The Republican war on the Poor

[NYcarbineer]

The Republicans' War on Food Stamps | Politics News | Rolling Stone

The House's deep slash to the food-stamp program, combined with outlandish restrictions, arose from various impulses. There was, obviously, the long-standing animus within the Republican Party toward poor people, and that's been substantially intensified as a result of the transformation of the party, whose center of gravity has moved south and west.

Moreover, a minority of the party in the House, backed by powerful and wealthy outside interest groups, has seized the reins by throwing terror into the ranks that if they don't conform to the Tea Party's agenda, they could face defeat in a primary challenge from the right in the next election. Bob Dole's and George McGovern's time is long gone. Neither the Senate, nor the House, nor American politics are anything like they were in their time. The Republican Party in the Senate contains no Jacob Javits, the late New York senator who fought to protect food stamps. Among the Democrats, there's no Edward Kennedy to champion the causes of the poor, to even enjoy doing battle for them.

One of the few unabashed liberals, Tom Harkin of Iowa, is retiring after five terms. Harkin was born into modest means, which he has never forgotten – he needed no lectures about bootstraps.

Women, Hispanics, the Poor....Where will the GOP go next with its never ending battle with anyone who is not a wealthy, white male?

It's their Christian values.

 

[JimH52]

no wonder our country is so divided and politics is so partisan. when you have the left claiming that anything you don't agree with them on is a "war" against X, you will never have peace.

the idiot rhetoric of war this and war that has to end.

It really is arrogant isn't it? "You don't agree with my methods for "helping" the poor. Therefore, you hate the poor because you disagree with me" It's arrogant and just plain deceptive.

Tell me, why is the only way to help the poor to force others to work for the poor against their will? Wouldn't persuading them to voluntarily give aid, service, and ministering to their needs be far more productive?

Charity requires free will. It cannot be forced.

Well, we could just rely on the Mother Theresa's of the world to deal with our problems of poverty, disease, etc.,

and eventually we could be just like India. Is that what you want?

You have just given the RWers another idea....

 

[Edgetho]

The Republicans' War on Food Stamps | Politics News | Rolling Stone

The House's deep slash to the food-stamp program, combined with outlandish restrictions, arose from various impulses. There was, obviously, the long-standing animus within the Republican Party toward poor people, and that's been substantially intensified as a result of the transformation of the party, whose center of gravity has moved south and west.

Moreover, a minority of the party in the House, backed by powerful and wealthy outside interest groups, has seized the reins by throwing terror into the ranks that if they don't conform to the Tea Party's agenda, they could face defeat in a primary challenge from the right in the next election. Bob Dole's and George McGovern's time is long gone. Neither the Senate, nor the House, nor American politics are anything like they were in their time. The Republican Party in the Senate contains no Jacob Javits, the late New York senator who fought to protect food stamps. Among the Democrats, there's no Edward Kennedy to champion the causes of the poor, to even enjoy doing battle for them.

One of the few unabashed liberals, Tom Harkin of Iowa, is retiring after five terms. Harkin was born into modest means, which he has never forgotten – he needed no lectures about bootstraps.

Women, Hispanics, the Poor....Where will the GOP go next with its never ending battle with anyone who is not a wealthy, white male?

It's their Christian values.

We been doing it your way for 50 years and there are FAR more poor people than when you started your stupidity and the percentage hasn't changed.

And then there's the 15 TRILLION DOLLARS we've wasted.....

Piss off.

Eat shit

And fucking die

 

[Billo_Really]

Sure can. We're broke.

Then stop giving the money to the rich!

 

[Avatar4321]

no wonder our country is so divided and politics is so partisan. when you have the left claiming that anything you don't agree with them on is a "war" against X, you will never have peace.

the idiot rhetoric of war this and war that has to end.

It really is arrogant isn't it? "You don't agree with my methods for "helping" the poor. Therefore, you hate the poor because you disagree with me" It's arrogant and just plain deceptive.

Tell me, why is the only way to help the poor to force others to work for the poor against their will? Wouldn't persuading them to voluntarily give aid, service, and ministering to their needs be far more productive?

Charity requires free will. It cannot be forced.

Wanna bet?

I've made a choice in my life not to gamble. However, please tell me how charity can be forced when by definition it's something that is voluntary.

 

[Steven_R]

It really is arrogant isn't it? "You don't agree with my methods for "helping" the poor. Therefore, you hate the poor because you disagree with me" It's arrogant and just plain deceptive.

Tell me, why is the only way to help the poor to force others to work for the poor against their will? Wouldn't persuading them to voluntarily give aid, service, and ministering to their needs be far more productive?

Charity requires free will. It cannot be forced.

Wanna bet?

I've made a choice in my life not to gamble. However, please tell me how charity can be forced when by definition it's something that is voluntary.

When it's taken out of your paycheck via withholding before you have a chance to make any decisions. And if you manage to not have it taken out via withholding, expect audits, liens, fines, penalties, and possibly prison time.

 

[Steven_R]

Sure can. We're broke.

Then stop giving the money to the rich!

I'm okay with that too. No more welfare, subsidies, or sweetheart deals. Let Wall Street and Squanisha both starve.

 

[Avatar4321]

Confederates who play in pigshit hate poor people. Go figure.

Any evidence whatsoever that the people in the pictures hate the poor?

Funny...the confederate flag on the fat guy's head should give you a hint on what political party he supports......

1) No. Clothing doesn't tell you what political party, if any, you choose to belong to. The guy could be a Democrat. He could be a Republican. He could be a Libertarian. He could belong to no party at all. You can't tell that from a picture.

2) Even if you could determine what political party he belonged to, you would have no evidence that he hated the poor. No political party hates the poor. And even if there was a political party that hated the poor, simply being a member of the party doesn't mean you agree with everything the party stands for.

 

[Billo_Really]

I'm okay with that too. No more welfare, subsidies, or sweetheart deals. Let Wall Street and Squanisha both starve.

If we imposed a "Financial Transactions Tax" on all traded instruments on Wall Street, the revenue that would generate, would solve all of our money problems. And when I say "all", I do mean "all" of them.

We could dump that money into the economy and pay off the debt.

 

[Avatar4321]

Well, we could just rely on the Mother Theresa's of the world to deal with our problems of poverty, disease, etc.,

and eventually we could be just like India. Is that what you want?

No. but then I've never argued for that. That's your problem. You see it as a choice between 1) letting the government fix those problems or 2) Letting someone like Mother Theresa fix them. It's a completely false dichotemy.

There is an alternative. You can get off your ass and do something to fix the problems yourself. Your sphere of influence may not be wide. But if we do what we can in our sphere of influence and reach out and encourage others to as well, we will be able to take care of the problems.

As long as we keep outsourcing the problem and expecting someone else or some government to do it, we will never fix the problem. If everyone expects someone else to do something, it's certain that thing will never get done.

 

[Edgetho]

I'm okay with that too. No more welfare, subsidies, or sweetheart deals. Let Wall Street and Squanisha both starve.

If we imposed a "Financial Transactions Tax" on all traded instruments on Wall Street, the revenue that would generate, would solve all of our money problems. And when I say "all", I do mean "all" of them.

We could dump that money into the economy and pay off the debt.

Idiot.

They'd just move to London or Hong Kong or Bonn or Switzerland.

All they gotta do is unplug their computers, get on a Big ol' Jet Airliner and plug their computer back in.

Then what you gonna do? Genius

 

[Steven_R]

I'm okay with that too. No more welfare, subsidies, or sweetheart deals. Let Wall Street and Squanisha both starve.

If we imposed a "Financial Transactions Tax" on all traded instruments on Wall Street, the revenue that would generate, would solve all of our money problems. And when I say "all", I do mean "all" of them.

We could dump that money into the economy and pay off the debt.

You've never taken an economics class, have you?

 

[Avatar4321]

Wanna bet?

I've made a choice in my life not to gamble. However, please tell me how charity can be forced when by definition it's something that is voluntary.

When it's taken out of your paycheck via withholding before you have a chance to make any decisions. And if you manage to not have it taken out via withholding, expect audits, liens, fines, penalties, and possibly prison time.

what you're describing is robbery, not charity.

Because by definition, if it's forced it's not charity.

 

[JimH52]

Any evidence whatsoever that the people in the pictures hate the poor?

Funny...the confederate flag on the fat guy's head should give you a hint on what political party he supports......

1) No. Clothing doesn't tell you what political party, if any, you choose to belong to. The guy could be a Democrat. He could be a Republican. He could be a Libertarian. He could belong to no party at all. You can't tell that from a picture.

2) Even if you could determine what political party he belonged to, you would have no evidence that he hated the poor. No political party hates the poor. And even if there was a political party that hated the poor, simply being a member of the party doesn't mean you agree with everything the party stands for.

Of course.... Not a clue!

 

[Avatar4321]

I'm okay with that too. No more welfare, subsidies, or sweetheart deals. Let Wall Street and Squanisha both starve.

If we imposed a "Financial Transactions Tax" on all traded instruments on Wall Street, the revenue that would generate, would solve all of our money problems. And when I say "all", I do mean "all" of them.

We could dump that money into the economy and pay off the debt.

If you imposed a financial transaction tax the only result would be less financial transactions. Less financial transactions means a worse economy.

 

[Avatar4321]

Funny...the confederate flag on the fat guy's head should give you a hint on what political party he supports......

1) No. Clothing doesn't tell you what political party, if any, you choose to belong to. The guy could be a Democrat. He could be a Republican. He could be a Libertarian. He could belong to no party at all. You can't tell that from a picture.

2) Even if you could determine what political party he belonged to, you would have no evidence that he hated the poor. No political party hates the poor. And even if there was a political party that hated the poor, simply being a member of the party doesn't mean you agree with everything the party stands for.

Of course.... Not a clue!

If you want to lie to yourself, that's fine. Show some evidence of them hating the poor. or anyone.

 

[Billo_Really]

If you imposed a financial transaction tax the only result would be less financial transactions. Less financial transactions means a worse economy.

What happens on Wall Street, has nothing to do with the economy. Not any more. It's all speculative, mythical, economy there betting on goods and services that don't exist.


If we charge a 1/2% on all transactions, which is roughly $3 for every $100, Wall Street is not going to all of a sudden, stop trading.

 

[Billo_Really]

You've never taken an economics class, have you?

Economics 101.

But the economy they taught in that class, is not the economy we have now.

 

[Edgetho]

I've made a choice in my life not to gamble. However, please tell me how charity can be forced when by definition it's something that is voluntary.

When it's taken out of your paycheck via withholding before you have a chance to make any decisions. And if you manage to not have it taken out via withholding, expect audits, liens, fines, penalties, and possibly prison time.

what you're describing is robbery, not charity.

Because by definition, if it's forced it's not charity.

I agree. It is NOT charity.

But the people who steal your money and give to those who will vote for them (dimocrap scum) want to thank you for your generous contribution.

Call it whatever you want. They still get elected by stealing your money and giving it to people to buy their votes.

It's just that simple

 

[ClosedCaption]

All I have seen, including a couple Neg Reps, is insults. Can someone defend the huge cuts in food stamps to the poor, the aged, and children?

No actually they see pointing and laughing as a response when they don't have one.

Then they pat each other on the back...

Later they'll be asking why they are so low in the polls and why no one blames dems

Then they'll blame the media for seeing their pointing and laughing in step one