Why Are Republicans So Relentlessly Cruel to the Poor?

[Ray From Cleveland]

I'm quite aware of that, and do you know why? Because these are the same promises liberals made to us before welfare reform began. Between the time the law passed until it's implementation, we were promised riots in the streets, decomposed bodies of people from starvation, children running naked with no place to live, stores closed down and boarded up so nobody got any food.............. It never happened.

What will hungry people do with no food? Earn money to buy food.
What will people do with no HUD home in the suburbs? Seek shelter in the inner-city

How do we know most people would react this way? Because it's a basic law of electricity which also applies to people.

Electricity will take it's least path of resistance to travel. People do the exact same to survive.

You need food, and you have two choices A) government giving you food, or B) Go out and work for food. Now, what's is that path of least resistance to obtain food? What about shelter? What about utilities?

You on the left don't give people enough credit. If forced to, people would rather live another day to fight than to give up, crawl into a corner and die just because government isn't there to take care of them.

First off, 50% of those receiving government welfare have jobs, mostly par time and temp jobs.

Secondly, the majority of those that do not work at all either have to care for a number of children, have drug or alcohol addiction problems, mental problems, physical disabilities, lack of education, lack of any job training, or a criminal background. They are poor candidates for even minimum wage jobs. I have worked around these people in food banks and a homeless shelter. Believe me you would not even consider hiring most of them.

My major concern with a proposal to stop all goverment assistance to the poor is not so much for the poor but for the effect it would have on all society. However, the chance of this happens is about zero so it's hardly worth discussing.

Then let me ask: why is it I can support myself because I never had children, never became addicted to alcohol or drugs, had a lack of education or job training, or have a criminal record?

You see..... these are called choices. We all make choices in life. As for those legitimately physically or mentally incapable of taking care of themselves, we as a society do take care of those people.

Our government can't create programs to rectify bad choices in life. When somebody makes a bad choice, they have to live with the consequences. If you are a 18 year old punk who doesn't know any better and tries to rob a bank, you may end up in prison for over 20 years. if you make the mistake of murdering somebody, it may cost you your life.

I think it's obvious the poor did not make the right choices. The problem is the 16 million kids they produce who live in poverty. You can't cut the parents out of welfare programs without cutting the kids. Most of the welfare money goes to families. Unless they are disabled single adults without dependents get very little welfare money. The families are the problem.

Great. So because of the kids, do nothing to end generational welfare because let's face it, we have to feel bad for somebody, don't we? And we will use the excuse of the kids next discussion, and the discussion after that, and the discussion after that, and the...........

20 trillion in the hole and rolling. Someday there won't be a choice whether to cut people off of welfare or not. There won't be anywhere to borrow money from. They will die out in the street because there won't be any jobs by then either.

It's not a matter of "if" it's a matter of "when."

You think depriving food and shelter for 16 million kids will end generational welfare. That's just a bit ridiculous.

If that were the case, the hell holes of this world such as the large cities in Bangladesh would have certainly seen economic mobility among the poor in the late 20th century because they practiced your theory of let the poor work or starve for decades and poverty only grew.

Generational poverty in Bangladesh was broken in the late 1990's with international assistance that provided healthcare clinics, food, public housing, education, job training, and capital for economic expansion. By 2010 the poverty rate in the country had dropped from 44.2% in 1991 to 18.5% in 2016.

Today Bangladesh has the second fastest growing economy in the world with a GDP growth rate of 7.1%.

The poor in America are certain far better off than the poor in Bangladesh but I think this example, although extreme shows quite well the problem of poverty is not solved by ignoring the problem.

We are not Bangladesh. This is America, land of the brave, home of the free. Here, there are endless possibilities. I think Rush Limbaugh highlighted the problem many times on his show.

"Folks, if you pay people not to work, don't be surprised when they don't!"

So here is the stupidity of all this: We have jobs that American's won't do, and we have people in poverty because they don't have enough money. Are you starting to catch on yet?????

You say we need programs to cater to people that don't want to work all because of the kids. Well these people use their kids just like you do. They use them as levers to get what they want without having to get a job.

If we had a law that if you can't support your kids, they go up for adoption, you'd see how fast those jobs would be taken. Furthermore we need a law that states if you want public assistance, you have to get fixed first. No more going on public assistance and having more kids.

So now, if we did things my way, don't you think we would end up with much less poverty in the future than doing it your way? After all, your way has failed repeatedly. Maybe it's about damn time we start doing things my way and you'll see the drastic improvement in poverty and jobs in the US.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Taxes in all states go up as New BS GOP federal aid goes down. World's thickest substance. GOP dupe skull. "Let's have a flat tax!". YOU ALREADY DO. A gold mine for the rich. Time for a nap before you give me a serious headache.

look idiot we have our taxes backwards anyway

you SHOULD be paying more in state and local taxes than in federal taxes since most of your government services are provided at the state and local government level.

you drive more on local roads, your kids go to local schools, your police and fire departments are local not federal etc

the real question is why the fuck does the federal government need to tax us only to give it to the states?

Simple: to have control over those states. The federal government has to steal our money, then hang it over our heads if we want our own money back. If you want your money back, then you'll do things the way the federal government wants you to do them.

Don't you live in Michigan or somesuch? If so, you get back more than you give. As a matter of fact, most of the people who complain most bitterly on this site get back more than they give.

Even if that was the case, that's supposed to change my mind or something?

Well, a thinking man would say that it takes the wind out of your argument.

Well it doesn't. I'm against dependency of the federal government on every level. Our state will get along just fine without the federal government and most other states will as well.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Not stupid, dupe. 35 YEARS of Reaganism=DUHHHHH...

Actually Reagan was for limited govt. Since Reagan govt has gotten 4 times bigger. See what happens when you drop out of HS?

no he wasn't

Reagan expanded the size scope and cost of government as much as anyone every republican president in my lifetime has done the same

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

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It's all about the hate & greed. Most white Republican dudes have adopted a very hateful hostile approach to our poor. It's a 'FUCK YOU, I GOT MINE' mentality. I know the mentality well, i used to consider myself a Republican. Their treatment of our poor is pretty evil.

It really is amazing they actually consider themselves 'Good Americans' and 'Good Christians.' 'Conservative Christians' should try actually reading Jesus' teachings sometime. Instead of always desperately trying to justify their hate & hostility towards our poor, they should start reading the Bible again. It might just save their rotting souls.

Its more than a fuck you, I got mine attitude

They actively go after the poor, try to turn the voters against them, blame the poor for the shape of the economy

The poor are an easy target. They dont own newspapers or tv stations and have to carry right wing guilt around like a fucking big lead weight.

Republicans have a choice..

Blame the rich who are assuming more and more of our nations wealth
Blame the poor who cannot stand up for themselves

It's a Nazi-like bully mentality. They know the poor can't stand up for themselves. They're easy to abuse. I seriously believe some greedy Republicans on this thread, would support passing laws making being poor a 'crime.' They would have no problem imprisoning them all. They would gladly 'disappear' them.

They have been playing that card for decades

As the middle class struggles and wonders why their standard of living is diminishing....Rather than point out the rich who have seen their personal wealth increase significantly....it is easier for Republicans to point to some poor person who has a cell phone




.

What's real easy is trying to make the case that the reason one has too little is because others have too much. It's as false as it can get, but it sure beats blaming the individuals for their plight.

 

[francoHFW]

Not stupid, dupe. 35 YEARS of Reaganism=DUHHHHH...

Actually Reagan was for limited govt. Since Reagan govt has gotten 4 times bigger. See what happens when you drop out of HS?

no he wasn't

Reagan expanded the size scope and cost of government as much as anyone every republican president in my lifetime has done the same

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

That's why he tripled the debt and grew gov't more than anyone in history, dupiscimus...

 

[francoHFW]

Its more than a fuck you, I got mine attitude

They actively go after the poor, try to turn the voters against them, blame the poor for the shape of the economy

The poor are an easy target. They dont own newspapers or tv stations and have to carry right wing guilt around like a fucking big lead weight.

Republicans have a choice..

Blame the rich who are assuming more and more of our nations wealth
Blame the poor who cannot stand up for themselves

It's a Nazi-like bully mentality. They know the poor can't stand up for themselves. They're easy to abuse. I seriously believe some greedy Republicans on this thread, would support passing laws making being poor a 'crime.' They would have no problem imprisoning them all. They would gladly 'disappear' them.

They have been playing that card for decades

As the middle class struggles and wonders why their standard of living is diminishing....Rather than point out the rich who have seen their personal wealth increase significantly....it is easier for Republicans to point to some poor person who has a cell phone




.

What's real easy is trying to make the case that the reason one has too little is because others have too much. It's as false as it can get, but it sure beats blaming the individuals for their plight.

Don't worry about all the training programs and cheap Public U's that no longer exist etc etc, all to save the bloated rich.

 

[francoHFW]

Not stupid, dupe. 35 YEARS of Reaganism=DUHHHHH...

Actually Reagan was for limited govt. Since Reagan govt has gotten 4 times bigger. See what happens when you drop out of HS?

no he wasn't

Reagan expanded the size scope and cost of government as much as anyone every republican president in my lifetime has done the same

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.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Not stupid, dupe. 35 YEARS of Reaganism=DUHHHHH...

Actually Reagan was for limited govt. Since Reagan govt has gotten 4 times bigger. See what happens when you drop out of HS?

no he wasn't

Reagan expanded the size scope and cost of government as much as anyone every republican president in my lifetime has done the same

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.

and yet you didn't know that Reagan was for limited govt?? We believe you for sure!!!!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Not stupid, dupe. 35 YEARS of Reaganism=DUHHHHH...

Actually Reagan was for limited govt. Since Reagan govt has gotten 4 times bigger. See what happens when you drop out of HS?

no he wasn't

Reagan expanded the size scope and cost of government as much as anyone every republican president in my lifetime has done the same

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

That's why he tripled the debt and grew gov't more than anyone in history, dupiscimus...

he was president not God. If you hadn't dropped out you would know that. Also if he grew govt so much then as a standard libcommie you should love him?? Getting to complicated for you?

 

[francoHFW]

First off, 50% of those receiving government welfare have jobs, mostly par time and temp jobs.

Secondly, the majority of those that do not work at all either have to care for a number of children, have drug or alcohol addiction problems, mental problems, physical disabilities, lack of education, lack of any job training, or a criminal background. They are poor candidates for even minimum wage jobs. I have worked around these people in food banks and a homeless shelter. Believe me you would not even consider hiring most of them.

My major concern with a proposal to stop all goverment assistance to the poor is not so much for the poor but for the effect it would have on all society. However, the chance of this happens is about zero so it's hardly worth discussing.

Then let me ask: why is it I can support myself because I never had children, never became addicted to alcohol or drugs, had a lack of education or job training, or have a criminal record?

You see..... these are called choices. We all make choices in life. As for those legitimately physically or mentally incapable of taking care of themselves, we as a society do take care of those people.

Our government can't create programs to rectify bad choices in life. When somebody makes a bad choice, they have to live with the consequences. If you are a 18 year old punk who doesn't know any better and tries to rob a bank, you may end up in prison for over 20 years. if you make the mistake of murdering somebody, it may cost you your life.

I think it's obvious the poor did not make the right choices. The problem is the 16 million kids they produce who live in poverty. You can't cut the parents out of welfare programs without cutting the kids. Most of the welfare money goes to families. Unless they are disabled single adults without dependents get very little welfare money. The families are the problem.

Great. So because of the kids, do nothing to end generational welfare because let's face it, we have to feel bad for somebody, don't we? And we will use the excuse of the kids next discussion, and the discussion after that, and the discussion after that, and the...........

20 trillion in the hole and rolling. Someday there won't be a choice whether to cut people off of welfare or not. There won't be anywhere to borrow money from. They will die out in the street because there won't be any jobs by then either.

It's not a matter of "if" it's a matter of "when."

You think depriving food and shelter for 16 million kids will end generational welfare. That's just a bit ridiculous.

If that were the case, the hell holes of this world such as the large cities in Bangladesh would have certainly seen economic mobility among the poor in the late 20th century because they practiced your theory of let the poor work or starve for decades and poverty only grew.

Generational poverty in Bangladesh was broken in the late 1990's with international assistance that provided healthcare clinics, food, public housing, education, job training, and capital for economic expansion. By 2010 the poverty rate in the country had dropped from 44.2% in 1991 to 18.5% in 2016.

Today Bangladesh has the second fastest growing economy in the world with a GDP growth rate of 7.1%.

The poor in America are certain far better off than the poor in Bangladesh but I think this example, although extreme shows quite well the problem of poverty is not solved by ignoring the problem.

We are not Bangladesh. This is America, land of the brave, home of the free. Here, there are endless possibilities. I think Rush Limbaugh highlighted the problem many times on his show.

"Folks, if you pay people not to work, don't be surprised when they don't!"

So here is the stupidity of all this: We have jobs that American's won't do, and we have people in poverty because they don't have enough money. Are you starting to catch on yet?????

You say we need programs to cater to people that don't want to work all because of the kids. Well these people use their kids just like you do. They use them as levers to get what they want without having to get a job.

If we had a law that if you can't support your kids, they go up for adoption, you'd see how fast those jobs would be taken. Furthermore we need a law that states if you want public assistance, you have to get fixed first. No more going on public assistance and having more kids.

So now, if we did things my way, don't you think we would end up with much less poverty in the future than doing it your way? After all, your way has failed repeatedly. Maybe it's about damn time we start doing things my way and you'll see the drastic improvement in poverty and jobs in the US.

People will do those jobs if they're paid the equivalent of 1968's min wage, $11.00/hour. Christ we've gone to hell the last 35 years. Great job!

 

[francoHFW]

Not stupid, dupe. 35 YEARS of Reaganism=DUHHHHH...

Actually Reagan was for limited govt. Since Reagan govt has gotten 4 times bigger. See what happens when you drop out of HS?

no he wasn't

Reagan expanded the size scope and cost of government as much as anyone every republican president in my lifetime has done the same

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.

and yet you didn't know that Reagan was for limited govt?? We believe you for sure!!!!

What he said vs what he did, dupe. Ay caramba!

 

[francoHFW]

Not stupid, dupe. 35 YEARS of Reaganism=DUHHHHH...

Actually Reagan was for limited govt. Since Reagan govt has gotten 4 times bigger. See what happens when you drop out of HS?

no he wasn't

Reagan expanded the size scope and cost of government as much as anyone every republican president in my lifetime has done the same

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

That's why he tripled the debt and grew gov't more than anyone in history, dupiscimus...

he was president not God. If you hadn't dropped out you would know that. Also if he grew govt so much then as a standard libcommie you should love him?? Getting to complicated for you?

Libs cut gov't and add services that cost nothing in the end, dupissimus ignoramus.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Libs cut gov't and add services that cost nothing in the end, dupissimus ignoramus.

please quote a libcommie who wants to cut govt

 

[francoHFW]

Libs cut gov't and add services that cost nothing in the end, dupissimus ignoramus.

please quote a libcommie who wants to cut govt

All of them. Obama did to start with...

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Libs cut gov't and add services that cost nothing in the end, dupissimus ignoramus.

please quote a libcommie who wants to cut govt

All of them. Obama did to start with...

lets see quote???????????????????????????????

 

[rightwinger]

look idiot we have our taxes backwards anyway

you SHOULD be paying more in state and local taxes than in federal taxes since most of your government services are provided at the state and local government level.

you drive more on local roads, your kids go to local schools, your police and fire departments are local not federal etc

the real question is why the fuck does the federal government need to tax us only to give it to the states?

Simple: to have control over those states. The federal government has to steal our money, then hang it over our heads if we want our own money back. If you want your money back, then you'll do things the way the federal government wants you to do them.

Don't you live in Michigan or somesuch? If so, you get back more than you give. As a matter of fact, most of the people who complain most bitterly on this site get back more than they give.

which means people in other states are paying for programs that they don't benefit from

which is why we have to end the the federal government's strangle hold on state funding

let the money stay with the people in their own states after all that's how it was supposed to be if you want to use the Constitution

Personally I would rather pay less to the feds and more in my own state and town at least that way I have more of a say on what the fucktard politicians do with my money

That is why we started a UNITED States

Kansas helps pay for shore protection. Maine helps pay for tornado relief. NYC pays for farm subsidies. Rich states pay for electrification of poor states

We are stronger as a whole than we are with every state looking out for themselves

Our country by design was for states to operate like miniature countries only to combine forces for national interests only. Those are very few and far between which are also listed in the US Constitution.

Due to the immense distances between states and poor modes of transportation, they had little choices

It was not till we became UNITED States that we achieved greatness

 

[rightwinger]

Its more than a fuck you, I got mine attitude

They actively go after the poor, try to turn the voters against them, blame the poor for the shape of the economy

The poor are an easy target. They dont own newspapers or tv stations and have to carry right wing guilt around like a fucking big lead weight.

Republicans have a choice..

Blame the rich who are assuming more and more of our nations wealth
Blame the poor who cannot stand up for themselves

It's a Nazi-like bully mentality. They know the poor can't stand up for themselves. They're easy to abuse. I seriously believe some greedy Republicans on this thread, would support passing laws making being poor a 'crime.' They would have no problem imprisoning them all. They would gladly 'disappear' them.

They have been playing that card for decades

As the middle class struggles and wonders why their standard of living is diminishing....Rather than point out the rich who have seen their personal wealth increase significantly....it is easier for Republicans to point to some poor person who has a cell phone




.

What's real easy is trying to make the case that the reason one has too little is because others have too much. It's as false as it can get, but it sure beats blaming the individuals for their plight.

Then why do Republicans claim the poor have too much?

 

[HenryBHough]

Why do Democrats so loathe people who work for their living?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The poor are an easy target. They dont own newspapers or tv stations and have to carry right wing guilt around like a fucking big lead weight.

Republicans have a choice..

Blame the rich who are assuming more and more of our nations wealth
Blame the poor who cannot stand up for themselves

It's a Nazi-like bully mentality. They know the poor can't stand up for themselves. They're easy to abuse. I seriously believe some greedy Republicans on this thread, would support passing laws making being poor a 'crime.' They would have no problem imprisoning them all. They would gladly 'disappear' them.

They have been playing that card for decades

As the middle class struggles and wonders why their standard of living is diminishing....Rather than point out the rich who have seen their personal wealth increase significantly....it is easier for Republicans to point to some poor person who has a cell phone




.

What's real easy is trying to make the case that the reason one has too little is because others have too much. It's as false as it can get, but it sure beats blaming the individuals for their plight.

Then why do Republicans claim the poor have too much?

I don't know that any Republican has made that claim. I do know that the so-called poor are not doing too badly, especially against all humanity worldwide. They are fat and happy, have most of the amenities that working households have, some living in the suburbs with utilities paid. But because we say that doesn't mean we think they have too much.

 

[Avatar4321]

Taxes are taxes

They still come out of your pocket

state and local taxes are too variable to use. which is why I only speak to federal taxes

And that's why you're a brainwashed functional idiot, dupe of the greedy rich GOP. TAXES ARE TAXES, and the Gop has been busy moving fed taxes (progressive) to the states (regressive). DUH. All they have is bs for the dupes about how the rich pay all the taxes. (BULLSHYTTE).

hey you can always move to a state with lower taxes. federal taxes are a constant for everyone

IDIOT

Taxes in all states go up as New BS GOP federal aid goes down. World's thickest substance. GOP dupe skull. "Let's have a flat tax!". YOU ALREADY DO. A gold mine for the rich. Time for a nap before you give me a serious headache.

look idiot we have our taxes backwards anyway

you SHOULD be paying more in state and local taxes than in federal taxes since most of your government services are provided at the state and local government level.

you drive more on local roads, your kids go to local schools, your police and fire departments are local not federal etc

the real question is why the fuck does the federal government need to tax us only to give it to the states?

It really doesn't make sense. Take education. The constitution is clear that it is a state issue, but for some reason we send our tax money to the federal government to support a bureaucracy that does nothing to improve education, only maintains the status quo and some of that money gets sent back to the states who are actually responsible for education. Why? Why should the federal government have any say in how we educate locally?