Why Are Republicans So Relentlessly Cruel to the Poor?

[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.

Do you have a point. Note, I'm not watching Bevis and Butthead, it sucks.

 

[TooTall]

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.

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.

The folks that give freely of their time and money to give at church food banks do it out of compassion. A government civil service worker does it for a paycheck and very likely holds you in contempt.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

when the government does what for negative reasons and what negative reasons?

and what tax breaks to candy companies get that healthy food companies don't get?

people have choices. Those companies you mention only exist because people CHOOSE to buy their products and those choices are none of yours or the government's business

 

[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.

Do you have a point. Note, I'm not watching Bevis and Butthead, it sucks.

you don't seem to realize that threatening to put someone on ignore is the emptiest of empty threats

but if it makes you feel like a badass go ahead

 

[rightwinger]

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

that's not how it works in this country.

You have to prove that a person is guilty

Trumpian logic proves you wrong

I get to make my claim...I have done my part
Now, it is up to you to prove me wrong
Until you can do that, what I said gets accepted as a fact

 

[Skull Pilot]

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

that's not how it works in this country.

You have to prove that a person is guilty

Trumpian logic proves you wrong

I get to make my claim...I have done my part
Now, it is up to you to prove me wrong
Until you can do that, what I said gets accepted as a fact

sorry but there is no such thing just like there is no such thing as liberal logic

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

when the government does what for negative reasons and what negative reasons?

and what tax breaks to candy companies get that healthy food companies don't get?

people have choices. Those companies you mention only exist because people CHOOSE to buy their products and those choices are none of yours or the government's business

Yes, people have choices. People often choose to buy inferior shit because it's cheaper, or because they've been advertised to death and just zombie walk into buy things.

If people had the choice to buy healthier food for cheaper, would they then buy healthy food or would they still buy the sugary shit? I know when I was a young adult I ate too much shit because it was cheaper and I didn't have much money.

I'm not talking about taking choices away from people. I'm talking about adjusting the choices so they make more sense to people.

When sugary drinks are cheaper than healthy drinks, what do people buy? They buy the sugary drinks because they can afford those. Give people the choice to buy healthy food at affordable prices and then they have a real choice.

Your "choice" is that they have cheap sugary drinks and expensive healthy food and then they're making a choice, it's still a choice if healthy food is cheaper and sugary drinks more expensive than they are now.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

That is our Presidents intent

Hey, I don't make the rules....I just live by them
Trumpian logic says you can make any absurd claim you want and until it is proven wrong...it is assumed to be a fact

Now, suppose I made the absurd claim that 3-5 million illegal voters voted for Hillary
The burden is on you to prove they didn't...it is assumed to be a fact until you do

I did not create this Bizarro World....I just live in it

 

[frigidweirdo]

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

that's not how it works in this country.

You have to prove that a person is guilty

Trumpian logic proves you wrong

I get to make my claim...I have done my part
Now, it is up to you to prove me wrong
Until you can do that, what I said gets accepted as a fact

sorry but there is no such thing just like there is no such thing as liberal logic

"liberal logic" huh? Like your logic with the 2A? You have all the evidence given to you, you provide none of your own, and then you agree that you were right and all the evidence is wrong. That's your logic apparently.

 

[rightwinger]

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

that's not how it works in this country.

You have to prove that a person is guilty

Trumpian logic proves you wrong

I get to make my claim...I have done my part
Now, it is up to you to prove me wrong
Until you can do that, what I said gets accepted as a fact

sorry but there is no such thing just like there is no such thing as liberal logic

Ahhhhh...Bubble boy chimes in on his view of Trumpian America

 

[Redfish]

Because the rich buy more stuff.... Good lord are you really that simple?

Actually, if you gave one million dollars to a rich person, and $1 dollar to 1 million poor people, which would see the quickest use of money?

one dollar would not make any difference to a poor person, or the economy. the rich guy might buy 10 cars or a yacht, thereby creating hundreds of jobs ----------- for people who actually wanted to work.

Damn...that's a new one

The yacht theory of trickle down

Do blue collar union workers build yachts? yes or no.

They also build single family homes and cars

So shouldn't we be directing more money towards those who buy single family homes and cars?

you just don't get it, do you? The blue collar union workers who build the yachts are the people buying single family homes and cars. The rich guy buys the yacht, the yacht builders buy the homes and cars, other workers build the homes and cars. The money spent by the rich guy is multiplied in the economy. Its called capitalism, doofus. It works.

 

[Redfish]

In socialism nobody is independently wealthy you moron. The government took all of that. The only rich people are government officials who obviously didn't create their wealth they just stole it form the people they claim to be helping.

There are plenty of rich people in socialist EU, Canada, OZ, NZ, dupe. Just not on the backs of the non-rich like here...

You're right that there are rich people in socialist countries.

They are the politicians and their friends.

Politicians never get rich in government except on the backs of the people

all russian politicians are million and billionaires

American politicians are the same

true,,but the difference is the american politicians made their money mostly before entering politics ,,not so much the Russians

Not true. Harry Reid had nothing when he went to congress. He retired a multi millionaire and never in his life had a real job. Corruption exists in both the USA and Russia.

 

[Flash]

[
Britain had "freedom" for centuries before the arrival of the welfare state. It was shit.
Children were sent up chimneys ,veteran sold match books in public squares and the old and sick died in workhouses.
The biggest employment in Victorian London was child prostitution.
Essentially what you are saying is "Im all right so fuck you".
Its not a moral stance and not a Christian one either.

I know you Euros think Freedom, Liberty and self determination sucks. That is why we told you to go screw yourselves back in 1776.

Freedom and Liberty for some, but not all, as I recall.

Well yea, since you Brits brought those slaves over we had to deal with that. We can thank the British Empire for slavery in North America.

I would suspect a descendant of a slave in the US has a much better chance of upward mobility in the US than a commoner in the UK that wasn't born to aristocracy.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

when the government does what for negative reasons and what negative reasons?

and what tax breaks to candy companies get that healthy food companies don't get?

people have choices. Those companies you mention only exist because people CHOOSE to buy their products and those choices are none of yours or the government's business

Yes, people have choices. People often choose to buy inferior shit because it's cheaper, or because they've been advertised to death and just zombie walk into buy things.

If people had the choice to buy healthier food for cheaper, would they then buy healthy food or would they still buy the sugary shit? I know when I was a young adult I ate too much shit because it was cheaper and I didn't have much money.

I'm not talking about taking choices away from people. I'm talking about adjusting the choices so they make more sense to people.

When sugary drinks are cheaper than healthy drinks, what do people buy? They buy the sugary drinks because they can afford those. Give people the choice to buy healthy food at affordable prices and then they have a real choice.

Your "choice" is that they have cheap sugary drinks and expensive healthy food and then they're making a choice, it's still a choice if healthy food is cheaper and sugary drinks more expensive than they are now.

healthy food is NOT more expensive than processed crap
Soda is not cheaper than water or even iced tea you make at home

like I said if you eat off the dollar menu for every meal every day you spend more than enough money to buy real food for the week

 

[Skull Pilot]

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

that's not how it works in this country.

You have to prove that a person is guilty

Trumpian logic proves you wrong

I get to make my claim...I have done my part
Now, it is up to you to prove me wrong
Until you can do that, what I said gets accepted as a fact

sorry but there is no such thing just like there is no such thing as liberal logic

Ahhhhh...Bubble boy chimes in on his view of Trumpian America

so if I say you're guilty of murder then you are and you have to prove to me you didn't do it

OK pedophile child rapist baby killer you're guilty

 

[Skull Pilot]

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

that's not how it works in this country.

You have to prove that a person is guilty

Trumpian logic proves you wrong

I get to make my claim...I have done my part
Now, it is up to you to prove me wrong
Until you can do that, what I said gets accepted as a fact

sorry but there is no such thing just like there is no such thing as liberal logic

"liberal logic" huh? Like your logic with the 2A? You have all the evidence given to you, you provide none of your own, and then you agree that you were right and all the evidence is wrong. That's your logic apparently.

you gave me no evidence that people are not allowed to carry weapons outside of military service

 

[Flash]

[Qwould 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[/QUOTE]

You mean like the Clinton Foundation that spends only about 10% of the money for services? The rest goes ot things like wedding dresses for Chelsea.

Once again you are confused Moon Bat.

You have a choice of how you contribute money to charity. You chose who you want to help and how much you want to give. Filthy ass bloated government welfare program robs a person of their liberty to chose where their money goes and that is despicable. Especially when you know that a large cost of the welfare system is nothing more than a scheme for the Democrats to buy vote from the welfare queens. Disgusting isn't it?

 

[Tommy Tainant]

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.

You completely misrepresent what I said.

I would prefer help from something I have paid into and have a right to expect. What is sick about that ?

 

[edward37]

There are plenty of rich people in socialist EU, Canada, OZ, NZ, dupe. Just not on the backs of the non-rich like here...

You're right that there are rich people in socialist countries.

They are the politicians and their friends.

Politicians never get rich in government except on the backs of the people

all russian politicians are million and billionaires

American politicians are the same

true,,but the difference is the american politicians made their money mostly before entering politics ,,not so much the Russians

Not true. Harry Reid had nothing when he went to congress. He retired a multi millionaire and never in his life had a real job. Corruption exists in both the USA and Russia.

there are always exceptions red but I did say mostly ,,Most of our people made most of their bread away from politics imho,,,,,Don't get me wrong I hate the garbage in our congress and insider trading legal?

 

[hadit]

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?

It's about preventing people from doing harm to other people. That's controlling people for the good of others, not for their own good.

Controlling them for their own good assumes that they're too stupid to make good decisions for themselves and need a nanny state to take care of them. Ultimately, why do you think ANYONE has/ should have the authority to make those decisions for other people?