Why Are Republicans So Relentlessly Cruel to the Poor?

[francoHFW]

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.

dude, read up on what Mike Rowe is coordinating. he is a on a march to bring back tech programs for highschools. Holy fk the libs intentionally put people out of work. Intentionally. we have the facts.

Mike Rowe on How to Combat Unemployment & the Skills Gap

"Rowe said there are 5.6 million job openings waiting to be filled in fields that for the most part do not require a bachelor's degree."

While the GOP blocks all Dem efforts to have cheap tech training and cheap college loans and cheap public college FOREVER. Great job, with 3-6 million tech jobs going begging. Mike Rowe is an irrelevant talking point, dupe.

 

[francoHFW]

You might have noticed a trend away from strict Constitutionalism. There's a reason for it. The American people have gained immeasurably from government involvement in R&D, infrastructure and a safety net. None of these things are numerated in the Constitution. Good luck convincing people they'd be better off going your way.

People have forgotten we are a Republic and NOT a straight democracy. All it would take would be for everyone to have to pay income tax and they'd start to see the light.

I doubt that statement. Democrats and Republicans differ sharply on the purpose of government. Democrats believe in making government more efficient. Republicans believe in eliminating government.

Not true. Republicans are not anarchists. By starting off with a lie, you show you have nothing to contribute.

I didn't say Republican want to get rid all government, just most of it.

" Republicans believe in eliminating government." Ignorance. *shaking head*

He meant for cutting gov't DUHHH or small gov't- which they never actually DO, superdupe.

 

[JoeNormal]

I'm speaking from the perspective of the fucked up theocracy I live in (Utah). State government would fund what they consider their base (huge families and the LDS church) and leave everybody else out in the cold. At least with some federal government involvement, you have a broader base that receives the assistance.

It's not the role of the federal government to provide such assistance. The things that government is supposed to provide is listed in Article I and taxes are to be collected to pay for THOSE things.

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

If it wasn't for Article I, you might have actually had a point. But, you don't.

You might have noticed a trend away from strict Constitutionalism. There's a reason for it. The American people have gained immeasurably from government involvement in R&D, infrastructure and a safety net. None of these things are numerated in the Constitution. Good luck convincing people they'd be better off going your way.

People have forgotten we are a Republic and NOT a straight democracy. All it would take would be for everyone to have to pay income tax and they'd start to see the light.

I have to pay income tax. Plenty of it too and even though I can see some waste in the system, the benefits of it are clear to me.

 

[francoHFW]

When you control most of the income...you pay most of the income taxes
Funny how that works out

I don't see many Starbucks in poor neighborhoods

No but there's a Dunkins on every corner and they sell those ridiculously expensive coffee drinks too

and there is no way that 10% of earners earn more in total than 90% of all earners

yet they still pay more in income tax than 90% of people combined

you want to talk "fair" share well it ain't what we got now

a truly fair share would be a flat percentage of everyone's income period

Show me a flat tax where the rich don't end up paying less and the poor end up paying more

why do the so called poor not have to pay income tax?

If you have an income then you should pay income tax

If you want "fair" shares then a flat tax is the only way to go that way everyone pays a share that's determined to be fair for everyone

dear, the poor and Mr. Trump, pay the taxes they are legally obligated to pay.

don't complain; be Patriotic.

well I believe that argument comes from the common complaint from the left of 'fair share'. so if what you say is true, then why does the left constantly make that statement?

A fat tax is a gold mine for the rich, and if you count all tax we already have it DUHHHH.
At the heart of the debate over "the 47 percent" is an awful abuse of tax data.

This entire conversation is the result of a (largely successful) effort to redefine the debate over taxes from "how much in taxes do you pay" to "how much in federal income taxes do you pay?" This is good framing if you want to cut taxes on the rich. It's bad framing if you want to have even a basic understanding of who pays how much in taxes.

There's a reason some would prefer that more limited conversation. For most Americans, payroll and state and local taxes make up the majority of their tax bill. The federal income tax, by contrast, is our most progressive tax -- it's the tax we've designed to place the heaviest burden on the rich while bypassing the poor. And we've done that, again, because the working class is already paying a fairly high tax bill through payroll and state and local taxes.

But most people don't know very much about the tax code. And the federal income tax is still our most famous tax. So when they hear that half of Americans aren't paying federal income taxes, they're outraged -- even if they're among the folks who have a net negative tax burden! After all, they know they're paying taxes, and there's no reason for normal human beings to assume that the taxes getting taken out of their paycheck every week and some of the taxes they pay at the end of the year aren't classified as "federal income taxes."

Confining the discussion to the federal income tax plays another role, too: It makes the tax code look much more progressive than it actually is.

Take someone who makes $4 million dollars a year and someone who makes $40,000 a year. The person making $4 million dollars, assuming he's not doing some Romney-esque planning, is paying a 35 percent tax on most of that money. The person making $40,000 is probably paying no income tax at all. So that makes the system look really unfair to the rich guy.

That's the basic analysis of the 47 percent line. And it's a basic analysis that serves a purpose: It makes further tax cuts for the rich sound more reasonable.

But what if we did the same thing for the payroll tax? Remember, the payroll tax only applies to first $110,100 or so, our rich friends is only paying payroll taxes on 2.7 percent of his income. The guy making $40,000? He's paying payroll taxes on every dollar of his income. Now who's not getting a fair shake?

Which is why, if you want to understand who's paying what in taxes, you don't want to just look at federal income taxes, or federal payroll taxes, or state sales taxes -- you want to look at total taxes. And, luckily, the tax analysis group Citizens for Tax Justice keeps those numbers. So here is total taxes -- which includes corporate taxes, income taxes, payroll taxes, state sales taxes, and more -- paid by different income groups and broken into federal and state and local burdens:

As you can see, the poorer you are, the more state and local taxes bite into your income.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...4FAbNsJrxLxLCPy8g&sig2=vzWAUkHaeGf_rAbQCHo5SQ

 

[hadit]

Folks should check out what happened in Brazil before the Olympics. The Government systematically arrested and imprisoned their poor homeless. Most haven't been heard from since. It's the kind of awful thing most Republicans fully support. They'd gladly do that here.

In fact, they are doing it in some areas of the country. Thousands of poor homeless folks are being arrested and imprisoned daily. And what's their crime? They're poor. Many, not all Republicans, are resembling Nazis more & more. Americans better wake up to what's going on.

That's remarkably dumb.

 

[francoHFW]

So you can't make a list of a healthy diet?
I don't need your bullshit socialist study, let's work with hard facts.

List the grocery items and lets go shopping and see what a healthy diet costs versus fast food .

You won't because you know you're full of shit.

I made a list. You want to play games so I sent you to educate yourself.

I can eat healthy for $60 a week.
Fast food is around $150 a week for cheap stuff.

So your entire theory is blown to hell of which it came from.

It is not just price. It is also time. In a house of two people working paying bills it is hard to find time to prepare a good meal or sometimes you are just to damn tired to do it. While it is true that food bad for you is not really cheaper it is not labor intensive. Think about it this way. Who the hell wants to debone a chicken after working 12 hours? Also I hate the fact that people ever care what I eat... I giant chunk of my pay check goes to food. ALL FOOD. none of it is really cheap any more. I am sure if I was on food stamps I could eat steak and shrimp but I am not on welfare I work for a living and cant afford those things. I also dont just feed myself. Two people work in my household of 4 . We pay our bills and buy food and sometimes we have something extra to buy for ourselves which isn't very often.

You want to know a expense I have??? My daughters school. She goes to public school and is a honor roll student. Yet there isnt a week that goes by that the school doesn't seem to have a hand in my pocket for something or another. 80 dollar calculator, Lap top, uniform for cheer leading or sports or what ever activity she is at that time.... Now I could say no you cant be in that activity and no I dont care if you work hard to get a scholarship to a university I know me of my wife cant afford. I am not a liberal I cant do that.

Keep voting for the pander to the rich, screw the nonrich New BS GOP then, dupe.
After 30 years of Voodoo: worst min. wage, work conditions, illegal work safeguards, vacations, work week, college costs, rich/poor gap, upward social mobility, % homeless and in prison EVER, and in the modern world!!

Who is the poor democrat in government? Please point him/her out. Even the commie Sanders OWNS three houses in rich areas. Hell Hillary was most funded buy GIANT RICH corporations and banks. So please take your hypocrisy and shove it.

Look at the POLICIES they support, not the usual irrelevant BS propaganda malevolent gossip character assassination, superdupes. D'OH!!

 

[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




.

they shouldn't have trusted democrats who sold them down the river for vacations homes and jets

Blocked for 37 years now, dupe. Keep voting for tax cuts for the rich and corrupt GOP bubbles.

 

[hadit]

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.

dude, read up on what Mike Rowe is coordinating. he is a on a march to bring back tech programs for highschools. Holy fk the libs intentionally put people out of work. Intentionally. we have the facts.

Mike Rowe on How to Combat Unemployment & the Skills Gap

"Rowe said there are 5.6 million job openings waiting to be filled in fields that for the most part do not require a bachelor's degree."

While the GOP blocks all Dem efforts to have cheap tech training and cheap college loans and cheap public college FOREVER. Great job, with 3-6 million tech jobs going begging. Mike Rowe is an irrelevant talking point, dupe.

Evidence?

 

[hadit]

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




.

they shouldn't have trusted democrats who sold them down the river for vacations homes and jets

Blocked for 37 years now, dupe. Keep voting for tax cuts for the rich and corrupt GOP bubbles.

I gave you a whole list of democrat policies that have been implemented, and you're still pretending they don't have anything to do with it? Wow, the blinders are on strong in that one.

 

[francoHFW]

so most of them

isn't it about time we stopped this shit?

Seems like a third-world solution. With the rapid pace of change in the world today, some people will be able to keep up better than others. I like that there's at least some sort of safety net although I wouldn't mind seeing workfare rather than welfare.

so you really think that most states federal money?

If the federal government didn't take as much from the people the money could stay in their own states and wouldn't come with all kinds of strings attached

I'm speaking from the perspective of the fucked up theocracy I live in (Utah). State government would fund what they consider their base (huge families and the LDS church) and leave everybody else out in the cold. At least with some federal government involvement, you have a broader base that receives the assistance.

It's not the role of the federal government to provide such assistance. The things that government is supposed to provide is listed in Article I and taxes are to be collected to pay for THOSE things.

A voice of sanity, crying in the wilderness.

I'll go with the Supreme Court and our gov't over your bought off HS grad RW pundits, thanks, dupes.

 

[Dschrute3]

Folks should check out what happened in Brazil before the Olympics. The Government systematically arrested and imprisoned their poor homeless. Most haven't been heard from since. It's the kind of awful thing most Republicans fully support. They'd gladly do that here.

In fact, they are doing it in some areas of the country. Thousands of poor homeless folks are being arrested and imprisoned daily. And what's their crime? They're poor. Many, not all Republicans, are resembling Nazis more & more. Americans better wake up to what's going on.

That's remarkably dumb.

Is it? I think most Republicans fully support what the Brazilian Government did. In fact, Republicans are currently doing it in some areas of the US. They're arresting poor homeless by the thousands. If they aren't stopped, the Republicans will take it further & further. I could see some sort of Homeless 'Concentration Camps.'

 

[hadit]

No but there's a Dunkins on every corner and they sell those ridiculously expensive coffee drinks too

and there is no way that 10% of earners earn more in total than 90% of all earners

yet they still pay more in income tax than 90% of people combined

you want to talk "fair" share well it ain't what we got now

a truly fair share would be a flat percentage of everyone's income period

Show me a flat tax where the rich don't end up paying less and the poor end up paying more

why do the so called poor not have to pay income tax?

If you have an income then you should pay income tax

If you want "fair" shares then a flat tax is the only way to go that way everyone pays a share that's determined to be fair for everyone

dear, the poor and Mr. Trump, pay the taxes they are legally obligated to pay.

don't complain; be Patriotic.

well I believe that argument comes from the common complaint from the left of 'fair share'. so if what you say is true, then why does the left constantly make that statement?

A fat tax is a gold mine for the rich, and if you count all tax we already have it DUHHHH.
At the heart of the debate over "the 47 percent" is an awful abuse of tax data.

This entire conversation is the result of a (largely successful) effort to redefine the debate over taxes from "how much in taxes do you pay" to "how much in federal income taxes do you pay?" This is good framing if you want to cut taxes on the rich. It's bad framing if you want to have even a basic understanding of who pays how much in taxes.

There's a reason some would prefer that more limited conversation. For most Americans, payroll and state and local taxes make up the majority of their tax bill. The federal income tax, by contrast, is our most progressive tax -- it's the tax we've designed to place the heaviest burden on the rich while bypassing the poor. And we've done that, again, because the working class is already paying a fairly high tax bill through payroll and state and local taxes.

But most people don't know very much about the tax code. And the federal income tax is still our most famous tax. So when they hear that half of Americans aren't paying federal income taxes, they're outraged -- even if they're among the folks who have a net negative tax burden! After all, they know they're paying taxes, and there's no reason for normal human beings to assume that the taxes getting taken out of their paycheck every week and some of the taxes they pay at the end of the year aren't classified as "federal income taxes."

Confining the discussion to the federal income tax plays another role, too: It makes the tax code look much more progressive than it actually is.

Take someone who makes $4 million dollars a year and someone who makes $40,000 a year. The person making $4 million dollars, assuming he's not doing some Romney-esque planning, is paying a 35 percent tax on most of that money. The person making $40,000 is probably paying no income tax at all. So that makes the system look really unfair to the rich guy.

That's the basic analysis of the 47 percent line. And it's a basic analysis that serves a purpose: It makes further tax cuts for the rich sound more reasonable.

But what if we did the same thing for the payroll tax? Remember, the payroll tax only applies to first $110,100 or so, our rich friends is only paying payroll taxes on 2.7 percent of his income. The guy making $40,000? He's paying payroll taxes on every dollar of his income. Now who's not getting a fair shake?

Which is why, if you want to understand who's paying what in taxes, you don't want to just look at federal income taxes, or federal payroll taxes, or state sales taxes -- you want to look at total taxes. And, luckily, the tax analysis group Citizens for Tax Justice keeps those numbers. So here is total taxes -- which includes corporate taxes, income taxes, payroll taxes, state sales taxes, and more -- paid by different income groups and broken into federal and state and local burdens:

As you can see, the poorer you are, the more state and local taxes bite into your income.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwj8q-DvvvzSAhWnz4MKHVomCxMQFggrMAU&url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/09/19/heres-why-the-47-percent-argument-is-an-abuse-of-tax-data/&usg=AFQjCNE_8LZl_VB-o4FAbNsJrxLxLCPy8g&sig2=vzWAUkHaeGf_rAbQCHo5SQ

Sounds like a good reason to cut taxes on everyone. I can't imagine that every federal program couldn't find 2% of waste to cut, or heck, just lock the budget to inflation for a decade or so and you'd make up the difference in no time.

 

[francoHFW]

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.

dude, read up on what Mike Rowe is coordinating. he is a on a march to bring back tech programs for highschools. Holy fk the libs intentionally put people out of work. Intentionally. we have the facts.

Mike Rowe on How to Combat Unemployment & the Skills Gap

"Rowe said there are 5.6 million job openings waiting to be filled in fields that for the most part do not require a bachelor's degree."

While the GOP blocks all Dem efforts to have cheap tech training and cheap college loans and cheap public college FOREVER. Great job, with 3-6 million tech jobs going begging. Mike Rowe is an irrelevant talking point, dupe.

Evidence?

Reality, stupid. CHANGE THE GD CHANNEL. Read something.

 

[hadit]

Folks should check out what happened in Brazil before the Olympics. The Government systematically arrested and imprisoned their poor homeless. Most haven't been heard from since. It's the kind of awful thing most Republicans fully support. They'd gladly do that here.

In fact, they are doing it in some areas of the country. Thousands of poor homeless folks are being arrested and imprisoned daily. And what's their crime? They're poor. Many, not all Republicans, are resembling Nazis more & more. Americans better wake up to what's going on.

That's remarkably dumb.

Is it? I think most Republicans fully support what the Brazilian Government did. In fact, Republicans are currently doing it in some areas of the US. They're arresting poor homeless by the thousands. If they aren't stopped, the Republicans will take it further & further. I could see some sort of Homeless 'Concentration Camps.'

Now you're just hyperventilating. That's dumb.

 

[hadit]

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.

dude, read up on what Mike Rowe is coordinating. he is a on a march to bring back tech programs for highschools. Holy fk the libs intentionally put people out of work. Intentionally. we have the facts.

Mike Rowe on How to Combat Unemployment & the Skills Gap

"Rowe said there are 5.6 million job openings waiting to be filled in fields that for the most part do not require a bachelor's degree."

While the GOP blocks all Dem efforts to have cheap tech training and cheap college loans and cheap public college FOREVER. Great job, with 3-6 million tech jobs going begging. Mike Rowe is an irrelevant talking point, dupe.

Evidence?

Reality, stupid. CHANGE THE GD CHANNEL. Read something.

So it's just your imagination then.

 

[Dschrute3]

Folks should check out what happened in Brazil before the Olympics. The Government systematically arrested and imprisoned their poor homeless. Most haven't been heard from since. It's the kind of awful thing most Republicans fully support. They'd gladly do that here.

In fact, they are doing it in some areas of the country. Thousands of poor homeless folks are being arrested and imprisoned daily. And what's their crime? They're poor. Many, not all Republicans, are resembling Nazis more & more. Americans better wake up to what's going on.

That's remarkably dumb.

Is it? I think most Republicans fully support what the Brazilian Government did. In fact, Republicans are currently doing it in some areas of the US. They're arresting poor homeless by the thousands. If they aren't stopped, the Republicans will take it further & further. I could see some sort of Homeless 'Concentration Camps.'

Now you're just hyperventilating. That's dumb.

No, Republicans are currently arresting poor homeless folks and shoving them into cages to rot. It is happening. They're in the process of making being poor a crime. It is very Nazi-like. But hopefully Americans won't allow them too much power. Because they will 'Disappear' our poor. They despise the least fortunate among us.

 

[hunarcy]

I thought you knew it was a republic and 'we the people' won!

The people of Russia won

Perhaps you could provide proof that ANYONE in Russia voted in the election, or even give evidence that Russians changed one vote in a ballot box or voting machine?

Prove me wrong
Up to five million "Russians" voted for Trump

You made the claim, you can't provide an example of one Russian voting, therefore I have proven you wrong by using your own failure to prove your claim.

You aren't very good at debating, but I'm sure you're not very good at much.

Sorry pal...It doesn't work like that

This is Trump's America...I get to make the claim, It is up to you to disprove it

Ball is in your court

I'm now ignoring this waste-of-time troll.

 

[francoHFW]

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




.

they shouldn't have trusted democrats who sold them down the river for vacations homes and jets

Blocked for 37 years now, dupe. Keep voting for tax cuts for the rich and corrupt GOP bubbles.

I gave you a whole list of democrat policies that have been implemented, and you're still pretending they don't have anything to do with it? Wow, the blinders are on strong in that one.

Where? BS

 

[hunarcy]

It's not the role of the federal government to provide such assistance. The things that government is supposed to provide is listed in Article I and taxes are to be collected to pay for THOSE things.

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

If it wasn't for Article I, you might have actually had a point. But, you don't.

You might have noticed a trend away from strict Constitutionalism. There's a reason for it. The American people have gained immeasurably from government involvement in R&D, infrastructure and a safety net. None of these things are numerated in the Constitution. Good luck convincing people they'd be better off going your way.

People have forgotten we are a Republic and NOT a straight democracy. All it would take would be for everyone to have to pay income tax and they'd start to see the light.

I have to pay income tax. Plenty of it too and even though I can see some waste in the system, the benefits of it are clear to me.

But, too many people don't pay income tax and therefore are unconcerned with the waste. And, while you see benefits, I see an unconstitutional income redistribution scam that I am embarrassed to say I supported in the past.

 

[hadit]

Folks should check out what happened in Brazil before the Olympics. The Government systematically arrested and imprisoned their poor homeless. Most haven't been heard from since. It's the kind of awful thing most Republicans fully support. They'd gladly do that here.

In fact, they are doing it in some areas of the country. Thousands of poor homeless folks are being arrested and imprisoned daily. And what's their crime? They're poor. Many, not all Republicans, are resembling Nazis more & more. Americans better wake up to what's going on.

That's remarkably dumb.

Is it? I think most Republicans fully support what the Brazilian Government did. In fact, Republicans are currently doing it in some areas of the US. They're arresting poor homeless by the thousands. If they aren't stopped, the Republicans will take it further & further. I could see some sort of Homeless 'Concentration Camps.'

Now you're just hyperventilating. That's dumb.

No, Republicans are currently arresting poor homeless folks and shoving them into cages to rot. It is happening. They're in the process of making being poor a crime. It is very Nazi-like. But hopefully Americans won't allow them too much power. Because they will 'Disappear' our poor. They despise the least fortunate among us.

Provide evidence of that, please.