Why Are Republicans So Relentlessly Cruel to the Poor?

[Markle]

Nobody wants to be beholden to charity or the state so I dont get the "motivation" angle. the motivation is already there.

Nonsense, millions of people are on the government dole and are perfectly happy. They simply want more. They're proud to be gaming THE MAN!

 

[Correll]

There'll be a lot more poor and we will see more slums...

I guess they're going to start arresting all these people and put them in prison camps...Conservatism is as far away from freedom as you can get.

Right.

Because Trade Surpluses is why Japan and South Korean and China have experienced such poor economic performance over the last 50 years.

 

[Markle]

Your use of the phrase "welfare queen" is telling. Most of your tax money goes to subsidising millionaires and corporations so that might be a comfort to you.

Specifically how?

 

[Markle]

Right.

Because Trade Surpluses is why Japan and South Korean and China have experienced such poor economic performance over the last 50 years.

Japan has suffered a poor economy for decades is that they have repeatedly made efforts, as did petulant former President Barack Hussein Obama's stimulus programs. Like ours, theirs failed.

China was having excellent growth and is still having above 6%.

I've not followed South Korea.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Church charities are operated by non-paid volunteers. Give the money to the government and it would take 40 or 50 high paid civil servants to do the same thing.

From my mainstream standpoint.

I would find a charity handout from a foodbank to be humiliating.

But I would have no problem with welfare. There is a contract between the state and the individual that gives it respectability. I have paid into the welfare state for years and am entitled to its protection when times are tough.

The work of charities is admirable but essentially it is just a top up to the work of the state (all of us) in providing a safety net for those who have fallen on hard times.

We live in rich advanced countries where mechanisation and technology have made so many manual jobs redundant. But the people who did those jobs havent gone away. How we look after those people and their families is going to be a big test for us.

You know what? Everyone who takes a handout be it from government or from a food bank should be a little ashamed

By removing the stigma of shame from taking handouts we make it acceptable

Shame is a great motivator

No. That is a Victorian attitude that is primitive in the extreme. We live in a globalised age where people have limited control over their lives. And its going to get worse.
We need to be considering how we can better help these people as a priority.
If we dont you are going to have a huge underclass and you right wingers are going to need even more guns.

Bull shit

And people have far more control over their lives now than in Victorian times.

and the best way to help people is to motivate them to help themselves not making them dependent on the largess of others

Nobody wants to be beholden to charity or the state so I dont get the "motivation" angle. the motivation is already there.
I suspect that you mean that you want to punish people for falling on hard times. That takes us back to the Victorian work house that Dickens was railing against in Oliver Twist.

Can I also add that when I say "nobody" I do recognise that there are a few who work the system. But they are statistically insignificant and should not be used as an excuse to punish the poor.

Not punish

Shame is a great motivator.
Personally I would be ashamed if I ever had to go on the dole.
I think everyone should be ashamed of that

it's a good thing.

If it's just accepted then people have no motivation to get off of the dole

Have a little pride , man

 

[Skull Pilot]

This is very telling of the leftist mentality.

You would be humiliated by taking food from people that freely offer it to you, but not humiliated by taking food from people that may not have it TO give to you?

You miss the point Ray. I have no right to the charity handout. I do have a right to the welfare because I have paid into it since I first started work. Its a right not a discretionary gesture.

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

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

Welfare IS charity

It isnt. I have paid into the national insurance fund all my working life. It has always been there for me and my neighbours.

Nothing is free.

When I am in trouble it will be there for me.

welfare is charity

it seems you're talking more of something like social security

 

[rightwinger]

To answer the question in the OP, it's because conservatives are selfish pieces of shit,.

but they give more to charity than liberals??

I'll repeat:

Conservatives tend to donate to their churches (tax deductable) which in turn, contribute a small amount of that back to actual charities. The predominant church in my area considers itself a charitable organization for the tax benefits but the actual amount of charity is about 1%.

You are confused Moon Bat.

Our church is a big contributor to feeding the poor and providing services in the community to those that really need it.

This next Sunday morning we will meet at the regular service time and go en mass to the grocery stores and buy food instead of having the normal worship service. We do that several times a year.

What are you going to be doing this Sunday morning Moon Bat, laying in bed?

The third weekend of every month my wife and I go to the grocery store and buy food and donate it to our church's food pantry. We also help to support an orphanage.

What do you do Moon Bat other than bitch that the rich are not being taxed enough?

Not knowing the specifics of your church, I'll try not to discourage your efforts to do good. However, from my experience GENERALLY, church charities shelter tax revenues that would go as far or farther in providing for the poor if they were collected.

Church charities are operated by non-paid volunteers. Give the money to the government and it would take 40 or 50 high paid civil servants to do the same thing.

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

Leaders of private charities get paid more than civil servants

 

[frigidweirdo]

I believe have healthy food not taxed.

You go down kicking and screaming. PLEASE show us which state do not tax "healthy food". Who decides what is healthy and what is not healthy?

healthy has nothing to do with it

I don't know if all states do not tax grocery items but there are many that do not and some that do tax them at a lower rate than the state sales tax

Which States Tax Groceries? - Tax Foundation

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

 

[hadit]

Where? BS

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

Evidence?

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

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

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

Nonsense

Using Trumponian logic, the burden shifts to you until YOU to prove what he said is wrong. Until you can do that, his claim must be taken as fact

I'm not Trump. If you want to use "Trumponian logic", then Hillary is guilty and should be in jail.

 

[frigidweirdo]

/---- it's none of anyone's business what others eat. Don't like McDonalds then don't buy their food. I don't.

that is such a hard concept for these people to grasp

they think it's better to tax people into submission so they do what these control freaks think they should do

after all it's for their own good right?

Well after all they hand out massive tax rebates to large corporate companies with food that is slammed full of sugar. And that's alright. It's basically lowering the cost of their products to make them more competitive than healthy food which doesn't get such subsidies.

But you have a problem if it works the other way.

https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/25/untangling-what-companies-pay-in-taxes/

"Soft-drink companies are among those paying taxes well below average, partly because of their ability to locate the manufacturing plants for soda concentrate in low-tax countries, as I discuss in the column. Coca-Cola paid a combined tax rate of 15.25 percent between 2007 and 2012, while PepsiCo paid 21.31 percent."

And that doesn't even mean they paid this much, they probably paid half this or less. Making them very competitive, and overly competitive against healthy food. But that's okay, right? That's capitalism, that's great. If it's done for the wrong reason, hell yeah.

it is amazing to me how you on the left hate the corporations who give millions of jobs to citizens. just fkin amazes me.

It amazes me how you on the right hate small businesses, hate the small guy being able to take a slice of the pie. just fkin amazes me.

But then I don't hate multinationals. You might think it's a nice attack, but you're wrong. Multinationals have their place, but they need to be paying at least their fair share of taxes, if not more, but they don't, they pay far too little.

But they, we all know this is deflecting from the issue here, right?

The large companies are getting things cheaper, they're more competitive because the govt has decided this is so. You said it's WRONG to have a policy of encouraging people to eat healthy food, but NOW you seem to think it's fkin amazing that the multinationals are able to ply people with crap food at cheaper prices. just fkin amazes me.

yet when it comes to easing regulations that hit small businesses much harder than they do large corporations you people are against it

"you people", I'm not sure I'm part of such a group. Some people are partisan and will oppose anything that doesn't fit with their winning. Other people might oppose because they don't understand, and other people might oppose because the policy doesn't do what they claim it will do, I don't know. I'm in favor of helping smaller businesses and not helping larger businesses.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Food gets taxed, right? Ever wondered why milk is often cheaper than bottled water and other such weird pricing? Why shouldn't society try and make things more attractive?

I mean, the govt does this ALL THE TIME, especially in America with large corporations paying almost no tax as an "incentive" for them to locate or not relocate. The right doesn't have a problem with this, in fact they actively encourage it. But do it with good food or whatever and they suddenly get all jumpy.

food doesn't get taxed in my state
only idiots buy bottled water

it's not up to "society" to coerce people to do anything other than obey the law.

and really just because governemnt does shit like this all the time doesn't make it right it merely becomes accepted by people like you. you know people with a desire to control other people for their own good

Some states have food not taxed, other I believe have healthy food not taxed.

Well, it is up to society to coerce people to do things, it happens ALL THE TIME. So many decisions are made by government where this happens.

So you don't want to control people for their own good? You don't want laws against murder? Laws against stealing? Laws against violence?

You're an anarchist then!

Every example you gave are laws that address harm done to OTHER people, not harm done to themselves. Next.

Here's a hint you might want to try. Motorcycle helmet laws.

Actually I think you're wrong. If it were legal to murder, I could murder, but I could also be murdered. It protects me that I can't murder or be murdered. But then again you could have responded to the point I was making.

you can murder and you can be murdered whether it's against the law or not

Yes, you can. You can also eat sugary food whether it's taxed highly or not taxed at all....

 

[frigidweirdo]

NY State for example

Food and Food Products Sold by Food Stores and Similar Establishments

Nuts are exempt from sales tax "unless honey-roasted, chocolate, or candy-coated"

It's not totally healthy v. non-healthy, but there are some distinctions. Who decides? Well, everyone can decide what is healthy and what not.

You're getting so close to being put on the ignore list. I can smell it from here.

 

[Skull Pilot]

that is such a hard concept for these people to grasp

they think it's better to tax people into submission so they do what these control freaks think they should do

after all it's for their own good right?

Well after all they hand out massive tax rebates to large corporate companies with food that is slammed full of sugar. And that's alright. It's basically lowering the cost of their products to make them more competitive than healthy food which doesn't get such subsidies.

But you have a problem if it works the other way.

https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/25/untangling-what-companies-pay-in-taxes/

"Soft-drink companies are among those paying taxes well below average, partly because of their ability to locate the manufacturing plants for soda concentrate in low-tax countries, as I discuss in the column. Coca-Cola paid a combined tax rate of 15.25 percent between 2007 and 2012, while PepsiCo paid 21.31 percent."

And that doesn't even mean they paid this much, they probably paid half this or less. Making them very competitive, and overly competitive against healthy food. But that's okay, right? That's capitalism, that's great. If it's done for the wrong reason, hell yeah.

it is amazing to me how you on the left hate the corporations who give millions of jobs to citizens. just fkin amazes me.

It amazes me how you on the right hate small businesses, hate the small guy being able to take a slice of the pie. just fkin amazes me.

But then I don't hate multinationals. You might think it's a nice attack, but you're wrong. Multinationals have their place, but they need to be paying at least their fair share of taxes, if not more, but they don't, they pay far too little.

But they, we all know this is deflecting from the issue here, right?

The large companies are getting things cheaper, they're more competitive because the govt has decided this is so. You said it's WRONG to have a policy of encouraging people to eat healthy food, but NOW you seem to think it's fkin amazing that the multinationals are able to ply people with crap food at cheaper prices. just fkin amazes me.

yet when it comes to easing regulations that hit small businesses much harder than they do large corporations you people are against it

"you people", I'm not sure I'm part of such a group. Some people are partisan and will oppose anything that doesn't fit with their winning. Other people might oppose because they don't understand, and other people might oppose because the policy doesn't do what they claim it will do, I don't know. I'm in favor of helping smaller businesses and not helping larger businesses.

so you're in favor of getting rid of regulations that hurt small business?

Don't forget small b usiness in this country is defined as any business with 500 employees or less

 

[Skull Pilot]

food doesn't get taxed in my state
only idiots buy bottled water

it's not up to "society" to coerce people to do anything other than obey the law.

and really just because governemnt does shit like this all the time doesn't make it right it merely becomes accepted by people like you. you know people with a desire to control other people for their own good

Some states have food not taxed, other I believe have healthy food not taxed.

Well, it is up to society to coerce people to do things, it happens ALL THE TIME. So many decisions are made by government where this happens.

So you don't want to control people for their own good? You don't want laws against murder? Laws against stealing? Laws against violence?

You're an anarchist then!

Every example you gave are laws that address harm done to OTHER people, not harm done to themselves. Next.

Here's a hint you might want to try. Motorcycle helmet laws.

Actually I think you're wrong. If it were legal to murder, I could murder, but I could also be murdered. It protects me that I can't murder or be murdered. But then again you could have responded to the point I was making.

you can murder and you can be murdered whether it's against the law or not

Yes, you can. You can also eat sugary food whether it's taxed highly or not taxed at all....

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

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well after all they hand out massive tax rebates to large corporate companies with food that is slammed full of sugar. And that's alright. It's basically lowering the cost of their products to make them more competitive than healthy food which doesn't get such subsidies.

But you have a problem if it works the other way.

https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/25/untangling-what-companies-pay-in-taxes/

"Soft-drink companies are among those paying taxes well below average, partly because of their ability to locate the manufacturing plants for soda concentrate in low-tax countries, as I discuss in the column. Coca-Cola paid a combined tax rate of 15.25 percent between 2007 and 2012, while PepsiCo paid 21.31 percent."

And that doesn't even mean they paid this much, they probably paid half this or less. Making them very competitive, and overly competitive against healthy food. But that's okay, right? That's capitalism, that's great. If it's done for the wrong reason, hell yeah.

it is amazing to me how you on the left hate the corporations who give millions of jobs to citizens. just fkin amazes me.

It amazes me how you on the right hate small businesses, hate the small guy being able to take a slice of the pie. just fkin amazes me.

But then I don't hate multinationals. You might think it's a nice attack, but you're wrong. Multinationals have their place, but they need to be paying at least their fair share of taxes, if not more, but they don't, they pay far too little.

But they, we all know this is deflecting from the issue here, right?

The large companies are getting things cheaper, they're more competitive because the govt has decided this is so. You said it's WRONG to have a policy of encouraging people to eat healthy food, but NOW you seem to think it's fkin amazing that the multinationals are able to ply people with crap food at cheaper prices. just fkin amazes me.

yet when it comes to easing regulations that hit small businesses much harder than they do large corporations you people are against it

"you people", I'm not sure I'm part of such a group. Some people are partisan and will oppose anything that doesn't fit with their winning. Other people might oppose because they don't understand, and other people might oppose because the policy doesn't do what they claim it will do, I don't know. I'm in favor of helping smaller businesses and not helping larger businesses.

so you're in favor of getting rid of regulations that hurt small business?

Don't forget small b usiness in this country is defined as any business with 500 employees or less

Not necessarily. Some regulations that might hurt smaller businesses might actually be necessary for the economy to work well.

Also I think it would be wiser to make more categories that just "small business" being 500 employees or less. Really small start up companies, for example, could probably do with more help, the large a company gets, whether in employee size or in revenue/profits, then the less help they get.

 

[Skull Pilot]

NY State for example

Food and Food Products Sold by Food Stores and Similar Establishments

Nuts are exempt from sales tax "unless honey-roasted, chocolate, or candy-coated"

It's not totally healthy v. non-healthy, but there are some distinctions. Who decides? Well, everyone can decide what is healthy and what not.

You're getting so close to being put on the ignore list. I can smell it from here.

 

[TooTall]

but they give more to charity than liberals??

I'll repeat:

Conservatives tend to donate to their churches (tax deductable) which in turn, contribute a small amount of that back to actual charities. The predominant church in my area considers itself a charitable organization for the tax benefits but the actual amount of charity is about 1%.

You are confused Moon Bat.

Our church is a big contributor to feeding the poor and providing services in the community to those that really need it.

This next Sunday morning we will meet at the regular service time and go en mass to the grocery stores and buy food instead of having the normal worship service. We do that several times a year.

What are you going to be doing this Sunday morning Moon Bat, laying in bed?

The third weekend of every month my wife and I go to the grocery store and buy food and donate it to our church's food pantry. We also help to support an orphanage.

What do you do Moon Bat other than bitch that the rich are not being taxed enough?

Not knowing the specifics of your church, I'll try not to discourage your efforts to do good. However, from my experience GENERALLY, church charities shelter tax revenues that would go as far or farther in providing for the poor if they were collected.

Church charities are operated by non-paid volunteers. Give the money to the government and it would take 40 or 50 high paid civil servants to do the same thing.

From my mainstream standpoint.

I would find a charity handout from a foodbank to be humiliating.

But I would have no problem with welfare. There is a contract between the state and the individual that gives it respectability. I have paid into the welfare state for years and am entitled to its protection when times are tough.

The work of charities is admirable but essentially it is just a top up to the work of the state (all of us) in providing a safety net for those who have fallen on hard times.

We live in rich advanced countries where mechanisation and technology have made so many manual jobs redundant. But the people who did those jobs havent gone away. How we look after those people and their families is going to be a big test for us.

You prefer the help you get is from the money working people are forced to pay to the government but are humiliated by accepting help from someone who willingly give their time and money to help you. You are a very sick person.

 

[hadit]

here we go again

more ham handed social engineering via taxes

taxes are only to be used to fund the necessary function of government not to punish people for behavior that you don't like

Food gets taxed, right? Ever wondered why milk is often cheaper than bottled water and other such weird pricing? Why shouldn't society try and make things more attractive?

I mean, the govt does this ALL THE TIME, especially in America with large corporations paying almost no tax as an "incentive" for them to locate or not relocate. The right doesn't have a problem with this, in fact they actively encourage it. But do it with good food or whatever and they suddenly get all jumpy.

food doesn't get taxed in my state
only idiots buy bottled water

it's not up to "society" to coerce people to do anything other than obey the law.

and really just because governemnt does shit like this all the time doesn't make it right it merely becomes accepted by people like you. you know people with a desire to control other people for their own good

Some states have food not taxed, other I believe have healthy food not taxed.

Well, it is up to society to coerce people to do things, it happens ALL THE TIME. So many decisions are made by government where this happens.

So you don't want to control people for their own good? You don't want laws against murder? Laws against stealing? Laws against violence?

You're an anarchist then!

Every example you gave are laws that address harm done to OTHER people, not harm done to themselves. Next.

Here's a hint you might want to try. Motorcycle helmet laws.

Actually I think you're wrong. If it were legal to murder, I could murder, but I could also be murdered. It protects me that I can't murder or be murdered. But then again you could have responded to the point I was making.

You conflated "control people for their own good" with "laws against murder".

 

[frigidweirdo]

Some states have food not taxed, other I believe have healthy food not taxed.

Well, it is up to society to coerce people to do things, it happens ALL THE TIME. So many decisions are made by government where this happens.

So you don't want to control people for their own good? You don't want laws against murder? Laws against stealing? Laws against violence?

You're an anarchist then!

Every example you gave are laws that address harm done to OTHER people, not harm done to themselves. Next.

Here's a hint you might want to try. Motorcycle helmet laws.

Actually I think you're wrong. If it were legal to murder, I could murder, but I could also be murdered. It protects me that I can't murder or be murdered. But then again you could have responded to the point I was making.

you can murder and you can be murdered whether it's against the law or not

Yes, you can. You can also eat sugary food whether it's taxed highly or not taxed at all....

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

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

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

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

 

[frigidweirdo]

Food gets taxed, right? Ever wondered why milk is often cheaper than bottled water and other such weird pricing? Why shouldn't society try and make things more attractive?

I mean, the govt does this ALL THE TIME, especially in America with large corporations paying almost no tax as an "incentive" for them to locate or not relocate. The right doesn't have a problem with this, in fact they actively encourage it. But do it with good food or whatever and they suddenly get all jumpy.

food doesn't get taxed in my state
only idiots buy bottled water

it's not up to "society" to coerce people to do anything other than obey the law.

and really just because governemnt does shit like this all the time doesn't make it right it merely becomes accepted by people like you. you know people with a desire to control other people for their own good

Some states have food not taxed, other I believe have healthy food not taxed.

Well, it is up to society to coerce people to do things, it happens ALL THE TIME. So many decisions are made by government where this happens.

So you don't want to control people for their own good? You don't want laws against murder? Laws against stealing? Laws against violence?

You're an anarchist then!

Every example you gave are laws that address harm done to OTHER people, not harm done to themselves. Next.

Here's a hint you might want to try. Motorcycle helmet laws.

Actually I think you're wrong. If it were legal to murder, I could murder, but I could also be murdered. It protects me that I can't murder or be murdered. But then again you could have responded to the point I was making.

You conflated "control people for their own good" with "laws against murder".

Oh really. So why do we have a law against murder? Why not go Discworld and make it okay as long as you're in a guild or something?

Why is making a law against murder not about controlling people for their own good?