Why Are Republicans So Relentlessly Cruel to the Poor?

[TooTall]

Do you really think that's it? Okay, then what if you were a lifelong contributor to the charity about to offer you food? Would you feel guilt taking their food then????

Thats a very unique circumstance Ray. I dont know. I take a pride in paying my way and the independence that gives me.
Heres a thought on that issue. I might have paid into that charity but my neighbour hasnt. He is still entitled to welfare. Its his right and it gives him a little more dignity than charity handouts.

The folks that give freely of their time and money to give at church food banks do it out of compassion. A government civil service worker does it for a paycheck and very likely holds you in contempt.

And you don't? What about your disparaging remarks about 'welfare queens'?

Of course I don't, and I have NEVER made a remark about 'welfare queens.' With very few exceptions, the people that come to our food bank are dirt poor or down on their luck. Been there, done that! I only wish I could do more for them.

I must have you confused with someone else. Sorry.

No prob.Been there, done that too.

 

[Dschrute3]

Ah see, i knew the true Nazi in you would come out eventually. You harass and arrest these poor folks, yet the only 'crime' they've committed, is being poor.

Hey, let them go shit on your porch.

Has any poor person ever 'shit on your porch?' Again, your inner Nazi is being exposed. Shame on ya.

they have on my streets. again, all you have to do is open up your house. come on big fella, you got it in ya, you care deeply for them. you should let them use your bed and eat your food as well. come on gene, you're not steppin up.

I won't support arresting and imprisoning them for merely being poor. That's all you Republican Nazi-types. I'll help our poor in any way i can.

I won't support arresting and imprisoning them for merely being poor. That's all you Republican Nazi-types. I'll help our poor in any way i can.

So what are you doing about it?

Much more than you greedy Republicans.

 

[Dschrute3]

Criminalizing being poor has been done all throughout history.

not in USA we bail them out at a cost of $trillions and they never have to pay back a penny!!

"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer."

Benjamin Franklin, On the Price of Corn and Management of the Poor, November 1766

Way to justify being cruel to the least fortunate among us. You sound like an average 'Good Christian' Republican wanker. Jesus is not proud of you my friend.

And when did Jesus put you in charge of making those calls for him????

Y'all 'Good American'/Good Christian' Republicans really should go back and read Jesus' teachings again. You clearly didn't get it. Till you get right with Jesus again, you're just gonna be frauds playing the role of the 'Good American/Good Christian.'

 

[Dschrute3]

I'd like a link too just one article referencing "Poor man locked up for being poor".

Just one.

Obviously, y'all use other terminology in justifying abusing our poor homeless. But the bottom line is, y'all arrest and imprison them for merely being poor. Most aren't hurting anyone. Yet y'all feel a need to harass them. It's a Nazi-like bully mentality.

Here is what happens if you just let them linger on the streets. Would you want your downtown to look like this?

Help them, don't arrest and imprison them. Don't make them criminals, when they're not. That's certainly not helping them. It isn't right to just arrest and lock them all away in cages. If we are truly a kind just nation, we can't 'Disappear' them. That's pure evil.

 

[Dschrute3]

Republicans are working very hard to criminalize being poor. Very evil folks. They do remind you of the Nazis. Americans better be paying attention.

Evidence?

Prove he is wrong. Until you can do that, we can only assume he is correct

Sorry, that's not the way it works. When you make a claim, it's up to you to prove it, not someone else to disprove it. Here's a good example:

I claim that friction is the result of extremely tiny demons that leap out from the surfaces of the two objects being rubbed together and hold hands. According to you, someone would have to prove I am wrong. Until they can do that, we can only assume I am correct. Of course, that's bunk. It's up to me to prove my assertion. Likewise for him.

Report: Cities passing more laws making homelessness a crime | Fox ...
www.foxnews.com/us/.../report-cities-passing-more-laws-making-homelessness-crime.ht...
Nov 15, 2016 - Dallas was criticized for issuing thousands of citations for sleeping in public, and Puyallup, for making it illegal to camp, panhandle or sit and lie ...
Travesty: It Is Now Illegal To Feed The Homeless In Thirty-Three Cities
occupydemocrats.com/.../travesty-it-is-now-illegal-to-feed-the-homeless-in-thirty-thre...
May 29, 2015 - Travesty: It Is Now Illegal To Feed The Homeless In Thirty-Three Cities ... butRepublican legislators all over have taken it upon themselves to make the ... “Cities think by cutting off the food source, it will make the homeless go ...
'No Camping,' and Other Laws That Sneakily Push the Homeless Away
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/10/no...homeless.../412216/
Oct 25, 2015 - 'No Camping,' and Other Laws That Sneakily Push the Homeless Away ... Others are designed with a clear casing to make it more difficult to hide a ... Lest anyone pin blame for the GOP'sfailure on that faction, Reihan Salam ...
South Carolina city makes being homeless illegal | Fox News
www.foxnews.com/politics/.../south-carolina-capital-city-forces-its-homeless-out.html
Aug 28, 2013 - 13, the Columbia City Council approved a plan that effectively makes homelessness illegal in parts of the city. The proposal forces those who ...

Wherever you find poverty, you find government as the root cause.
NYC Bans Food Donations To The Homeless
Bloomberg Strikes Again: NYC Bans Food Donations To The Homeless

Bloomberg is a Fascist jerkoff. Another 'Good American/Good Christian' Republican.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Evidence?

Prove he is wrong. Until you can do that, we can only assume he is correct

Sorry, that's not the way it works. When you make a claim, it's up to you to prove it, not someone else to disprove it. Here's a good example:

I claim that friction is the result of extremely tiny demons that leap out from the surfaces of the two objects being rubbed together and hold hands. According to you, someone would have to prove I am wrong. Until they can do that, we can only assume I am correct. Of course, that's bunk. It's up to me to prove my assertion. Likewise for him.

Report: Cities passing more laws making homelessness a crime | Fox ...
www.foxnews.com/us/.../report-cities-passing-more-laws-making-homelessness-crime.ht...
Nov 15, 2016 - Dallas was criticized for issuing thousands of citations for sleeping in public, and Puyallup, for making it illegal to camp, panhandle or sit and lie ...
Travesty: It Is Now Illegal To Feed The Homeless In Thirty-Three Cities
occupydemocrats.com/.../travesty-it-is-now-illegal-to-feed-the-homeless-in-thirty-thre...
May 29, 2015 - Travesty: It Is Now Illegal To Feed The Homeless In Thirty-Three Cities ... butRepublican legislators all over have taken it upon themselves to make the ... “Cities think by cutting off the food source, it will make the homeless go ...
'No Camping,' and Other Laws That Sneakily Push the Homeless Away
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/10/no...homeless.../412216/
Oct 25, 2015 - 'No Camping,' and Other Laws That Sneakily Push the Homeless Away ... Others are designed with a clear casing to make it more difficult to hide a ... Lest anyone pin blame for the GOP'sfailure on that faction, Reihan Salam ...
South Carolina city makes being homeless illegal | Fox News
www.foxnews.com/politics/.../south-carolina-capital-city-forces-its-homeless-out.html
Aug 28, 2013 - 13, the Columbia City Council approved a plan that effectively makes homelessness illegal in parts of the city. The proposal forces those who ...

Wherever you find poverty, you find government as the root cause.
NYC Bans Food Donations To The Homeless
Bloomberg Strikes Again: NYC Bans Food Donations To The Homeless

Bloomberg is a Fascist jerkoff. Another 'Good American/Good Christian' Republican.

Bloomberg is a Jewish independent........... who has leftist views. Like preventing food from being given to the homeless.

 

[Dschrute3]

Prove he is wrong. Until you can do that, we can only assume he is correct

Sorry, that's not the way it works. When you make a claim, it's up to you to prove it, not someone else to disprove it. Here's a good example:

I claim that friction is the result of extremely tiny demons that leap out from the surfaces of the two objects being rubbed together and hold hands. According to you, someone would have to prove I am wrong. Until they can do that, we can only assume I am correct. Of course, that's bunk. It's up to me to prove my assertion. Likewise for him.

Report: Cities passing more laws making homelessness a crime | Fox ...
www.foxnews.com/us/.../report-cities-passing-more-laws-making-homelessness-crime.ht...
Nov 15, 2016 - Dallas was criticized for issuing thousands of citations for sleeping in public, and Puyallup, for making it illegal to camp, panhandle or sit and lie ...
Travesty: It Is Now Illegal To Feed The Homeless In Thirty-Three Cities
occupydemocrats.com/.../travesty-it-is-now-illegal-to-feed-the-homeless-in-thirty-thre...
May 29, 2015 - Travesty: It Is Now Illegal To Feed The Homeless In Thirty-Three Cities ... butRepublican legislators all over have taken it upon themselves to make the ... “Cities think by cutting off the food source, it will make the homeless go ...
'No Camping,' and Other Laws That Sneakily Push the Homeless Away
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/10/no...homeless.../412216/
Oct 25, 2015 - 'No Camping,' and Other Laws That Sneakily Push the Homeless Away ... Others are designed with a clear casing to make it more difficult to hide a ... Lest anyone pin blame for the GOP'sfailure on that faction, Reihan Salam ...
South Carolina city makes being homeless illegal | Fox News
www.foxnews.com/politics/.../south-carolina-capital-city-forces-its-homeless-out.html
Aug 28, 2013 - 13, the Columbia City Council approved a plan that effectively makes homelessness illegal in parts of the city. The proposal forces those who ...

Wherever you find poverty, you find government as the root cause.
NYC Bans Food Donations To The Homeless
Bloomberg Strikes Again: NYC Bans Food Donations To The Homeless

Bloomberg is a Fascist jerkoff. Another 'Good American/Good Christian' Republican.

Bloomberg is a Jewish independent........... who has leftist views. Like preventing food from being given to the homeless.

Nah, he's a Fascist like you. He was a loyal Republican for many years. He clearly hasn't given up his Fascist beliefs.

 

[Cecilie1200]

If you don't have a gun the poor should be able to take your house from you. Since we're going to have a conservative mindset...Then it is only fair.

Your individual words sound like English, but your logic bears no resemblance to our Earth logic.

 

[Markle]

Charities spend a large percentage of their efforts fund raising and advertising .....not very efficient
Government has a steady flow of revenue, some of which goes to help We the People

Leaders of private charities get paid more than civil servants

Depends on the charities and there are excellent sources to help find the best, most efficient charities.

On the other hand, government skims off fifty to seventy percent, if not more, for buildings, bureaucracy, fraud and waste. There is nothing government does that private industry cannot do more efficiently, better and for less money.

Charity Navigator - Your Guide To Intelligent Giving | Home

 

[Skull Pilot]

it's not up to the fucking government to try to alter behavior via taxes. If a person wants to eat chocolate covers salted nuts sprinkled on deep fired Twinkies and a bowl of ice cream for supper every night it's none of your god damned business

But again, it happens and you've shown you have no problem when the govt does it for negative reasons.

I don't have a problem with a person eating chocolate or sugar. But like I've said, how many times now, that a lot of the bad food is coming out cheaper than it should be.

People pay tax on things, and they don't pay tax on other stuff. Some states don't charge you tax for groceries and will charge you for buying a book. Someone's already making these decisions. It's not about me wanting to decide what someone eats, it's about not having sugary food dirt cheap and healthy food expensive, just because the sugary food keeps easily and the multinationals are shipping the stuff around and getting all the tax breaks. But again, you seem to like that.

when the government does what for negative reasons and what negative reasons?

and what tax breaks to candy companies get that healthy food companies don't get?

people have choices. Those companies you mention only exist because people CHOOSE to buy their products and those choices are none of yours or the government's business

Yes, people have choices. People often choose to buy inferior shit because it's cheaper, or because they've been advertised to death and just zombie walk into buy things.

If people had the choice to buy healthier food for cheaper, would they then buy healthy food or would they still buy the sugary shit? I know when I was a young adult I ate too much shit because it was cheaper and I didn't have much money.

I'm not talking about taking choices away from people. I'm talking about adjusting the choices so they make more sense to people.

When sugary drinks are cheaper than healthy drinks, what do people buy? They buy the sugary drinks because they can afford those. Give people the choice to buy healthy food at affordable prices and then they have a real choice.

Your "choice" is that they have cheap sugary drinks and expensive healthy food and then they're making a choice, it's still a choice if healthy food is cheaper and sugary drinks more expensive than they are now.

healthy food is NOT more expensive than processed crap
Soda is not cheaper than water or even iced tea you make at home

like I said if you eat off the dollar menu for every meal every day you spend more than enough money to buy real food for the week

The problem here is that people CAN do things cheaper, but they need to be EDUCATED in how to do things, this is becoming a cycle of you compartmentalizing things and then dismissing them all, but then finding out that what you said shouldn't happen is what should happen to deal with the next thing.

you don't have to educate people about what they already know

you want to get educated on food prices then get your ass to the supermarket and look around

you don't need some government program for that

 

[Skull Pilot]

there are always exceptions red but I did say mostly ,,Most of our people made most of their bread away from politics imho,,,,,Don't get me wrong I hate the garbage in our congress and insider trading legal?

some were rich before going to DC, but many got rich after getting there. Being in congress should not be a lifetime career. It should be a short term sacrifice for your country. We have allowed congress to become much too lucrative. Term limits would help. Making congress live to the laws they pass for us would also help. If congress had to deal with obamacare for their personal medical care, it would never have passed.

Hate to inform you....But Congress and their staff had to take Obamacare as their personal medical policy when the bill was passed

The Grassley and Vitter Amendments and What They Illuminate About the Cost of Health Insurance

Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa)1 proposed an amendment to Section 1312 of PPACA removing all members of Congress and their staffs from the Federal Employee Health Benefits (“FEHB”) program and forcing them to enter the newly-formed PPACA insurance exchanges.2As Grassley explained in 2009, “[t]he exchange…is designed to give participants the same kind of choices and options for health care coverage as federal employees. My interest in having members of Congress participate in the exchange is consistent with my long-held view that Congress should live under the same laws it passes for the rest of the country.”3 Surprisingly, the amendment passed,

wrong again, winger

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelcannon/2016/04/15/congress-is-getting-a-special-exemption-from-obamacare-and-no-its-not-legal/#7b8b3b8f7823

You didn't read what you linked to did you?

The Affordable Care Act threw members and staff out of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, and basically says they can only get health benefits through one of the law's new Exchanges. Under pressure from Congress and the president himself, the federal Office of Personnel Management (which administers benefits for federal workers, including Congress) decided the House and Senate would participate in the District of Columbia's "Small Business Health Options Program," or "SHOP" Exchange, rather than the Exchanges that exist for individuals. The reason is that federal law would not allow members and staff to keep receiving a taxpayer contribution of up to $12,000 toward their premiums if they enrolled in individual-market Exchanges.

congress has a better plan than is available to any average American.

congress can't find its own collective ass because its collective head is in the way

 

[Markle]

Well, like I showed with NY, some of the things they don't tax are nuts, and some of the things they do tax are nuts with sugar all over them. Yes, the policy doesn't appear to be about health, just mix and match.

It's simple, for a simple mind. One is candy, one is not. No mix and match, a logic beyond your comprehension.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The role of the federal government is to do what needs doing as determined by We the People

and we the people empowered trump and the GOP to do our governing. So why is it you feel the dems should have some stronghold because of their gigantic losses.

We the People voted against him

If we lived in the straight democracy you imagine, you'd have a point. But, of course, we'd also have segregation and limited rights for women and Gays. So, not even YOU would support a straight democracy.

I don't think the majority of people in this country are in favor those things

Not now, perhaps, but at the time that segregation was overturned, popular opinion supported it.

I doubt that or the congress critters wouldn't have voted for it. Got to keep the voters happy

 

[Skull Pilot]

You have confused what happened when Reagan was president with Reaganism. Franco dropped out and does not know that Reagan favored limited government.

Actual, I have a Masters in History and you believe a pile of Pubcrappe- All they have.

for someone with a Masters you are very bad at conveying thoughts via written speech
it's because you have no thoughts all you have are the talking points that have been spoon fed to you

Nah. I can also do that in fluent French and to a lesser extent Spanish. I blame my lack of typing skill and interest. Much info in few words, yes. "a pile of Pubcrappe- All they have."

no info

all you have are the talking points you have been spoon fed

Check the sig any time- more info than you get on the GOP propaganda machine in years...

don't need to you post the same drivel over an over again anyway

like I said you have no thoughts of your own so all you do is parrot

 

[Skull Pilot]

it's not up to the fucking government to try to alter behavior via taxes. If a person wants to eat chocolate covers salted nuts sprinkled on deep fired Twinkies and a bowl of ice cream for supper every night it's none of your god damned business

But again, it happens and you've shown you have no problem when the govt does it for negative reasons.

I don't have a problem with a person eating chocolate or sugar. But like I've said, how many times now, that a lot of the bad food is coming out cheaper than it should be.

People pay tax on things, and they don't pay tax on other stuff. Some states don't charge you tax for groceries and will charge you for buying a book. Someone's already making these decisions. It's not about me wanting to decide what someone eats, it's about not having sugary food dirt cheap and healthy food expensive, just because the sugary food keeps easily and the multinationals are shipping the stuff around and getting all the tax breaks. But again, you seem to like that.

when the government does what for negative reasons and what negative reasons?

and what tax breaks to candy companies get that healthy food companies don't get?

people have choices. Those companies you mention only exist because people CHOOSE to buy their products and those choices are none of yours or the government's business

Yes, people have choices. People often choose to buy inferior shit because it's cheaper, or because they've been advertised to death and just zombie walk into buy things.

If people had the choice to buy healthier food for cheaper, would they then buy healthy food or would they still buy the sugary shit? I know when I was a young adult I ate too much shit because it was cheaper and I didn't have much money.

I'm not talking about taking choices away from people. I'm talking about adjusting the choices so they make more sense to people.

When sugary drinks are cheaper than healthy drinks, what do people buy? They buy the sugary drinks because they can afford those. Give people the choice to buy healthy food at affordable prices and then they have a real choice.

Your "choice" is that they have cheap sugary drinks and expensive healthy food and then they're making a choice, it's still a choice if healthy food is cheaper and sugary drinks more expensive than they are now.

healthy food is NOT more expensive than processed crap
Soda is not cheaper than water or even iced tea you make at home

like I said if you eat off the dollar menu for every meal every day you spend more than enough money to buy real food for the week

Processed food is fattening, unhealthy crap. Look at the packaging. Sugary crap. All you can buy in the inner city.

uh huh.

 

[rightwinger]

There are a lot of good ideas here. An economic war to really grind Russia down. Give them the Germany treatment and destroy the Ruble. Give Russia no alternative but war.

Or else destabilize Putin's government as his wealthy capitalist friends start to grow angry

Yes. Grow angry and demand a first strike. Good point.

Nuke? Are you batshit crazy?

 

[rightwinger]

[Qwould take 40 or 50 high paid civil servants to do the same thing.

Charities spend a large percentage of their efforts fund raising and advertising .....not very efficient
Government has a steady flow of revenue, some of which goes to help We the People

Leaders of private charities get paid more than civil servants

You mean like the Clinton Foundation that spends only about 10% of the money for services? The rest goes ot things like wedding dresses for Chelsea.

Once again you are confused Moon Bat.

You have a choice of how you contribute money to charity. You chose who you want to help and how much you want to give. Filthy ass bloated government welfare program robs a person of their liberty to chose where their money goes and that is despicable. Especially when you know that a large cost of the welfare system is nothing more than a scheme for the Democrats to buy vote from the welfare queens. Disgusting isn't it?

ACTUALLY, 10% is the overhead, 90% is what they spend on good works. You believe a giant pile of Pubcrappe, dupe. The Foundation IS THE CHARITY, rated A+. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

You are confused Moon Bat

[/QUOTE]

Clinton Foundation has very low overhead and over 88% of funds went to helping others. The Foundation does not "Give to charity"...they do the work themselves

 

[Markle]

I'm not talking about taking choices away from people. I'm talking about adjusting the choices so they make more sense to people.

It is so good that we all have someone like you to make our decisions for us. Oh...right. You're not taking away choices, just ADJUSTING them!

 

[Markle]

Clinton Foundation has very low overhead and over 88% of funds went to helping others. The Foundation does not "Give to charity"...they do the work themselves

That's a huge pile of malarkey! Simply look into what they wrought in Hatti. Their slush fund paid for all their travel, lodging, meals, incidentals, and on, and on, and on. Probably that new leather jacket she was sporting for her new, tough, "youthful" look.

 

[Markle]

Not true. Harry Reid had nothing when he went to congress. He retired a multi millionaire and never in his life had a real job. Corruption exists in both the USA and Russia.

Earlier on in his "career", he was deeply involved in a land deal in Las Vegas. What was unique was that he sold the property. Then two years later, when he did not own the property, he realized a huge profit on the land when his group sold it again.