Tuesday, October 16, 2012

Obama voters panic: 'If he loses, who will give me stuff?'

"WHERE IS MY STUFF!" shouts pro-Obama protestor

(Dissociated Press) Across the nation, in cities and towns and campuses, Obama supporters echo one concern: if the President loses the November 6 presidential election... who is going to give them stuff?

"I never thought it would come to this" sobbed Marcus Coffey, 52, who has been unemployed for 36 years due to recurring acne. "I always thought they'd be there for me. How am I going to afford my cable TV?"
Many supporters said they identified with the 99% of Americans who are not part of the wealthy corporate elite.
"It's not fair" echoed Melinda Bower, 39,  a graduate student in Womyn's and Lesbyan Studies at New College in Sacramento. "The straight white male power structure owes the people the same kind of lifestyle that corporations get".  

In Detroit, Obama voters seem dejected almost to the point of panic.

"How can I get Obamaphone without Obama?" cried Tanasia Williams, holding her head in her hands. "Maybe he buy phone for me when he retired and givin' speeches like Bill Clinton." 

In Washington, law student Courtney Rutt was outraged.

"My birth control costs a thousand dollars per year. Condoms aren't cheap." Rutt said, standing awkwardly. "How can Romney expect me to pay for it?" 

In Tampa, Elinore Leach took up two chairs sitting in line for her food stamps.

"Without President Obama, how can I eat? How can anybody eat, without the government  giving us food?"  

Public health official are concerned about a widespread sense of abandonment among Obama supporters if they cannot rely on the government for all of their human needs.

Marcus Bribe, President Obama's assistant Director of Giving People Stuff (GPS) at the Department of Health and Human Services, commented gravely

"These people-- the 99%-- are vulnerable, like infants abandoned at the roadside. We have to be compassionate and understand how helpless they are. We need to feed them, clothe them, provide them with all necessities like cable T.V. and cellphones and birth control, and free rides to the polling places on Election Day."
 "It's what government is all about". 


  1. Making fun of people who can't hack it on their own. That's the spirit!

    Instead of government helping the weak, you'd prefer them to come begging at some church, where they have to jump through religious hoops to qualify for help, at the mercy of scum like you.

    1. No one has to jump through any religious hoops at my church. We help everybody.

      By the way, this post hadn't nothing to do with people who can't hack it on their own. It has to do with people who just want everything provided to them.

      The government doesn't help the weak. It ensures that they will never stand on their own, thus ensuring continued dependence, thus ensuring their votes, thus ensuring the continued growth of government to "help" them.

      Are you sure you're not just an angry anti-Christian bigot?


    2. The government doesn't help the weak. It ensures that they will never stand on their own, thus ensuring continued dependence, thus ensuring their votes, thus ensuring the continued growth of government to "help" them.

      On the contrary. If the government doesn't make, say, good quality education affordable for everybody, then you create an unemployable underclass that has to rely on handouts or be tempted to resort to crime.

      The government should level the playing field. Why do you think inequality is so high and upward social mobility so low in the US?

    3. troy:

      Your ideas are not new. Socialism has been around for a couple of centuries. It has failed everywhere.

      Government monopoly on education of children has been catastrophic. Private schools (especially Catholic schools) educate much better for much less money. We should have vouchers and allow parents to choose.

      The US has some of the worst public schools in the developed world. We have the best private universities in the world. Government is the problem, not the solution.

      "More government power" is not the answer to our problems. Your socialist ideas fail everywhere-- look at the EU, which is imploding.

    4. Michael,

      Actually, socialism has been around for much longer than a few centuries. The early Christian church was actually socialist. Members of the church looked out for each other. That's a large part of the reason why Christianity eventually triumphed over paganism (see Rodney Stark's 'the Triumph of Christianity').

      The opposite of socialism is individualism, which is what most Western countries have, safety net here and there.

      If by socialism, you mean Marxism, then that's the term you should use. The opposite of capitalism is Marxism, not socialism, although Marxist regimes can be, often are, socialistic, regimenting their subjects' leisure time, in the same way that fascist regimes also often did.

    5. Socialism is a form of government.A church can't be "socialist", any more than a family that shares stuff is "socialist".

      Socialism is the heavy interference of the government in private commerce. It is a failed economic system, and it fails in proportion to the extent it is used.

    6. It has failed everywhere.

      Except Scandanavia. It seems to have worked quite well there. But don't let facts get in the way of your histrionics.

    7. Michael,

      No. Heavy interference by the state in commerce is Marxism, not socialism. Get your terms right. National socialism in the Third Reich was socialist because one of the first things they did was to nazify social groups such as cycling clubs etc.

      The early Christian church was socialist, it probably still is. They worked with group not kin selection. In times of epidemics, which happened frequently in the crowded cities of the Roman Empire, having coreligionists give succor, including even just water, to the sick, did wonders in improving survival.

    8. Governments can be socialist. Churches and private groups can't. "Socialism" means collectivist government interference.

      Government handing out food stamps to 40 million people is socialist.

      A mother feeding her baby, or a church having a food pantry, is not socialist, anymore than giving a child an allowance is "income redistribution" or a church collection plate is "taxation".

      You guys really are slimebags with words.

    9. Michael,

      Oh good. You equate 40 million Americans getting food stamps to someone who is a long term unemployed for chronic acne receiving money to pay for his cable TV subscription. I get it now.

  2. I guess it's just too painful to 'troy' to recognize that it is he and all his ilk who are being mocked.