Why Are Republicans So Relentlessly Cruel to the Poor?

[francoHFW]

For one, private charities give to help those truly in need. Government on the other hand passes out money to those for the asking.

Long term disaster relief and house fires are two different things. To put it another way, do you really believe that if we ended welfare as we know it today, that charity contributions would be the same or less? Of course not. Americans are the most generous people in the world. Private donations would increase ten fold.

When government wastes money, it's barely reported. If you wish to give to a charity, you can look up exactly where every penny goes on the site Charity Navigator. org. They tell you how much the charity collects, how much they pay out, how much they use for advertising, how much the use for administration, everything. So unlike government, if you believe the charity you had in minds wastes too much money, you simply don't give to that charity.

Marvin Olasky, in "The Tragedy of American Compassion," explains that human needs were taken care of by other human beings- not by bureaucracies. The important difference was that the latter may take care of food and shelter...but the former also dealt with the human spirit and behavior.
Welfare programs today, are Liberal….conservatives don’t look for material solutions, but understand that changing values is what solves the problem of poverty..

Only in right wing fantasy. Bail out the wealthiest, and then, let it trickle down, is government policy.

we have had leftiest socialist dogma for a 100 years running the country why are there still poor people? Funny thing is the only time we do have less poor is when we stop using socialist dogma ...

Hilarious. 35 years of Reaganism not taxing the rich and not investing in America is what we've got, dupe.

Reagan was in office 8 years .... That LARGEST economic growth ever in the history of the country as well as less poor .... Now how is it it failed again ? So sad you are so ignorant of facts.

And all he had to do was triple the debt and have a giant corrupt S+L bubble. And the pander to rich bs has been wrecking the middle class and the country ever since...It worked ONCE- and never since...
The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.

Over the past 35 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:

1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.

Over the past 60 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):

1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%

A 13% drop since 1980

****Mod Edit - Refer to the Rules concerning how much material is allowed to be copied/pasted.****

Overview = http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts

 

[thanatos144]

Marvin Olasky, in "The Tragedy of American Compassion," explains that human needs were taken care of by other human beings- not by bureaucracies. The important difference was that the latter may take care of food and shelter...but the former also dealt with the human spirit and behavior.
Welfare programs today, are Liberal….conservatives don’t look for material solutions, but understand that changing values is what solves the problem of poverty..

Only in right wing fantasy. Bail out the wealthiest, and then, let it trickle down, is government policy.

we have had leftiest socialist dogma for a 100 years running the country why are there still poor people? Funny thing is the only time we do have less poor is when we stop using socialist dogma ...

Hilarious. 35 years of Reaganism not taxing the rich and not investing in America is what we've got, dupe.

Reagan was in office 8 years .... That LARGEST economic growth ever in the history of the country as well as less poor .... Now how is it it failed again ? So sad you are so ignorant of facts.

And all he had to do was triple the debt and have a giant corrupt S+L bubble. And the pander to rich bs has been wrecking the middle class and the country ever since...It worked ONCE- and never since...
The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.

Over the past 35 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:

1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.

Over the past 60 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):

1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%

A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.

Share of National Income going to Top 10%:

1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%

An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.

The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.

1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

A 12.3% drop after Reagan.

4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.

Household Debt as percentage of GDP:

1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%

A 45% increase after 1980.

5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.

Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:

1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%

A 5.6 times increase.

6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.

The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:

1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%

A 10% Decrease.

Links:

1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
2 – http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/09/04/27/CongratulationstoEmmanuelSaez/
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)
4 = Federated Prudent Bear Fund (A): Overview
4 = FRB: Z.1 Release - Financial Accounts of the United States - Current Release
5/6 = 15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America

Overview = http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts

Hey fool do you know why the middle class shrunk under Reagan ? Because they got richer . That is called success you tool not failure.

 

[francoHFW]

Only in right wing fantasy. Bail out the wealthiest, and then, let it trickle down, is government policy.

we have had leftiest socialist dogma for a 100 years running the country why are there still poor people? Funny thing is the only time we do have less poor is when we stop using socialist dogma ...

Hilarious. 35 years of Reaganism not taxing the rich and not investing in America is what we've got, dupe.

Reagan was in office 8 years .... That LARGEST economic growth ever in the history of the country as well as less poor .... Now how is it it failed again ? So sad you are so ignorant of facts.

And all he had to do was triple the debt and have a giant corrupt S+L bubble. And the pander to rich bs has been wrecking the middle class and the country ever since...It worked ONCE- and never since...
The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.

Over the past 35 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:

1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.

Over the past 60 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):

1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%

A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.

Share of National Income going to Top 10%:

1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%

An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.

The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.

1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

A 12.3% drop after Reagan.

4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.

Household Debt as percentage of GDP:

1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%

A 45% increase after 1980.

5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.

Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:

1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%

A 5.6 times increase.

6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.

The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:

1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%

A 10% Decrease.

Links:

1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
2 – http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/09/04/27/CongratulationstoEmmanuelSaez/
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)
4 = Federated Prudent Bear Fund (A): Overview
4 = FRB: Z.1 Release - Financial Accounts of the United States - Current Release
5/6 = 15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America

Overview = http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts

Hey fool do you know why the middle class shrunk under Reagan ? Because they got richer . That is called success you tool not failure.

Can you read?

 

[thanatos144]

we have had leftiest socialist dogma for a 100 years running the country why are there still poor people? Funny thing is the only time we do have less poor is when we stop using socialist dogma ...

Hilarious. 35 years of Reaganism not taxing the rich and not investing in America is what we've got, dupe.

Reagan was in office 8 years .... That LARGEST economic growth ever in the history of the country as well as less poor .... Now how is it it failed again ? So sad you are so ignorant of facts.

And all he had to do was triple the debt and have a giant corrupt S+L bubble. And the pander to rich bs has been wrecking the middle class and the country ever since...It worked ONCE- and never since...
The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.

Over the past 35 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:

1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.

Over the past 60 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):

1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%

A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.

Share of National Income going to Top 10%:

1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%

An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.

The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.

1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

A 12.3% drop after Reagan.

4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.

Household Debt as percentage of GDP:

1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%

A 45% increase after 1980.

5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.

Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:

1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%

A 5.6 times increase.

6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.

The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:

1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%

A 10% Decrease.

Links:

1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
2 – http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/09/04/27/CongratulationstoEmmanuelSaez/
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)
4 = Federated Prudent Bear Fund (A): Overview
4 = FRB: Z.1 Release - Financial Accounts of the United States - Current Release
5/6 = 15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America

Overview = http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts

Hey fool do you know why the middle class shrunk under Reagan ? Because they got richer . That is called success you tool not failure.

Can you read?

I can . evidently you cant.

 

[WaitingFor2020]

Only in right wing fantasy. Bail out the wealthiest, and then, let it trickle down, is government policy.

we have had leftiest socialist dogma for a 100 years running the country why are there still poor people? Funny thing is the only time we do have less poor is when we stop using socialist dogma ...

Hilarious. 35 years of Reaganism not taxing the rich and not investing in America is what we've got, dupe.

Reagan was in office 8 years .... That LARGEST economic growth ever in the history of the country as well as less poor .... Now how is it it failed again ? So sad you are so ignorant of facts.

And all he had to do was triple the debt and have a giant corrupt S+L bubble. And the pander to rich bs has been wrecking the middle class and the country ever since...It worked ONCE- and never since...
The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.

Over the past 35 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:

1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.

Over the past 60 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):

1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%

A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.

Share of National Income going to Top 10%:

1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%

An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.

The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.

1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

A 12.3% drop after Reagan.

4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.

Household Debt as percentage of GDP:

1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%

A 45% increase after 1980.

5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.

Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:

1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%

A 5.6 times increase.

6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.

The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:

1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%

A 10% Decrease.

Links:

1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
2 – http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/09/04/27/CongratulationstoEmmanuelSaez/
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)
4 = Federated Prudent Bear Fund (A): Overview
4 = FRB: Z.1 Release - Financial Accounts of the United States - Current Release
5/6 = 15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America

Overview = http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts

Hey fool do you know why the middle class shrunk under Reagan ? Because they got richer . That is called success you tool not failure.

That's bullshit. Reagan's "trickle down" was "trickle out" to China, India, etc.

 

[Markle]

Clinton went after terrorism

When?

 

[Markle]

Republicans accused him of trying to distract the public from their blowjob investigation

Felony perjury.

 

[Markle]

Republicans mocked the pursuit of terrorism

Where?

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Republicans do not hate the poor......but they need them

Can't have middle class outrage against the rich
But the poor make a great scapegoat........the middle class suffers because some poor guy has a cell phone

Let's remember.....the Democrats both create the poor.....and maintain that poverty.


I see that today isn't the day you think before you post.

Republicans have propped up the wealthy since Reagan trickle down

Break the unions, reduce competition, hold back wages
A scared workforce is not in a position to demand more pay

Then, blame the poor because workers are struggling

Not to mention most expensive college costs, training programs and loans ever. Great job. And letting infrastructure go for 35 years now. We may be a banana republic any day now...

"Not to mention most expensive college costs, training programs and loans ever."

Every one due to Liberal/Democrat policies.

For not being able to stop a-hole GOPers and the dupes? You people are idiots...

You never got over that 'kick me's sign they put on you in high school,huh?

Bet they weren't all Republicans.

 

[Markle]

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

Yeah, the Great Society of former President Lyndon Johnson sure did the opposite. Totally destroying the formerly strong black family unit.

 

[task0778]

Nobody hates the poor, what a stupid thing to say. Conservatives generally believe it's better to create an environment where the poor can help themselves as opposed to making them dependent of the gov't.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Nobody hates the poor, what a stupid thing to say. Conservatives generally believe it's better to create an environment where the poor can help themselves as opposed to making them dependent of the gov't.

Absolutely! Nothing teaches a drowning man how to swim as effectively as telling him to fend for himself as he is going down for the third time!

 

[Markle]

t's basically cruel to deny people a chance to make it in life.

Why then do you demand that low and lower middle-income parents can NOT have the same choice of schools for their children as upper income parents.

 

[Markle]

Absolutely! Nothing teaches a drowning man how to swim as effectively as telling him to fend for himself as he is going down for the third time!

Why is it that Progressives demand, as a ridiculous defense, every other solution but theirs, has to be one far extreme or another far extreme.

 

[Vandalshandle]

We all know, Markle, that conservatives only allow the poor to go homeless and hungry out of their compassion for the poor....

 

[task0778]

We all know, Markle, that conservatives only allow the poor to go homeless and hungry out of their compassion for the poor....

What we really all know is that the Dems don't give a flyin' fuck about the poor, they just want their votes.

 

[Markle]

Why don't people become dependent on private charities?

Private charities are far more selective. They help the truly needy and only for a time to allow you to get on your feet and support yourself. Government, it's a free ride.

 

[Markle]

We all know, Markle, that conservatives only allow the poor to go homeless and hungry out of their compassion for the poor....

What was the result of the Newt Gingrich 1996 Welfare Reform Act?

What was the result when petulant former President Barack Hussein Obama canceled the act through his failed Stimulus Plan?

 

[Vandalshandle]

If Trump can cut just a little deeper into the budget of Meals on Wheels, he will have enough money to bail at Goldman Sacks again, now that the financial institutions have been deregulated again!

 

[task0778]

Why don't people become dependent on private charities?

Private charities are far more selective. They help the truly needy and only for a time to allow you to get on your feet and support yourself. Government, it's a free ride.

Hillary was sophisticated enough to know to tell her subordinates to remove the classified banner and sent the information on the unsecured network.