>>Fourteen years ago, an energized Republican Congress voted to reform a vital part of the nation's fast-growing welfare system. President Clinton signed the bill into law, promising that the measure would "end welfare as we know it."
>>
>>But what began as a promising era of reform has completely collapsed. Government welfare spending is climbing rapidly, and at an unsustainable rate.
>>
>>The Obama administration projects that over the next 10 years the United States, at all levels of government, will spend more than $10 trillion on means-tested welfare programs for the poor. And we're off to a galloping start.
>>
>>President Obama's budget for next fiscal year would increase spending on these programs by 42 percent compared with President Bush's last complete budget.
>>
>>Without doubt, the severe recession is to blame for some of this increase. But the Obama administration doesn't project a decrease in welfare costs after the recession ends.
>>
>>Rising spending — reaching $944 billion in combined federal and state spending in fiscal 2011 — will soar past $1.3 trillion a year by decade's end.
>>
>>Sums like this don't represent a war "on" poverty so much as an unconditional surrender "to" poverty.
>>...
>>http://www.heritage.org/Research/Commentary/2010/06/Confronting-the-Unsustainable-Welfare-State
>>
>>and here is Mr. Rector's recent Congressional testimony :
>>
>>Expanding Federal Food Programs: Means-Tested Aid for Families with Children
>>
>>My name is Robert Rector. I am a Senior Research Fellow at The Heritage Foundation. The views I express in this testimony are my own, and should not be construed as representing any official position of The Heritage Foundation.
>>
>>This hearing is to examine proposals to expand spending on school nutrition programs. However, it is misleading to examine spending in one or two government programs in isolation. Most families receiving subsidized school meals also receive benefits from many other programs. Proposals to expand spending in a single program must be examined holistically, in the context of overall growth of government spending.
>>
>>It is therefore important to consider school nutrition spending in the context of overall means-tested assistance to low-income families with children. In FY 2011, such means-tested aid will reach around $475 billion, or roughly $33,000 for each family with children in the lowest income third of population.
>>
>>At the same time, the federal budget deficit in FY2011 will be $1.2 trillion, or 8.3 percent of the gross domestic product. As the national debt rises rapidly toward 100 percent of GDP, it is clear that the current growth of government spending is unsustainable. In that context, calls for long-term increases in spending on school meal programs are irresponsible.
>>...
>>http://www.heritage.org/Research/Testimony/Expanding-Federal-Food-Programs-Means-Tested-Aid-for-Families-with-Children
>
>Two things the dems do that are strange:
>1. They try to spend their way to economic success.
>2. They actually believe that wealthy people will stand still while they are fleeced by the government.

They're not that strange if you seek the simplest conclusion from their actions.

1. They spend to get people on the dole
2. With a majority of voters on the dole the wealthy will either "take it" or leave the country and the Dems do not believe that will happen

They're attempting to manufacture a permanent majority through monetary slavery. For the playbook, see generational welfare.