to inflate the derivative market into a behemoth of unsecured risk that rivalled the entire world’s GDP and, when the housing bubble on which it was based, burst, it tipped over the world’s economy – or threatened to.

    If any of you out there want to know more, look up these articles.
    CRA had nothing to do with subprime crisis” Bloomberg Businessweek

    “Memo Found in the Street” – Barron’s

  9. 60

    Aye

    editor

    @AJ Hill:

    Couldn’t find it? Really? Your seriously stale source material from 2000 was easy enough for me to find. Surely you’re as skilled as I, eh?

    The number of Americans receiving food stamps is approx 43 million.

    In 2009, only 245 military families received food stamps. Multiply that by five to calculate a generous average family size and you arrive at 1225 individuals.

    Now….how can the military number be bigger by 2:1 over the civilian number?

    Where are the statistical studies or sources that support your claim that “members of the military and their families currently receiving food stamps outnumber civilians 2:1”?

    Methinks you’re talkin’ out your azz again.

  10. 61

    johngalt

    @AJ Hill:

    This is a response to the below assertion, from your post #18. You stated;

    (4) Members of the military and their families currently receiving food stamps outnumber civilians 2:1.

    That is completely false, and even not knowing the numbers of military on food stamps, one can see that. I followed your postings, and those of Aye, and from your own linked article, at Military.com, it states that the number of Americans, in total, on foodstamps in 2009 is 32 million. Now, knowing that their are currently only in the neighborhood of 1.5 million persons in the US military, in order for your statement to be correct, those military members must each have between 42-43 people in their immediate families. How many families do you know all living together, all receiving benefits from a single person, that number 42-43 people?

    In the article you linked, and the one Aye linked, a number of 2100 in the year of 2002 from your article, and 2003 from Aye’s, is used as total military members using food stamps at military commissaries. In the article you linked, foodstamp usage amongst civilians grew from 17 million in 2000 to 26 million in 2005. The number of people, civilians, on foodstamps, in 2002/2003 is likely somewhere in between those numbers. So, it doesn’t seem very likely, for several reasons, that currently the number of military and family on foodstamps is twice the civilian number.

    Now, I’m sure that you are just a victim of a poorly written article, as the article itself does a poor job of actually saying what it means. From the article;

    Military members and their families are using more food stamps than in previous years – redeeming them last year at nearly twice the civilian rate, according to Defense Commissary Agency figures.

    My guess is that the article is implying ONLY usage of foodstamps at military commissaries, which defense dept. personnel and their families are able to use as well. Not sure why you felt it necessary to portray the usage as a number, instead of usage rate like the article did. Aye was correct to challenge your assertion.

    For all your blathering about people not understanding what they are reading, one would think that you, yourself, would be extra, extra careful in understanding exactly what you are reading.

  11. 62

    Gary G. Swenchonis

    Hill of Beans I have to agree with statement that we created them, and in some cases they are a reflection of the voters. But as of late I think that many politicians have an enormous disconnect to the voters now. Many politicians still think its ok to do as they feel, which in most cases is nothing. A few have woke up and seen that Americans, or some at least are now demanding results, and no more promises. I was being humours with my analogy. But in way some politicians are evil in the respect that they keep lying to the people, and refusing to be truthful, and to actively tackle the problems which are destroying our nation. And maybe that is a reflection of the people who voted them into office so as to keep things the same, which any sane and rational individual knows can’t keep happening with-out disastrous results for everyone.

  12. 63

    AJ Hill

    @Aye: I can’t argue with you. Since I couldn’t find my initial source, I don’t know how I got that idea. The one I found this morning states that military families are redeeming food stamps as twice the rate of civilian families, a different metric, as you point out. If the number of military families getting food stamps is substantially less than the number of civilian families, one has to wonder how they manage to redeem them at twice the rate.. To my mind that’s all a distraction, since the relevant point is that military personnel are reduced to that extremity in the first place. And my question to Wordsmith still stands: does he still think that his stereotype of welfare recipients is accurate and, if he does, where do military personnel and their families fit into it?

  13. 64

    AJ Hill

    @AJ Hill: Actually the only way to reconcile all these statements is to conclude that my second source referred to “twice the rate per family”. Would have been nice, if it had been a bit more precise. Nevertheless, it was my error and I stand corrected.

  14. 65

    James Raider

    It long ago became tiresome to read ideologically stuck refrains from union washed Socialists – just constant denials that their sacrosanct New Deal agencies had anything to do with the financial meltdown.

    The crisis was result of political, public and private greed, well doused with doses of both inept and stupid oversight.

  15. 67

    AJ Hill

    @James Raider:

    The crisis was result of political, public and private greed, well doused with doses of both inept and stupid oversight

    This is true, as far as it goes; but specific identifiable causes were also involved, like Gramm-Leach-Bliley and the Commodities Futures Modernization Act. Without these and other crucial deregulatory steps the nation’s commercial lenders would not have been able to gamble our future away on credit default swaps.

    I suspect you intended something unflattering by the phrase “union washed Socialist”, but to be honest, I have no idea what you mean.. How does one “wash” anything with a union? Maybe I’m too concrete or maybe you’re just not creative enough; but keep trying. You might learn something and I’ll have fun snickering at your infelicities. Fair enough?.

  16. 68

    MataHarley

    premium_subscriber

    @Hill’o’beans: This important: Under any scenario where all of the votes were counted, Al Gore won! The only scenarios where Bush won were those where significant numbers of votes were not counted.
    Did you get that?

    Oh, I “get” your unsourced spin, Hill’o’beans. Now let’s see if you “get” the meaning of the words and phrases “might”, “might have eked out” and “some”…. the exact words used in the NYTs report on that media recount and consortium.

    Contrary to what many partisans of former Vice President Al Gore have charged, the United States Supreme Court did not award an election to Mr. Bush that otherwise would have been won by Mr. Gore. A close examination of the ballots found that Mr. Bush would have retained a slender margin over Mr. Gore if the Florida court’s order to recount more than 43,000 ballots had not been reversed by the United States Supreme Court.

    Even under the strategy that Mr. Gore pursued at the beginning of the Florida standoff — filing suit to force hand recounts in four predominantly Democratic counties — Mr. Bush would have kept his lead, according to the ballot review conducted for a consortium of news organizations.

    But I see you have a unique way of whining about voting regulations. You know, in all of the states I live in, if I screw up in the slightest way.. use the wrong color ink, do not fill in an oval, selection more than one choice… my vote doesn’t count. But I see that you want county canvassing boards to be omnipotent and assume that they know a voters intents with under and over voting.

    But did you “win”, using your own consortium? Again, you have a problem understanding the meaning of simple words. And in the case of the consortium findings, that word happens to be “some”… as in:

    But the consortium, looking at a broader group of rejected ballots than those covered in the court decisions, 175,010 in all, found that Mr. Gore might have won if the courts had ordered a full statewide recount of all the rejected ballots. This also assumes that county canvassing boards would have reached the same conclusions about the disputed ballots that the consortium’s independent observers did.

    [Mata Musing: In others words, they guessed what the voter intended, instead of knowing exactly what the voter wanted, post election….]

    The findings indicate that Mr. Gore might have eked out a victory if he had pursued in court a course like the one he publicly advocated when he called on the state to ”count all the votes.”

    … snip…

    More than 113,000 voters cast ballots for two or more presidential candidates. Of those, 75,000 chose Mr. Gore and a minor candidate; 29,000 chose Mr. Bush and a minor candidate. Because there was no clear indication of what the voters intended, those numbers were not included in the consortium’s final tabulations.

    …snip….

    The study, conducted over the last 10 months by a consortium of eight news organizations assisted by professional statisticians, examined numerous hypothetical ways of recounting the Florida ballots. Under some methods, Mr. Gore would have emerged the winner; in others, Mr. Bush. But in each one, the margin of victory was smaller than the 537-vote lead that state election officials ultimately awarded Mr. Bush.

    …snip…

    But the consortium’s study shows that Mr. Bush would have won even if the justices had not stepped in (and had further legal challenges not again changed the trajectory of the battle), answering one of the abiding mysteries of the Florida vote.

    Your doth protest too loudly ‘tude truly makes me laugh. First, you want to rewrite standard rules for ballots simply because you didn’t get the result you wanted. So you want the county canvassers to go back thru and take a wild guess, and hoping your deck is stacked in your progressive favor. And in order to do that, you’re willing to allow canvassers to assume a voters’ intent, and discard all rules that apply consistantly thru all states about a voter’s ballot error.

    Desperate

    Me? There’s a simple reality. Screw it up, the states’ throw them away. Period. Good rule. Hey, my vote won’t count on my mail in ballots if I use the wrong color ink, or don’t sign in the proper place. If the canvassers don’t like the results, should they get to count it anyway?

    I look at it this way. If someone can’t figure out how to properly fill out a ballot, just how capable is that voter’s mind in comprehending the more important issues that are directly affected by every vote?

    Nice spin. Minnows in a barrel….

  17. 69

    AJ Hill

    @MataHarley: Tilting at windmills again, I see, MattersHardly. My entire post was written in response to sick-of-the -lies’ claim, which you echo, that Bush won the 2000 election under any recount scenario. Specifically you said in Post #46:

    [ The 2000 election] was vetted post election by the media, and still had the same winner.

    This is absolutely false, which I demonstrated. I did not intend to debate the voting process or to express an opinion about any of the criteria that were used to assess ballots during any of the recounts. I merely wanted to set the record straight about what the media consortium recount actually showed.

    Let’s get to your attempt to reassert that Bush won in the recounts. According to the Associated Press, quoted in my post:

    Under any standard that tabulated all disputed votes statewide … Gore erased Bush’s advantage and emerged with a tiny lead that ranged from 42 to 171 votes.

    I also noted that “Rather than report honestly, editors of the newspapers took a politically expedient way out by publishing the results under headlines which implied that Bush had won the recount.” For example, the New York Times article that you cited in some detail appeared under the heading: “EXAMINING THE VOTE: THE OVERVIEW; Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote.”

    That’s a good example of a misleading headline all right. Does the body of the article support the headline or does it report correctly the actual findings of the consortium’s recounts? Let’s see.

    Paragraph 3 – Had the recount followed Mr. Gore’s proposal to recount in four mostly Democratic counties, Bush would still have won.

    Paragraph 4 – The weasel word, “might”, appears several times in this paragraph and you pounced on it promptly, inferring that it cast doubt on the AP’s summary of the recounts.

    But the consortium, looking at a broader group of rejected ballots than those covered in the court decisions, 175,010 in all, found that Mr. Gore might have won if the courts had ordered a full statewide recount of all the rejected ballots. This also assumes that county canvassing boards would have reached the same conclusions about the disputed ballots that the consortium’s independent observers did. The findings indicate that Mr. Gore might have eked out a victory if he had pursued in court a course like the one he publicly advocated when he called on the state to ”count all the votes.”

    Okay. Let’s keep going and see whether the article clears up this ambiguity.

    Paragraph 8 – The study, conducted over the last 10 months by a consortium of eight news organizations assisted by professional statisticians, examined numerous hypothetical ways of recounting the Florida ballots. Under some methods, Mr. Gore would have emerged the winner; in others, Mr. Bush.

    This is certainly a more definite statement. Continuing …

    Paragraph 15 – In a finding rich with irony, the results show that even if Mr. Gore had succeeded in his effort to force recounts of undervotes in the four Democratic counties, Miami-Dade, Broward, Palm Beach and Volusia, he still would have lost, although by 225 votes rather than 537. An approach Mr. Gore and his lawyers rejected as impractical — a statewide recount — could have produced enough votes to tilt the election his way, no matter what standard was chosen to judge voter intent.

    Well, there it is at last in the final sentence of the paragraph. Just as the AP reported, in a statewide recount Gore would have won regardless of the standard chosen! But there’s more. In the next paragraph we learn that:

    Another complicating factor in the effort to untangle the result is the overseas absentee ballots that arrived after Election Day. … A statistical analysis conducted for The Times determined that if all counties had followed state law in reviewing the absentee ballots, Mr. Gore would have picked up as many as 290 additional votes, enough to tip the election in Mr. Gore’s favor in some of the situations studied.

    There’s no equivocation here either. If the absentee ballots had been counted, Gore would have won the election in a number of scenarios.

    Finally the article goes into the notorious “dimpled” and “hanging” chad issue. After several paragraphs of analysis, it concludes:

    The difficulty of perceiving dimples or detached chads can be measured by the number of coders who saw them, but most of the ballot counts here are based on what a simple majority — two out of three coders — recorded. The different standards mostly involved competing notions of what expresses voter intent on a punch card. … If all the ballots had been reviewed under any of seven single standards, and combined with the results of an examination of overvotes, Mr. Gore would have won, by a very narrow margin. For example, using the most permissive ”dimpled chad” standard, nearly 25,000 additional votes would have been reaped, yielding 644 net new votes for Mr. Gore and giving him a 107-vote victory margin…. counting dimples that three people saw would have given Mr. Gore a net of just 318 additional votes and kept Mr. Bush in the lead by 219. Using the most restrictive standard — the fully punched ballot card — 5,252 new votes would have been added to the Florida total, producing a net gain of 652 votes for Mr. Gore, and a 115-vote victory margin.

    All the other combinations likewise produced additional votes for Mr. Gore, giving him a slight margin over Mr. Bush, when at least two of the three coders agreed.

    So, the details of the Times article are consistent with the Associated Press summary. One just needs to dig for them. But let’s look at the paragraph which you quote to end your post, because you seem to think it’s significant:

    But the consortium’s study shows that Mr. Bush would have won even if the justices had not stepped in (and had further legal challenges not again changed the trajectory of the battle), answering one of the abiding mysteries of the Florida vote.

    “Mr. Bush would have won, even if the justices had not stepped in …” In other words, if Gore and his lawyers had continued to pursue their strategy of requesting a four county recount. But we already knew that! It has nothing to do with the consortium’s detailed recount of the other scenarios, where Gore would have won in 6 out of 9 cases.

    It’s clear then that, in spite of the misleading headline, the New York Times article correctly reports that in 2/3 of the methods used to conduct the recount – notably those in which all the votes were counted statewide – Al Gore would have won the election. Your reliance on the bogus Times headline and the appearance of the word, “might”, in an early paragraph – plus your fervent desire to prove yourself right and me wrong – have led you seriously astray.

    Again!

  18. 70

    MataHarley

    premium_subscriber

    @AJ Hill: This stands in stark contrast to the compelling evidence for massive, widespread election fraud by Republicans and their supporters; but I assume you have no problem with Diebold alterring thousands of votes with their crooked electronic voting machines in the 2000 and 2008 elections, do you?

    @MataHarley: Since you obviously seem bent out of shape… your natural state, from what we can tell… about the 2000 election (which was vetted post election by the media, and still had the same winner that you obviously didn’t want…), one would think that you would want at least your state to eliminate the potential for election fraud by actually providing proof of citizenship prior to voting.

    @AJ Hill: But let’s move on to your belief that the Florida recounts supported Bush’s “election” in 2000? You really are a mooncalf. Did you ever think of reading beyond the headlines or questioning what you hear on right wing radio.?

    @MataHarley: responds with link and excerpts to NYTs details of the media recount study and consortium

    @AJ Hill: Tilting at windmills again, I see, MattersHardly. My entire post was written in response to sick-of-the -lies’ claim, which you echo, that Bush won the 2000 election under any recount scenario.

    And you fancy yourself a writer? Hill’o’beans, usually writers also possess reading comprehensive skills as well. No where did I “echo” that “Bush won the 2000 election under any recount scenario.

    What I said, again reposted for you (since you also suffer from “scroll up” deficiencies…) is that the media recount confirmed Bush’s win. I should have added that the media recount also struck down the political talking point that the courts chose the election winner.

    The only way that Gore was favored in *some* scenarios, and *might* have *eked* out a victory… NYT’s own language… was if they opted to choose the intent of the flawed over and under voting. And that was… read s-l-o-w-l-y… ONLY if the county canvassers came to the same decision of choosing the voters intent post casting their ballots.

    Even more interesting, you accuse me of only reading the headline, then post several of the same excerpts I used to chastise your… again… blanket statement that Gore had won under “all” scenarios. (i.e. verbatim, “Under any scenario where all of the votes were counted, Al Gore won!”) That, Hill’o’beans, can only be construed as a fabulous example of stupid, or the work of a desperate liar, hoping for a gullible audience. Take your pick. Either one works when it comes to you.

    Your entire premise, desperate for an illegal win almost 10 years later (hold a grudge much?), is based on two demands:

    1: That those who filled out their ballots erroneously get their votes counted when others in other states do not enjoy that special privilege, and

    2: That some county canvassers decide the voters intent (exactly the same way the media consortium did, to boot)… which may or may not actually match what the voters intended. Ironically, you are irate in your belief that Diebold “altered” votes, but you aren’t in the least bit concerned that someone other than the voter (i.e. canvassers) should be able to alter a vote. huh?

    Maybe it’s you who should read beyond the headlines, have respect for laws INRE ballots that each state generally has INRE errors on ballots. The very reason those ballots are thrown out is because there should be no third party to omnipotently decide, post election, what that voter’s intent was.

    As I said, if you’re too stupid to figure out how to correctly use a ballot, you’re likely an idiot about the issues as well. But unlike you, I’m not going to demand special favors for the stupid, and allow a 3rd party to decide what they intended after the fact. You really should be embarrassed at this blatant pandering to alter reality…. but I suspect humility is not part of the genetic make up.

  19. 71

    johngalt

    @AJ Hill:

    Another exception to take, from your #43;

    Spare me your absurd rodomontade. It’s comical at first, but then merely grotesque. The Wall Street crash was made possible by Phil Gramm and a bunch of crooked, mostly Republican, legislators and brought on by greedy, unprincipled bankers. If you don’t know the history, do some reading yourself or just stay uninformed.

    The bolded part is misleading at best. But I’ll get to that in a second. In your post #58, you also stated this;

    · 2000: The Commodity Futures Modernization Act (Phil Gramm at work again. Read in particular the shady way he snuck this into law.) The bill opened the way for banks to trade in credit default swaps and other financial “derivatives”, which were unsupervised by the SEC, or by any federal or state insurance regulators.

    Well, looking at the voting records of those bills tells a different story than the one you support with your comments. For example, the voting record for the GLB Act is thus;
    -First vote;senate;May of 1999-This vote is almost straight on party lines, with only one D breaking ranks to vote in favor.
    -Second vote, House, July of 1999 – Vote passed the House without objection, no record kept.
    -After passing both the House and the Senate, the conference report was worked on, addressing not only the differences in the House and Senate versions, but also addressing objections from the D-senators on the bill. The result is that several amendments to the 1977 CRA were included.
    -The final senate vote, Nov of 1999 – The voting record here details 90 yeas, 8 nays, with 1 GOP and 7 D voting nay.
    -The final House vote, Nov of 1999 – The voting record here details 362 yeas, 57 nays, 15 NV, with 50 D, 6 R, and 1 I voting nay.
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s106-900

    Overall, the final voting on the Act is strongly in favor, by both parties, and signed with positive remarks from Bill Clinton. Indeed, Clinton, in 2008 had these remarks to say about the act;

    In BusinessWeek.com, Maria Bartiromo reports that she asked the former President last week whether he regretted signing that legislation. Mr. Clinton’s reply: “No, because it wasn’t a complete deregulation at all. We still have heavy regulations and insurance on bank deposits, requirements on banks for capital and for disclosure. I thought at the time that it might lead to more stable investments and a reduced pressure on Wall Street to produce quarterly profits that were always bigger than the previous quarter.

    “But I have really thought about this a lot. I don’t see that signing that bill had anything to do with the current crisis. Indeed, one of the things that has helped stabilize the current situation as much as it has is the purchase of Merrill Lynch by Bank of America, which was much smoother than it would have been if I hadn’t signed that bill.”

    “But I can’t blame [the Republicans]. This wasn’t something they forced me into. I really believed that given the level of oversight of banks and their ability to have more patient capital, if you made it possible for [commercial banks] to go into the investment banking business as Continental European investment banks could always do, that it might give us a more stable source of long-term investment.”

    http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_40/b4102000409948.htm

    On to the CRA amendments included in the Act, two items of particular importance:

    CRA Compliance Check

    – The Federal Reserve may not permit a company to form a financial holding company if any of its banks or S&Ls did not receive at least a satisfactory rating in its most recent CRA exam.

    – No bank or financial holding company may commence new activities authorized under the Gramm-Leach Act if any bank, or bank affiliate of a financial holding company, received less than satasfactory rating at its most recent CRA exam.

    http://banking.senate.gov/conf/craamd.htm

    What this means is that anyone wishing to form a financial holding company, or commence any new activities authorized under the ACT itself, must have those CRA exam ratings. How does one get those CRA exam ratings?

    The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) requires the federal financial institution supervisory agencies, in connection with their examinations of certain depository institutions, to assess the institutions’ CRA performance. A financial institution’s performance in helping to meet the credit needs of its community is evaluated in the context of information about the institution (capacity, constraints and business strategies), its community (demographic and economic data, lending, investment, and service opportunities), and its competitors and peers. Upon completion of a CRA examination, an overall CRA Rating is assigned using a four-tiered rating system. These ratings are: Outstanding, Satisfactory, Needs to Improve, and Substantial Noncompliance.

    In the case of an interstate bank, the federal bank supervisory agencies are required by law to evaluate an institution’s CRA performance in each state and metropolitan statistical area (MSA) in which it has a branch in addition to providing an overall rating for the bank’s performance. The assessment of the bank’s performance in these individual areas are appropriately weighted and considered in determining the overall rating.

    http://www.ffiec.gov/craratings/ratings_faq.htm#5

    Sounds all well and good, right? Wrong. It was abused, just as many well intentioned laws have been:

    CRA was meant to encourage banks to make loans to high-risk borrowers, often minorities living in unstable neighborhoods. That has provided an opening to radical groups like ACORN (the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) to abuse the law by forcing banks to make hundreds of millions of dollars in “subprime” loans to often uncreditworthy poor and minority customers.

    Any bank that wants to expand or merge with another has to show it has complied with CRA – and approval can be held up by complaints filed by groups like ACORN.

    In fact, intimidation tactics, public charges of racism and threats to use CRA to block business expansion have enabled ACORN to extract hundreds of millions of dollars in loans and contributions from America’s financial institutions .

    http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/item_cvq7rDCHftKwJyLaecfPQK;jsessionid=D1D1AAAA98E3E5E0C342D0CCD2AA1E19

    None other than Barack Obama himself was involved in the numerous lawsuits and intimidating tactics aimed at increasing lending to those who shouldn’t have been.

    The banks themselves certainly weren’t innocent, though, as later, they welcomed almost with open arms those who shouldn’t have been allowed loans, simply to make a buck or two more. But, that gets into the second legislative piece that you discussed, in your post #58;

    The Commodity Futures Modernization Act

    This legislation was actually initiated by Clinton himself, who commissioned a panel, the “Presidential Working Group on Financial Markets (PWG)”, whose recommendations were rolled into the House bill H.R. 4577, and Senate bill S.3283, of which the cosponsors included Tom Harkin, who so vehemently denounced the GLB Act of the previous year.

    The part that Gramm had to play was two-fold, in that he essentially blocked voting on the bill from the house unless it was included that CDS(Credit Default Swaps) were to be exempted from SEC oversight.
    -Credit Default Swaps is basically insurance, issued by such firms as AIG, against investments by banks to ensure the banks didn’t lose their money.

    Eventually, Gramm got his way, and both HR 4577 and S.3283 were passed and, were included in the Consolidated Appropriations Act 2001. The House voted 292-60 in favor, a mixed bag of both yeas and nays. The Senate voted “unanimously”, with two important objections raised, particularly regarding the HR4577, of both Senator Inhofe, a Republican, and the late Senator Wellstone, a Democrat. The PWG expressed strong unanimous consent with the results of the legislative actions regarding their recommendations.
    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:HR05660:@@@L&summ2=m&
    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:HR04577:@@@X
    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/R?r106:FLD001:S61856

    The biggest point that I’m making is that one cannot “blame” the Republicans, either solely, or majority-wise, for the passage of both of those acts happening. This is a common misconception, or mislead, by liberal/progressives on this front.

    The other point brought up by me, about the CRA, is important in that it DID lead to the “perfect storm” of actions necessary to bring about the crash of 2008. Not only did it initially allow loans given to those who shouldn’t have received them, but it was used as justification later on by banks to issue more loans that were “risky” at best, leading to the overextension of both banks(capital) and insurance issuers(like AIG). When the housing price corrections started coming in, many of those banks that held the bundled investment securities full of “risky” mortgages found themselves holding a bunch of paper that wasn’t nearly worth the amounts they bought them for. This put pressure on firms like AIG, who had overextended themselves in issuing those CDS’s, causing bankruptcies and failures.

    It was, in essence, an atmosphere of greed, by financial institutions, by “community organizers” like Obama, who gained power from “helping” gain loans, and the people who received the loans themselves, many of whom knew all along they couldn’t pay them. To blame everything on one sector, and intimate it was one party’s doing, is to ignore everything that happened. I’d rate your initial comment that I highlighted misleading, as the part about “Phil Gramm and a bunch of crooked, mostly Republican, legislators” doesn’t tell the whole story, especially the part about Bill Clinton favoring the Act and the “deregulation” liberal/progressives insist happened.

  20. 73

    Nan G

    AJHill,
    Your comment (43) about how the corporate misuse of funds is egregious while the ”poor” misusing funds is OK bothers me.
    Why so, AJ?
    Why is it more criminal if you misuse federal money as a corporation?
    1/3rd of Americans receive some federal welfare; (71% if illegal alien household)either food stamps, housing, general welfare or other forms.
    It adds up to billions of taxpayer dollars.
    IF the same proportion of people are dishonest whether in a business or not, then it adds up to hundreds of millions abusing federal assistance of one form or another.

    I think it is wrong if a company does it.
    BUT I also think it is equally wrong if an individual does it.

    In some of FA’s threads about ”green” businesses, we learn that playboys started so-called ”green” businesses just to get millions in taxpayer monies.
    When they ran all the way through it living their jet-set lifestyle, they simply filed for bankruptcy.
    Since they did bundling for Obama no charges were filed!

    We learned that liberal friends of Obama started a weatherizing program in Seattle.
    They ran through $20 million in less than 3 years and only three places got weatherized and only 14 people even got jobs that are now gone.
    There will be no charges filed.

    But conservative Gibson Guitar imported the SAME rosewood from India as Obama supporter CFMartin &Co.
    Only Gibson is being investigated.
    See a pattern?

    When enough poor people take a little off the top it adds up real fast.
    We had a local doctor who was a federal taxpayer bilker.
    He took Medicare/Medicaid cards and billed for services never rendered.
    Before someone shot him to death we never even knew.
    Only after his death were the books examined.
    By then the amounts were astronomical!
    But, at least, he was out of the game.

    Multiply his game by thousands.

  21. 74

    johngalt

    @Nan G:

    Nan G, I have written about a similar issue before. I call it “welfare politics”, and neither party can claim absolution from it.

    For the GOP, crony capitalism runs rampant amongst the liberal/progressive “lite” crowd. Unfortunately, it seems that this crowd has been at the reigns of the party for some time. Providing tax breaks, tax incentives, and legislation that helps out fellow travelers in business, to me, is just as bad as the Democratic Party’s forms of “welfare politics”.

    For the Democratic Party, not only do they practice crony capitalism like the GOP, but they also practice “welfare politics” amongst the social groups, giving one group preferential treatment over another, or buying votes with handouts.

    This is something that liberal/progressives do not understand about conservatives, of which there are very few true conservatives within the GOP. We don’t sit there and rant on Obama and his cronies while believing the GOP is purely innocent. It just so happens that we end up ranting on those liberal/progressives in the Democratic Party as a defense, because that party’s supporters believe no wrong happens within their party. Those supporters believe the lies and half-truths of the party leadership that everything bad that happens somehow is the fault of the GOP, which they place the conservatives entirely within it.

    Ivan is certainly right about one thing, despite his abrasive attitude and insults. Both parties are as guilty as one another when it comes to growing government, overreaching in opposition to the Constitution, and generally bad behaviour.

    Before one can point the finger at the opposition, one must be willing to address the failings of there side. Liberal/progressives do not do this for the Democratic Party, and it shows in their rhetoric and hyperbole about the GOP.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *