Why Are Republicans So Relentlessly Cruel to the Poor?

[frigidweirdo]

So, people born unlucky don't get fucked over, but those who make choices can be fucked over. Do you have a problem with this?

But then again on the NHS you get treated whether you smoke or don't smoke.

Correct, and if you don't march in lockstep like a good little Commie, you will have to pay extra to your government. But that's how these commie leftists have been able to ride around the constitution and states rights. Just steal their cash to force them into compliance.

So, just to get things clear, you have a problem with people who are born unlucky being treated fairly? You want them to suffer and to pay more just to exist?

You're talking about stealing? Well, that's exactly what private healthcare companies are doing every day of the year.

The point went entirely over your head, and that is government is not supposed to be micromanaging our lives from birth until death. If we would ever approve of government following us around every day, keeping a point system to decide how much to tax us based on our personal decisions, then we've surrendered all our liberty.

No, it didn't go over my head. I'm also not in favor of the govt micromanaging our lives.

However there are certain things, like education, in which the govt is best placed on a mass scale, to carry out. However in the US the problem seems to be a nationwide attitude that is just plain wrong. Okay, some states do better than others, but still there are plenty of problems out there.

The problem is Ray, the govt ALREADY DOES THIS. So where's your liberty? It's in the hands of the rich right now. They want you to be fat, because a 36% obesity level makes a lot of rich people richer.

Now you're being silly. Nobody gives a rats ass how much I or anybody else weighs. Rich people don't get rich on seeing others get fat, rich people get rich by investing their money into making products or services the public uses.

Yeah, for the most part government is totally involved in our education, and how's that working out for us?

Then again rich people will get richer by using inferior products that are likely to cause more harm to the body, rather than use better quality in order to make a quick buck.

Your argument that because govt is involved in education and it's not great, therefore the govt shouldn't be involved in education is another example of how you compartmentalize everything in order to make bad arguments.

Education can be good. The problem in the US is that the govt in the US isn't good. A change in the way govt works is essential for the US to change this mentality that people like you have about the way things work.

 

[frigidweirdo]

So, just to get things clear, you have a problem with people who are born unlucky being treated fairly? You want them to suffer and to pay more just to exist?

You're talking about stealing? Well, that's exactly what private healthcare companies are doing every day of the year.

The point went entirely over your head, and that is government is not supposed to be micromanaging our lives from birth until death. If we would ever approve of government following us around every day, keeping a point system to decide how much to tax us based on our personal decisions, then we've surrendered all our liberty.

It's not micromanaging...it is helping people who need help

No.......helping is when people ask for help and you provide. When nobody asked for your help and you insist people accept your help anyway, that's micromanaging.

Of course it isn't.
Nobody forces anyone to accept anything

But our society is willing to help those who need help. It is what great societies do

Great societies......yes. Great governments.......no.

But without a great govt, you aren't going to have that great society.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well surely controlling them for the good of others assumes they're too stupid to realize that someone doesn't want to be murdered and that they need the nanny state to tell them not to murder, or some religion to tell them.

The problem we have here is that we're not talking about telling people what they can and can't do. We're simply stating that healthy things have less tax on them than things that are not so healthy so that people can make a choice. You know, I could murder or I could not murder... hmm... well I might go to prison or be executed if I murder, so I'm not going to do it. I could buy a snickers or I could buy a salad, both are okay, however the snickers is cheaper, I'll take that as I don't have much money, oh, wait, the salad is now cheaper, maybe i'll go for that.

Tax policy as social engineering.

Already exists....

The question is why shouldn't you have social engineering, the right use it, the left use it, you probably even support it when it engineers what you want.

Because power grabs never stop. In this case, all you want to do is incentivize people to make healthier food choices. That in itself is a laudable goal, but it won't stop there. You put in place your tax scheme and guess what happens next? Someone is going to think that people are still eating too much junk food and incentives are not enough, so they pass laws making it illegal to buy more than a certain amount of junk food (think NYC ban on large drink containers). And it goes from there. There is never a shortage of meddlers who think they know what's good for you more than you do.

I understand where you're coming from, and I agree.

However the problem is the US govt is just wrong, the way people vote is just wrong, that there are only two parties is just wrong. So, that also needs to change. Problem is the right don't care, they don't want change, they LIKE having this power, however they want the power to tell people what to do, and don't like it when others tell them what to do. Hypocrisy, isn't it?

Having enough parties with differing interests all having a say in how things work would mean that things would work better. The power grabs are happening in the US with or without the whole taxing food to make it an incentive to eat healthier. They're taking away your freedoms left right and center, they're going to war, and then people get angry, not at this, but that someone wants to make kids eat healthier, it's fucking insanely weird.

I would like to see more parties with more power.

Then promote Proportional Representation.

Tell people this is REAL DEMOCRACY.
Tell people this is how to get away from the nasty partisan politics that exists now.

 

[frigidweirdo]

This is how liberals help the poor...by stealing the food out of their mouths.

DSS case worker charged with fraud

That link doesn't say anything about her ideology, but says a lot about yours.

Look...more helpful government workers stealing from the poor.

Social Security workers among five charged in welfare-fraud scheme

Maybe we can post some stories about rich people cheating on their taxes

That's where the money is

This is how liberals help the elderly and disabled ...well the ones they don't abort and pull the plug on anyway....

Good for stealing their identities to help clients claim them illegally as dependants on their taxes.

Social Worker Pleads Guilty to Identity Theft, Tax Crimes

If nanny government bureaucrats were parents, they'd be the ones who never taught their children to fend for themselves. They make excuses for everything and never want to hold anyone accountable for their actions. When someone else suggests that the best way to cut the umbilical cord is to allow the child to learn some lessons to help them grow, they are called cruel.

What's cruel is encouraging a person to depend on others their entire lives and preach victimhood to ensure they never stop being angry long enough to think for themselves.

The left took a minor problem and turned it into a huge problem just to benefit themselves. Liberals are cruel.

Er... what?

You're suggesting that babies have to cut their own umbilical cord, and it's cruel to force them to do it?

Hey, why not make them sit a PhD level test on Nuclear Physics 4 hours after birth, and if they fail kill them too?

What are you talking about?

 

[Billo_Really]

Er... what?

You're suggesting that babies have to cut their own umbilical cord, and it's cruel to force them to do it?

Hey, why not make them sit a PhD level test on Nuclear Physics 4 hours after birth, and if they fail kill them too?

What are you talking about?

I don't know how this will help, but my own personal diary starts from the moment I was born. It reads, "Day 1. Still tired from the move."

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The point went entirely over your head, and that is government is not supposed to be micromanaging our lives from birth until death. If we would ever approve of government following us around every day, keeping a point system to decide how much to tax us based on our personal decisions, then we've surrendered all our liberty.

It's not micromanaging...it is helping people who need help

No.......helping is when people ask for help and you provide. When nobody asked for your help and you insist people accept your help anyway, that's micromanaging.

Of course it isn't.
Nobody forces anyone to accept anything

But our society is willing to help those who need help. It is what great societies do

Great societies......yes. Great governments.......no.

But without a great govt, you aren't going to have that great society.

Wrong. The less government you have, the better society you have.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Correct, and if you don't march in lockstep like a good little Commie, you will have to pay extra to your government. But that's how these commie leftists have been able to ride around the constitution and states rights. Just steal their cash to force them into compliance.

So, just to get things clear, you have a problem with people who are born unlucky being treated fairly? You want them to suffer and to pay more just to exist?

You're talking about stealing? Well, that's exactly what private healthcare companies are doing every day of the year.

The point went entirely over your head, and that is government is not supposed to be micromanaging our lives from birth until death. If we would ever approve of government following us around every day, keeping a point system to decide how much to tax us based on our personal decisions, then we've surrendered all our liberty.

No, it didn't go over my head. I'm also not in favor of the govt micromanaging our lives.

However there are certain things, like education, in which the govt is best placed on a mass scale, to carry out. However in the US the problem seems to be a nationwide attitude that is just plain wrong. Okay, some states do better than others, but still there are plenty of problems out there.

The problem is Ray, the govt ALREADY DOES THIS. So where's your liberty? It's in the hands of the rich right now. They want you to be fat, because a 36% obesity level makes a lot of rich people richer.

Now you're being silly. Nobody gives a rats ass how much I or anybody else weighs. Rich people don't get rich on seeing others get fat, rich people get rich by investing their money into making products or services the public uses.

Yeah, for the most part government is totally involved in our education, and how's that working out for us?

Then again rich people will get richer by using inferior products that are likely to cause more harm to the body, rather than use better quality in order to make a quick buck.

Your argument that because govt is involved in education and it's not great, therefore the govt shouldn't be involved in education is another example of how you compartmentalize everything in order to make bad arguments.

Education can be good. The problem in the US is that the govt in the US isn't good. A change in the way govt works is essential for the US to change this mentality that people like you have about the way things work.

Or.......maybe we should try education without government totally. Nah, that might work out too well.

 

[frigidweirdo]

It's not micromanaging...it is helping people who need help

No.......helping is when people ask for help and you provide. When nobody asked for your help and you insist people accept your help anyway, that's micromanaging.

Of course it isn't.
Nobody forces anyone to accept anything

But our society is willing to help those who need help. It is what great societies do

Great societies......yes. Great governments.......no.

But without a great govt, you aren't going to have that great society.

Wrong. The less government you have, the better society you have.

So... Somalia? You think Somalia has a better society?

What makes a better society exactly? Certainly I've been places where govt made society better, and I've been places with less government that weren't better for it.

 

[frigidweirdo]

So, just to get things clear, you have a problem with people who are born unlucky being treated fairly? You want them to suffer and to pay more just to exist?

You're talking about stealing? Well, that's exactly what private healthcare companies are doing every day of the year.

The point went entirely over your head, and that is government is not supposed to be micromanaging our lives from birth until death. If we would ever approve of government following us around every day, keeping a point system to decide how much to tax us based on our personal decisions, then we've surrendered all our liberty.

No, it didn't go over my head. I'm also not in favor of the govt micromanaging our lives.

However there are certain things, like education, in which the govt is best placed on a mass scale, to carry out. However in the US the problem seems to be a nationwide attitude that is just plain wrong. Okay, some states do better than others, but still there are plenty of problems out there.

The problem is Ray, the govt ALREADY DOES THIS. So where's your liberty? It's in the hands of the rich right now. They want you to be fat, because a 36% obesity level makes a lot of rich people richer.

Now you're being silly. Nobody gives a rats ass how much I or anybody else weighs. Rich people don't get rich on seeing others get fat, rich people get rich by investing their money into making products or services the public uses.

Yeah, for the most part government is totally involved in our education, and how's that working out for us?

Then again rich people will get richer by using inferior products that are likely to cause more harm to the body, rather than use better quality in order to make a quick buck.

Your argument that because govt is involved in education and it's not great, therefore the govt shouldn't be involved in education is another example of how you compartmentalize everything in order to make bad arguments.

Education can be good. The problem in the US is that the govt in the US isn't good. A change in the way govt works is essential for the US to change this mentality that people like you have about the way things work.

Or.......maybe we should try education without government totally. Nah, that might work out too well.

Private education hasn't been shown to be better in the mass education stakes. It works better around state education for a reason, but it's never worked for mass education, not once.

 

[Markle]

What intelligence indicated there would be another attack in eight years?

Did not.

The capture of some of the participants gave information to our intelligence community that al Qaeda’s goal was to cause the tower bombed to fall over and take down the other tower.

We learned that al Qaeda was growing, who was their leadership and that they would not be slowed in their pursuit of world domination. That they would not give up on the World Trade Center attack. They [al Qaeda] would continue their efforts whether it be one year or ten years.

You know that as well.

 

[Skull Pilot]

If the reports were written two years before the attacks, why didn't Clinton have a plan in place? Seems to me if the threat was as serious as claimed, the Clinton administration would have been all over it and would have captured Bin Laden when he had been given the chance.

Clinton didn't have a chance that didn't involve slaughtering a thousand innocent civilians to capture a man who hadn't done anything yet

It was Bush who allowed bin laden to escape Tora Bora AFTER 9-11

actually he did have a chance but he was spineless or too busy getting blow jobs

Bill Clinton and the missed opportunities to kill Osama bin Laden

The GOP gave him a tidal wave of BS propaganda saying he was wagging the dog. Stupid assholes ALWAYS. Horror of the Western World catastrophe...

so he was spineless thank you

Republicans mocked the pursuit of terrorism

so? why would that stop BJ Billy from doing something?

oh yeah he was spineless

 

[francoHFW]

Clinton didn't have a chance that didn't involve slaughtering a thousand innocent civilians to capture a man who hadn't done anything yet

It was Bush who allowed bin laden to escape Tora Bora AFTER 9-11

actually he did have a chance but he was spineless or too busy getting blow jobs

Bill Clinton and the missed opportunities to kill Osama bin Laden

The GOP gave him a tidal wave of BS propaganda saying he was wagging the dog. Stupid assholes ALWAYS. Horror of the Western World catastrophe...

so he was spineless thank you

Republicans mocked the pursuit of terrorism

so? why would that stop BJ Billy from doing something?

oh yeah he was spineless

He didn't stop the GOP a-holes. That's the dupe argument. Unbelievable. Same the last 8 years- plus he was black!! Idiot dupes!

 

[Skull Pilot]

I have no problem with an age of majority but we should pick one
no you want them to pay EXTRA. You want the government to assign right or wrong labels to food choices and then assess a fine for those who choose the "wrong" thing

that is not the purpose nor the purview of government

But then why do you want to do some good things for children, but then not do other good thing?

Yes, I want them to pay EXTRA. Just like people pay EXTRA for things already. Yes, I want the govt to say what is health and to say this is worthy of being cheaper.

You don't think this is the purpose of government, I do.

an age of majority is not doing good thing for children

it provides a framework for personal responsibility.

and being healthy is already cheaper than being unhealthy.

you can't see the difference of things having differing prices in the marketplace and the government taxing things based on an arbitrary right and wrong scale?

Uh huh?

I'm not getting your logic.

It's not okay to stop kids from drinking because it's good for them, but it's okay to stop people doing stuff to instill personal responsibility?

So, why not put up sales tax on sugary items to teach people to be more personally responsible for their own bodies then?

Being healthy could be cheaper, but people have to know how to do things, and have things incentivized, and it works, as shown with Mexico and Hungary.

I just don't get why doing something good shouldn't happen, but doing it for the wrong reasons is okay. Your logic is a little twisted in my view.

I never said anything about anything being good for anyone. A legal age of majority is a concept that implies neither good or bad it designates when a member of society is considered responsible for his actions that is all it is

and since when did a drinking age stop under aged kids from drinking?

It's not up to you to "teach" people anything. People will decide what they want to learn and if they don't want to learn what you want them to learn then it's none of your business.

but then again you already agreed that people already know that fruits and vegetables are better for them than a candy bar or a tub of ice cream so you don't have to teach them that.

What you want to do is control other people's behavior to align with what YOU think they should do.

So, kids should decide what they want to learn, or don't want to learn? Again, another crazy concept from the world of keeping people stupid.

We're going around on circles on this one, there isn't much point in carrying on. I get your point, you think that society is far, far below the individual, that the individual rules supreme and that society shouldn't invest in individuals in order to make society better for everyone.

I don't get it.

Now, the funny thing is, it's the right that will tell people how they have to give up their rights for the good of society. How we have to ban Muslims from coming in because it's for the good of the country, how we should stop people taking drugs for the good of the country. And then they'll turn around and say exactly what you have said. That it's all about the individual. Gets confusing.
Where do you stand on Muslims, drugs etc?

what children learn is up to the parents not you

but you do realize any teen aged kid can learn on his own don't you? It's called the internet.

I learned how to eat well without the internet

Well I'm not the right and I'm not the left so saying the right this the left that is meaningless.

This is all about control and you want to control people's behavior by taxing things you don't think people should eat or drink or smoke or whatever

That is not and never will be acceptable

 

[Skull Pilot]

Correct, and if you don't march in lockstep like a good little Commie, you will have to pay extra to your government. But that's how these commie leftists have been able to ride around the constitution and states rights. Just steal their cash to force them into compliance.

So, just to get things clear, you have a problem with people who are born unlucky being treated fairly? You want them to suffer and to pay more just to exist?

You're talking about stealing? Well, that's exactly what private healthcare companies are doing every day of the year.

Blaming luck for your situation is about the same as blaming some rich guy you never met

This has got to be one THE most stupid fucking things you've ever said.

A few examples. A girl down my street when I was a kid was born into a family of well to do people, but she want's born right. According to you it must be her fucking fault that she came out wrong. She can't really work well, she can't learn well, she does some program in a supermarket for people such as herself to make them feel valued in society and not just be outcasts unwanted. She could never, ever hold down a proper job, it's impossible, she wasn't born right. But again, you think it's her fault.

1/4 of people have mental problems. My family has a history of mental problems, and one person in my family doesn't work, could do the work but struggles being around people and this led to her quitting jobs, going off sick and then unable to get new jobs, because who wants a person with such a medical record, hey? But yeah, according to you it's all her fucking fault.

so now a birth defect is the same as choosing to be fat?

No one chooses to be handicapped or mentally retarded.

But we were talking about people being born unlucky. So why have you suddenly decided to change the topic of conversation to something completely different?

I assume we are talking about people of sound mind and body not the physically handicapped or mentally retarded

and FYI you're the one who brought the physically handicapped and mentally retarded into the conversation not me

and you're the one who started using the term unlucky not me..

I don't believe in luck

 

[Skull Pilot]

actually he did have a chance but he was spineless or too busy getting blow jobs

Bill Clinton and the missed opportunities to kill Osama bin Laden

The GOP gave him a tidal wave of BS propaganda saying he was wagging the dog. Stupid assholes ALWAYS. Horror of the Western World catastrophe...

so he was spineless thank you

Republicans mocked the pursuit of terrorism

so? why would that stop BJ Billy from doing something?

oh yeah he was spineless

He didn't stop the GOP a-holes. That's the dupe argument. Unbelievable. Same the last 8 years- plus he was black!! Idiot dupes!

CLinton was black?

you are unfuckinghinged

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Conservative ideology towards the poor is that poverty should be as painful as possible.

Yes it is, and that's because we instinctively know that people will react to pain; do what it takes to make the pain stop.

Nobody does anything to relieve comfort, and that's why we have the problem with the poor today.

So that's why there's no poverty in Mexico, where very little is done to help the poor?

There is a difference between people that are poor because they have no other option and people who are poor because they decided to be poor.

With the exception of those who have physical or mental disabilities that prevent them from working, you won't find many so-called poor in this country that became impoverished through no fault of their own. In most cases, it was bad decision making and irresponsibility that brought them to poverty. In other cases, it's location that they don't wish to correct by moving to where the jobs are.

You are soooo right!

More often than not, that poverty is due to personal choices....

Just reading a tribute to the recently passed journalist, Jimmy Breslin, I found this particularly grating passage:
"A total urbanite, Jimmy had never learned how to drive—he was raised by a single mother who earned a meager salary as a social worker, and drank to excess. The Breslins couldn’t afford a car."
Jimmy Breslin, RIP



WHAT????

"The Breslins couldn’t afford a car."
But...." he was raised by a single mother who .... drank to excess."

I guess that 'drink' was free, huh????




This is the sort of absurdity that guides so many and, so many of our social pretenses.

"couldn't afford a car" ...or would rather have a buzz on much of the time????
It was a choice! A decision by the decision maker in the family.
Just as abortions are the choice between sexual restraint, or the ending of a separate and unique life so as to enjoy that moment of passion.

You do know that alcoholism is an illness dont you ?

Exhibit A in answer to the OP.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Conservative ideology towards the poor is that poverty should be as painful as possible.

Yes it is, and that's because we instinctively know that people will react to pain; do what it takes to make the pain stop.

Nobody does anything to relieve comfort, and that's why we have the problem with the poor today.

So that's why there's no poverty in Mexico, where very little is done to help the poor?

There is a difference between people that are poor because they have no other option and people who are poor because they decided to be poor.

With the exception of those who have physical or mental disabilities that prevent them from working, you won't find many so-called poor in this country that became impoverished through no fault of their own. In most cases, it was bad decision making and irresponsibility that brought them to poverty. In other cases, it's location that they don't wish to correct by moving to where the jobs are.

Let me repeat the question, such as it is...

So that's why there's no poverty in Mexico, where very little is done to help the poor?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Conservative ideology towards the poor is that poverty should be as painful as possible.

Yes it is, and that's because we instinctively know that people will react to pain; do what it takes to make the pain stop.

Nobody does anything to relieve comfort, and that's why we have the problem with the poor today.

So that's why there's no poverty in Mexico, where very little is done to help the poor?

There is a difference between people that are poor because they have no other option and people who are poor because they decided to be poor.

With the exception of those who have physical or mental disabilities that prevent them from working, you won't find many so-called poor in this country that became impoverished through no fault of their own. In most cases, it was bad decision making and irresponsibility that brought them to poverty. In other cases, it's location that they don't wish to correct by moving to where the jobs are.

You are soooo right!

More often than not, that poverty is due to personal choices....

Just reading a tribute to the recently passed journalist, Jimmy Breslin, I found this particularly grating passage:
"A total urbanite, Jimmy had never learned how to drive—he was raised by a single mother who earned a meager salary as a social worker, and drank to excess. The Breslins couldn’t afford a car."
Jimmy Breslin, RIP



WHAT????

"The Breslins couldn’t afford a car."
But...." he was raised by a single mother who .... drank to excess."

I guess that 'drink' was free, huh????




This is the sort of absurdity that guides so many and, so many of our social pretenses.

"couldn't afford a car" ...or would rather have a buzz on much of the time????
It was a choice! A decision by the decision maker in the family.
Just as abortions are the choice between sexual restraint, or the ending of a separate and unique life so as to enjoy that moment of passion.

You do know that alcoholism is an illness dont you ?

Exhibit A in answer to the OP.

Just to put PoliticalChic's posts into perspective here,

she has for the record admitted that she doesn't have a job.

 

[francoHFW]

The GOP gave him a tidal wave of BS propaganda saying he was wagging the dog. Stupid assholes ALWAYS. Horror of the Western World catastrophe...

so he was spineless thank you

Republicans mocked the pursuit of terrorism

so? why would that stop BJ Billy from doing something?

oh yeah he was spineless

He didn't stop the GOP a-holes. That's the dupe argument. Unbelievable. Same the last 8 years- plus he was black!! Idiot dupes!

CLinton was black?

you are unfuckinghinged

No Clinton AND Obama's mistake was not being able to beat the a-hole GOP- that's the dupe argument....idiocy....lol

 

[francoHFW]

Clinton was a n*****R lover...horrible.