GOP: we need the courage to let poor people 'wither and die'

[Claudette]

I could give shit one about the poor.

I'm sick and tired of bankrolling their lives for em through welfare, medicaide and all that other social bullshit we taxpayers are forced to provice.

Its not my duty to take care of the poor. Those of you who think its your duty then whip out those wallets and checkbooks and have at it.

Oh wait. I forgot. None of you will do that. It would cost you every penny you have. Never mind.

 

[Esmeralda]

I could give shit one about the poor.

I'm sick and tired of bankrolling their lives for em through welfare, medicaide and all that other social bullshit we taxpayers are forced to provice.

Its not my duty to take care of the poor. Those of you who think its your duty then whip out those wallets and checkbooks and have at it.

Oh wait. I forgot. None of you will do that. It would cost you every penny you have. Never mind.

Are you a Christian? Because if you are, it is, in fact, your duty to help the poor.

My stance is not based on religion at all; it's based on reason. Logically, it is clear there will always be people who need assistance, always have been and always will be. If we ignore them, we end up with the type of situations you see in the photos I posted. I am not willing to live in a country where I co-exist with that situation, so I believe that the State needs to step in and help. I don't mind paying for it through my taxes. It is certainly better to pay for that than to pay for wars.

However, I find it incredibly hypocritical for people who profess to be religious, Christian or otherwise, yet have the attitude you, Claudette, have. All of the major religions have guidelines and tenets that say it is their duty to help those in need -- the poor, the weak, the disabled, the disenfranchised, etc. To profess to be religious and ignore the poor is to be a hypocrite.

 

[Sallow]

It was rather tactless, but in it lies a certain truth. You shouldn't shield people from their failures. Doing that leads to a false sense of entitlement. Those who have never tasted failure should be made to. Life isn't a bed of roses. What we lack the courage to do, is let poor people find a way for themselves; instead of letting the government lead them by the hand down an endless road, with no clear destination in sight.

There's no truth in it. None.

And it's a very dangerous thing to do.

You let enough poor "wither and die" and they become very angry, form into groups and kill the people letting them wither and die.

That's been the main reason for revolution through out history and represents a failure of governance.

 

[l.todd]

I could give shit one about the poor.

I'm sick and tired of bankrolling their lives for em through welfare, medicaide and all that other social bullshit we taxpayers are forced to provice.

Its not my duty to take care of the poor. Those of you who think its your duty then whip out those wallets and checkbooks and have at it.

Oh wait. I forgot. None of you will do that. It would cost you every penny you have. Never mind.

Are you a Christian? Because if you are, it is, in fact, your duty to help the poor.

My stance is not based on religion at all; it's based on reason. Logically, it is clear there will always be people who need assistance, always have been and always will be. If we ignore them, we end up with the type of situations you see in the photos I posted. I am not willing to live in a country where I co-exist with that situation, so I believe that the State needs to step in and help. I don't mind paying for it through my taxes. It is certainly better to pay for that than to pay for wars.

However, I find it incredibly hypocritical for people who profess to be religious, Christian or otherwise, yet have the attitude you, Claudette, have. All of the major religions have guidelines and tenets that say it is their duty to help those in need, the poor, the weak, the disabled, the disenfranchised, etc. To profess to be religious and ignore the poor is to be a hypocrite.

I consider myself a Christian and I do help the poor through various charities, giving my time and money. However, I think that the federal govt. is the stupidest, bluntest and least altruistic mechanism to help the poor and VERY often does more harm than good with it's ill-conceived programs.

 

[Esmeralda]

In those pictures, the countries portrayed also have churches and other charities who help the poor. See how far it gets them? It's not enough. I don't understand how anyone who considers themselves a Christian would want that for our country, but that's what we'd have if we ended the human services provided by our government. Look around the world: any country that does not have good and substantial services for the poor has what is depicted in those photos: all!

Your charities and church donations are simply not enough. How can someone who considers themselves a Christian turn their back on such suffering?

 

[Mac1958]

.

Y'know, I don't really have a dog in this hunt, all I care about is that neither party has too much power.

That said, if we're going to have another election cycle in which many Republican candidates are obviously Mark Levin/Alex Jones fans, and in which the Democrats' main message is pointing at the circus and saying "holy shit, look at that", I'm gonna need to find a way to avoid the whole thing. I've really had enough.

We need two honest, serious and sane parties, and the current tally is zero.

.

 

[Anathema]

A very interesting, and on point comment from this individual. The only way for people to learn to change their ways is for them to be forced to endure the consequences of their choices and actions. That's not a Conservative or Liberal viewpoint, it's just common sense.

I don't know anyone, even an extreme Right-Wing "Loon" like myself who feels that there is not a necessity for us as a society to help certain people. However, I do most definitely believe that we need to take a look at who we are helping and in what ways. Not by "means" testing so much as by "reason" testing. That is, determining who needs help and how much based not on income level alone, but based on why that individual or family is in the situation it's in..... Is that single mother in the situation she is because her husband died in a traffic accident and she doesn't have a job or is it because she got pregnant at age 14, with no husband to take care of her, and dropped out of school? Is that family in need of assistance because the husband/father got laid off when the company he worked for closed or because he and his wife are druggies, drunks, and he's a convicted felon? We need to help those whose situation is not due to poor choices that they made and instead because something beyond their control occured.

I know a family where there are three daughters. All of them are adults now and none of them have jobs......

The eldest woman is 33. She was repeatedly raped by a friend of the family for almost 2 years starting on her 13th birthday. Nobody knew about it other than her until 8 years ago. She suffers from severe depression and other mental health issues because of it and is not capable of holding a job, especially since she never graduated from high school. She lives with her fiance and collects a relatively modest SSDI check and SNAP assistance. She will lose the SNAP funding when she gets married this summer. She's essentially a housewife and homemaker who hopes she may become a mother after they get mairried.

The second daughter got pregnant at age 15. She is now 25 and has four children by two different men, both of whom have been in or are in prison. None of them have any significant relationship with their children. She's married to an un/under-employed man who is a heavy pot user and an alcoholic. This month, when her Welfare benefits ran out, she finally decided that maybe she should find a job or two. She got two, quitting one on the first day she was there. She looks to her parents to support her, as she did even when she was getting assistance from the Government because she is unwilling to take any responsibility for herself or her own family.

The third daughter collects some SSDI benefits for bi-polar/depressive issues and assistance for one of her three children, the first of which she had at age 17. She is finally engaged to the father of her two younger kids after a decade-long relationship with him. He works construction jobs and cuts hair on the side. They don't make a great living but they get by without too much help from family or the Government.

Which of these women actually deserves the assistance? Does the second one deserve any help at all, considering she is the one who chose to get pregnant at that age, and to put herself and her boyfriends/husband ahead of her kids needs?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“My main point is that the programs are used as political tools,” Johnston said. “Sometimes it hurts, but you might give them less to motivate someone to get a job.”

Ignorant nonsense.

This ignorance as to the facts concerning public assistance and poverty is typical of most on the right.

Conservatives need to educate themselves first before exhibiting their ignorance on the subject.

And it’s republicans for the most part who are using public assistance as a political tool, to propagate lies and myths about those who receive public assistance for some perceived political gain.

 

[Valerie]

Goodbye GOP; the tea party has won

Their far right agenda is already hurting them in general elections. I shudder to think what Republican presidential contenders will say in a 2016 primary to win over voters who think Eric Cantor isn't conservative enough.

Opinion: Goodbye GOP; tea party has won with Eric Cantor's loss - CNN.com

It turns out that 96 percent of Americans have used government assistance at one point or another in their lives, ranging from Social Security to grant programs. In a New York Times op-ed Monday, Professors Suzanne Mettler and John Sides point out that a vast majority of Americans have some tie to the government and that, in 2008, 96 percent of people used government help. The data comes from a 2008 Cornell study of 21 social programs...

As Sides and Mettler are quick to point out, the survey does not include “government activity that benefits everyone — national defense, the interstate highway system, food safety regulations — but only tangible benefits.”

96 Percent Of People Have Received Some Government Assistance | ThinkProgress

 

[NYcarbineer]

It was rather tactless, but in it lies a certain truth. You shouldn't shield people from their failures. Doing that leads to a false sense of entitlement. Those who have never tasted failure should be made to. Life isn't a bed of roses. What we lack the courage to do, is let poor people find a way for themselves; instead of letting the government lead them by the hand down an endless road, with no clear destination in sight.

"We lack the courage to let children starve."

If only Republicans would make that their party motto.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Throughout the history of humankind there have always been poor people: there always have been people who are poor, and there always will be, just like so many other things that are part of the human condition. You cannot eliminate poor people, but you can deal with it in humane ways. I don't know how many on this board have been to third world countries, but it seems to me that is what the GOP wants to do, turn this country into a third world country that is dominated by a religious theocracy and where the rich are at the top and the poor at the bottom, left to fend for themselves, with little or no human services to help them. These are pictures of what it is like for the poor in that type of country. If the GOP and the far right conservatives had their way, this is what our country would look like. People are always complaining about the poor. That has been true for thousands of years. It is nothing new. You are not going to eliminate poverty, ever, not any more than you are going to eliminate wars and other problems we have seen throughout the history of our species. It isn't going away; so, you need to help people who are in poverty...unless, of course, you want the US to be like the countries pictured below:

You are exactly right. That is the conservative vision for America. Neglect the poor to the point where they appreciate dump picking as a worthwhile career choice.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It was rather tactless, but in it lies a certain truth. You shouldn't shield people from their failures. Doing that leads to a false sense of entitlement. Those who have never tasted failure should be made to. Life isn't a bed of roses. What we lack the courage to do, is let poor people find a way for themselves; instead of letting the government lead them by the hand down an endless road, with no clear destination in sight.

Remind us what incentivizes you to stay unemployed.

 

[deltex1]

Indiana GOP candidate: ‘No one has the guts’ to let poor people ‘wither and die’

“I was not trying to hurt anybody’s feelings,” Johnston said. “I saw the opportunity to say something. I think a lot of the poor have no way out, and there’s no motivation to improve your position. It’s like training a child, either you enable them or force them out at some point.”

The candidate made the comments in a discussion thread on the Mad Mac page, which covers local politics.

“For almost three generations people, in some cases, have been given handouts,” Johnston said during the discussion. “They have been ‘enabled’ so much that their paradigm in life is simply being given the stuff of life, however meager.”

“What you see is a setting for a life of misery is life to them never-the-less,” he continued. “No one has the guts to just let them wither and die. No one who wants votes is willing to call a spade a spade. As long as the Dems can get their votes the enabling will continue. The Republicans need their votes and dare not cut the fiscal tether. It is really a political Catch-22.”

Did they learn nothing from 'legitimate rape' guy?

These sound bytes are killers--especially since the base ain't rich.

Let us know when you're ready for cremation, Mona.

 

[Anathema]

Ignorant nonsense.

This ignorance as to the facts concerning public assistance and poverty is typical of most on the right.

Conservatives need to educate themselves first before exhibiting their ignorance on the subject.

And it’s republicans for the most part who are using public assistance as a political tool, to propagate lies and myths about those who receive public assistance for some perceived political gain.

Not at all. A large portion of these people are getting something for nothing. That is NOT the American way; or at least it was never intended to be. Why do WE have to continue supporting people who are either unable or unwilling to support themselves DUE TO THEIR OWN MISTAKES IN LIFE???

 

[martybegan]

Just Wither and Die please. Like it. Terrific thing to run on. As honest as it gets in politics these days.

Bulworth - Trailer #1 - Video

Or maybe the decide to actually try to improve their lives. God forbid they become self sufficient, the Dems would lose their guaranteed votes.

 

[rightwinger]

How will poor people be motivated to go get a job unless they suffer more? Let some of them start dropping in the street and the others will be motivated to go out and start a business

 

[martybegan]

How will poor people be motivated to go get a job unless they suffer more? Let some of them start dropping in the street and the others will be motivated to go out and start a business

And how has meeting their basic needs helped so far? There is generational poverty created by progressive policies. But since it gives you the false aura of "helping people" and "caring" you don't worry about it.

 

[rightwinger]

How will poor people be motivated to go get a job unless they suffer more? Let some of them start dropping in the street and the others will be motivated to go out and start a business

And how has meeting their basic needs helped so far? There is generational poverty created by progressive policies. But since it gives you the false aura of "helping people" and "caring" you don't worry about it.

Cite an example from anywhere in the world where the poor have become more successful in society by receiving less

There are over a hundred countries in the world where the poor receive less than in the US. Why aren't they thriving?

 

[martybegan]

How will poor people be motivated to go get a job unless they suffer more? Let some of them start dropping in the street and the others will be motivated to go out and start a business

And how has meeting their basic needs helped so far? There is generational poverty created by progressive policies. But since it gives you the false aura of "helping people" and "caring" you don't worry about it.

Cite an example from anywhere in the world where the poor have become more successful in society by receiving less

There are over a hundred countries in the world where the poor receive less than in the US. Why aren't they thriving?

That's the wrong concept, and the wrong question. its not a question of not spending some government money, its a question of how to spend it. Right now all we do is keep them at the same poverty level. We make is so its easy to just perpetuate the cycle, and we make it so there is no real consequences for fathering 6 kids with 6 baby mommas.

Welfare is the racism of low expectations when it comes to minorities, and the classisim of low expectations when it comes to white poor. Your concept of poverty elimination has failed, we've been doing it since the 60's and it has been a absolute waste.

 

[Esmeralda]

How will poor people be motivated to go get a job unless they suffer more? Let some of them start dropping in the street and the others will be motivated to go out and start a business

And how has meeting their basic needs helped so far? There is generational poverty created by progressive policies. But since it gives you the false aura of "helping people" and "caring" you don't worry about it.

Cite an example from anywhere in the world where the poor have become more successful in society by receiving less

There are over a hundred countries in the world where the poor receive less than in the US. Why aren't they thriving?

Excellent point and absolutely the reality. You don't improve the situation of the poor by making them suffer so they will be motivated to do something about their poverty. They usually do as much as they can about their poverty, but are not successful. You all are always complaining and making the assumption that these people are some kind of losers who don't work hard or try to make their way in the world. The vast number of people who receive government assistance do work hard and do try to make their own way in the world. You base your hatred of the poor on the minority who abuse the system. It's frightful how heartless, loathsome and cruel you are.