Maybe it depends on what your definition of the "poor" is. You don't have to be impoverished to be poor. You can have a halfway decent job and be poor. The Middle Class has taken a huge hit recently. A lot of what were good jobs have been shipped overseas and many have never recovered from that. Nothing you don't know. My premise is that we need to build the economy so that people can get jobs that can support their families and give them a future. And I don't want anyone excluded from that opportunity, or one group given preference over another. But I do want jobs given on merit and ability, earned. There's a consistent theme in your writing suggesting the Right is a bunch of bigots. And if conservative writes something that's not consistent with your view it's a lie. That's lazy. You can do better. Most conservatives I know are concerned that what they achieve will be taken away from them and their families and given to those who didn't achieve. Wealth redistribution. I think there's a huge difference between the top brass of large corporations raking it in at the expense of their employees and a guy who starts a business, works very hard to make it succeed, and has some nice things because of it and is able to send his kids to school and not worry about starving in his old age. He not only wants to keep as much as possible of what he has earned, but wants to leave as much as possible to his kids. So things like estate and inheritance taxes trouble him, after all he paid income taxes his entire working life. You seem to want to create an utopia where everyone gets an equal slice. Great if it works, doesn't really.
Why is the Left...
- Thread starter vantexan
- Start date
You create dependency by doing things like take over healthcare. When the ACA was created in order to get it passed all kinds of exceptions were made for various groups to get the votes necessary. A group given an exemption is much more likely to vote to keep that exemption in the future. That's dependency on the party that gave them that exemption. There are all kinds of ways to build dependency but yes the poor are a major dependent group. And when the vote is needed in a close election the Democrats are loading up bus loads of poor folk and bringing them to the polls, giving them money and telling them the Republicans are going to take away their welfare. Votes from groups dependent on gov't generosity, Democrat generosity. You are being disingenuous if you deny that doesn't go on. As far as the national debt is concerned, how did it double under Obama?
DriveInDriveOut
Inordinately Right
Can I get a cliff notes version of these two guys' conversation? You two are perfect for each other.
newfie
Well-Known Member
presidency
both houses of congress
majority of governships
resounding majority of state legislatures
all a rejection of Obama and the liberal left
that is a resounding populist uprising
DriveInDriveOut
Inordinately Right
Barely won them. Resounding split of public opinion.
Catatonic
Nine Lives
It would appear that way on the surface.
Much of this support is conditional and Trump appears to be eroding that conditional support.
newfie
Well-Known Member
he has 4 years despite the desires to grade him prematurely
DriveInDriveOut
Inordinately Right
He made a lot of promises about his first 100 days. He himself set the deadline for grading.
Catatonic
Nine Lives
Pay attention ... it was grabbing!
DriveInDriveOut
Inordinately Right
refineryworker05
Well-Known Member
Again, either you are there for all Americans....." given to those who didn't achieve" is a bs perspective that makes no sense.
What does that even mean?
How would the government over ride the concerns of the well to do to help the economically poor and take all their money and give it to the poor?
Plus? How do you determine who deserves and who doesn't? This is where conservatives lie to me about this stuff.
This kind of belief system justifies believing the very worst about various groups of Americans to say they don't deserve help and it justifies lying about how much spending actually goes to those Americans.
The biggest reason it is a lie because the poor only consume less than 4% of federal spending in programs that many describe as "welfare", so why are conservatives so invested in that part of the budget if they are concerned about spending or the government taking their money and giving to those who didn't achieve?
Why is there so much anger at that spending so much judgment about that spending given how paltry it is relative to the federal budget?
Plus given how little political power and influence the poor have within our society it is even more nonsensical to believe that they are going to force the government to take all the money from everyone else and give it to them. It is a bs illogical dishonest point.
Food stamps are 1.7% of federal spending Housing section 8 vouchers are 1.1% of federal spending, tanf/welfare is .40% of federal spending, WIC is .16% of federal spending.
Yet those programs inspire the most anger. This anger makes no sense and is illogical.
So yes that perspective that oh I just want to protect my money and make sure it doesn't go to the underserving is bs and is dishonest.
They just don't want certain other Americans to be helped and yes that is bigotry but they don't want to discuss what's really driving their anger or concern about certain spending.
refineryworker05
Well-Known Member
What you post about the ACA and dependency makes no sense.
What you posted about poor people and voting makes no sense given that poor people vote the least of any group, pay attention to politicians the least of any group, and have the least actual influence over policy and also given the fact that helping certain groups of poor Americans greatly angers and upsets a lot of bigots who don't want them to be helped and who blame the Democratic party and vote against the Democratic party for that reason. These are all objective facts.
And if poor people were so dependent on the government that they believed their way of life depended on it, they should be the most engaged voters, the most active voters, the most passionate voters, the most frequent voters and the most influential voters, but in the real world the exact opposite is true.
In fact, the most influential voters are the wealthy and the old, the most passionate voters that hard to say, but the most frequent voters are the wealthy and the old. The most engaged voters are again the wealthy and the old.
Those two groups behave like they believe their way of life depends on the government and both groups greatly depend on the government.
So what is true that in order to justify bigoted beliefs towards poor people, conservatives portray them as this huge voting block of immoral, lazy, criminal takers that the Democratic party uses illegally to swing elections to take hardworking Americans money. lol
This is fiction and prejudice.
So yeah, you have nothing to offer on this subject but the same conservative boiler plate of prejudice and dishonesty. I am done with this topic.
newfie
Well-Known Member
thank god you're done with this long winded snowflake hissy fit. I hope you and your snowflake contingent keep believing racism is the reason for the resounding republican domination at all levels of government.
You beat me to it, but pretty much racism seems to be the cornerstone of his world view. He knows better, not going to pull the wool over his eyes. He's apparently on to the secret meetings. And they don't just let anyone in. You've got to know the secret handshake. Takes years to perfect.
newfie
Well-Known Member
I would not call it a world view. its the view of some disconnected liberals who did not learn anything from the last election. As long as they continue to suppress some soul searching on the liberal side they will continue to deny reality and continue to repeat their stupidity.
You're the one that extrapolates nothing much into everything. Try to think in broader strokes. The ACA is nothing more than an attempt to take healthcare out of the private sector and into gov't control. It's 20% of the economy, control it and eventually the gov't would be an European style Socialist model. How to control it? Make it impossible for health insurers to remain profitable. When they all fall out the gov't will be the last entity standing, the single payer. And as premiums had to rise for insurers to remain solvent, so to will taxes rise to pay for everything. To get there the Democrats made concessions to various groups because they knew the endgame was more important than whatever breaks they gave now. As for votes, those dependent on the ACA, the POOR, are going to vote Democrat if they want to keep their subsidies. I hate to tell you this, but there are a lot more poor than wealthy in this country. Again, you don't have to be impoverished to be poor. To say most of the voters are wealthy is wishful thinking at best. If the wealthy are primarily Republican, as is widely touted, how did the Democrats win the popular vote? Hate to tell you, but it was pro union Democrats in the Rust Belt that put Donald Trump in the White House. Are they part of the racists, etc that want to keep "certain groups" down?
True. Seems to be a character flaw to blame others for every election loss. I wonder which outside force will be the culprit behind the next election loss?
By the way, the economy under Clinton turned around after Republicans took over Congress in '94. Clinton sensed the mood of the country, and appropriated conservative issues as his own in '96 to get reelected. Brought in a Republican strategist, Dick Morris, who advised him to go center-right if he hoped to get reelected. By your estimation Clinton must not have cared about liberal issues if you use the same logic you apply to Republicans.
