Tea Party/GOP Jobs Plan: Starve "children, vets with disabilities and seniors"

[rdean]

Not only are they against millions of Americans having health care, but since 85% of those receiving food stamps are children, those with disabilities including veterans and seniors, I'm guessing this is the GOP/Tea party jobs plan. What else could it be?

Ten giant U.S. companies avoiding income taxes

 

[Sawbriars]

Not only are they against millions of Americans having health care, but since 85% of those receiving food stamps are children, those with disabilities including veterans and seniors, I'm guessing this is the GOP/Tea party jobs plan. What else could it be?

Ten giant U.S. companies avoiding income taxes

What the poor, the unemployed, the seniors and the Vets are up against in reality is the Elitist's. Elitism exists in both parties...but it takes a different form in each party.

Democratic Party Elitism takes the form of 'Paternalism" and it is the dominant force in the Democratic party and it is primarily concerned with a certain minority(African Americans)these Democratic Party Elitists have a erroneous conception that they represent a higher calling or morality....which in essence is the belief in Black Victimhood and how it is their mission/duty to correct that by protecting and promoting the interests of the so called African/American victims.

When the White Working Class began to understand what had happened to the Democratic Party(which at one time supported the White Working Class) they fled to the Republican party because they had no where else to go.

The Republican gave them a little lip service and Reagan being a charming and most likeable fellow it thus seemed to these White Working Folk they had found a good home...nothing could be farther from the truth.

The Elitists control the Republican Party just like they control the Democratic Party...but the Elitists in the Republican Party are primarily concerned with the interests of the wealthy.

Bottom Line and in a nutshell...the White Working Class, the seniors and the Vets do not have much representation....lots of taxation but very little representation. War is being waged on the White Working Class....their religion(Christianity) they cultural values and their economic well being.

 

[rdean]

After throwing 4 million children, veterans with disabilities and seniors off food stamps, Republicans finally have two messages:
.
Oh Healthcare - "Let him die"
.
On Children, vets and seniors - "Let them starve".
.
Yes, their campaign slogans are shaping up rather nicely in preparation for the next election. Hope it's a "landslide".

 

[rdean]

Not only are they against millions of Americans having health care, but since 85% of those receiving food stamps are children, those with disabilities including veterans and seniors, I'm guessing this is the GOP/Tea party jobs plan. What else could it be?

Ten giant U.S. companies avoiding income taxes

What the poor, the unemployed, the seniors and the Vets are up against in reality is the Elitist's. Elitism exists in both parties...but it takes a different form in each party.

Democratic Party Elitism takes the form of 'Paternalism" and it is the dominant force in the Democratic party and it is primarily concerned with a certain minority(African Americans)these Democratic Party Elitists have a erroneous conception that they represent a higher calling or morality....which in essence is the belief in Black Victimhood and how it is their mission/duty to correct that by protecting and promoting the interests of the so called African/American victims.

When the White Working Class began to understand what had happened to the Democratic Party(which at one time supported the White Working Class) they fled to the Republican party because they had no where else to go.

The Republican gave them a little lip service and Reagan being a charming and most likeable fellow it thus seemed to these White Working Folk they had found a good home...nothing could be farther from the truth.

The Elitists control the Republican Party just like they control the Democratic Party...but the Elitists in the Republican Party are primarily concerned with the interests of the wealthy.

Bottom Line and in a nutshell...the White Working Class, the seniors and the Vets do not have much representation....lots of taxation but very little representation. War is being waged on the White Working Class....their religion(Christianity) they cultural values and their economic well being.

How long did it take to think up all that bullshit?

Southern Whites left the Democratic Party because the blacks joined They swelled the ranks of the GOP which is why it's 90% white today. You write as if the only Good Working "Folk" were white. And this attack on blacks that they are victims so they can pretend to a "higher calling" is outrageous.

And as far as "elites". Right wingers say that because they really do hate smart people.

And the idea that the entire Democratic Party is only about blacks is so fucking stupid. It's a coalition party. If anyone is focused on blacks, it's right wing Republicans. You only have to look at the endless anti black threads on this very board by disgusting USMB white wingers.

 

[Sawbriars]

Paternalism? What is it? How does it effect those to whom it is directed? Let's examine.
Paternalism is defined on Dictionary.com as: "the system, principle, or practice of managing or governing individuals, businesses, nations, etc., in the manner of a father dealing benevolently and often intrusively with his children." I think that sums it up quite well.

Are Black people "children?" Democrats seem to treat them as such. Paternalism is exactly how Black society is forwarded by Democrats - too unsophisticated to take care of itself but for Democrat micromanagement of their affairs, as if "their affairs" are any more in need of management than are the affairs of non-Blacks. But then again, progressivism is all about micromanagement.

Doesn't it seem racially charged to even consider a race as needing the self-appointed Democrat watchdog deal? Black society has suffered horribly since the Civil Rights Act, and that IS NOT an argument against the act, but merely a recitation and acceptance of the empirical facts of the matter.

After nearly 50 years of Black society being told they can't make it without Democrat help, what do we see? An explosion of teenage and unwed pregnancies. The percentage of Black males in the justice system is higher than ever before the Democrats "rescued" them. Unemployment in the Black community outpaces that of the average of the nation. And what of Black dropout rates? I'll bet they are nearly as high, if not higher, than before Democrats began to champion their cause. If that's positive advocacy, personally I would want none of it!

This is what more than $11 Trillion dollars just handed to people has wrought. Democrats, to keep Blacks as a solid base of voters, have sold them on the concept that they deserve all they get, but have any of those dollars actually lifted anyone? Any person of any race who is handed everything will not do the necessary self examination as to why they are where they are in life.

Instead of actually improving the condition of Black society, what do we see? Democrats telling Blacks nothing is their fault. Nope, if their condition is not to their liking, well clearly that's the result of white people, so say Democrats who are using Black society with their paternalism. Ask yourself this: Who has benefited most by all this?

Have Blacks been "lifted" really? Or is it the Democrat Party who benefits from the almost sycophant adherence to Democrat Party politics? 40 million Black Americans can be largely counted upon to vote in lockstep with Democrats, and that is a real motivation for Democrats to continue on in this vein. Eleven Trillion is a lot of money for sure. One would think that kind of money would improve things IF MONEY WERE THE ANSWER. Clearly money is not the answer. Isn't this glaringly obvious to anyone with a brain?

Black society is not a sandbox for Democrats to play in, but that's how they treat it. It is a well of anger they drink from when they believe there is political mileage to be made to further their power. Just look at how every disagreement with Obama is characterized as racially motivated. Obama drops like a rock in the polls and that means racism? Gee, where were all the racists when Obama was elected? Where were the racists who hate Obama from the get go? His personal likability is still rather high, so it does not seem racist.

Carter was disliked as a politician, but that wasn't racism, right? But dislike a black guy's policies and surely that's racism? BS! Black society is the victim of this game of partisan politics. Democrat paternalism is the culprit here. Isn't the evidence blatantly obvious?

by......Snidely Whiplash, Yahoo Contributor Network

 

[Sawbriars]

What has the democratic party done for the blacks?



http://clashdaily.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/947042_395079323942185_486791012_n.jpg

 

[Dot Com]

After throwing 4 million children, veterans with disabilities and seniors off food stamps, Republicans finally have two messages:
.
Oh Healthcare - "Let him die"
.
On Children, vets and seniors - "Let them starve".
.
Yes, their campaign slogans are shaping up rather nicely in preparation for the next election. Hope it's a "landslide".

that about sums it up

 

[Sawbriars]

Why do poor white voters and Working Class White voters reject the Democrats? Well, why shouldn't they?

The white working class is said to 'vote against its own interests'. This only exposes the patronising assumptions of their accusers

Here is a group of people, it seems, who simply do not understand what's good for them. Whites without college degrees, as reasonable if flawed an indicator of "class" in this country as exists, backed John McCain by 58 to 40 in 2008 and George W Bush in 2004 and 2000 by similar amounts. Failing to sense the liberation the Democrats had in store for them, they have been seized by a collective bout of false consciousness and are once again set to vote against their own interests. Having thus infantilised them as ostensible adults in need of protection against themselves, progressives will then wonder why this particular group of people do not flock to them at the polls.

There are several problems with this response – not least the condescension towards a group that too many liberals feel too comfortable disparaging – but for now let's just concentrate on two.

First, it interprets interests too narrowly. As a well-paid journalist, I vote against my economic interests when I support parties that favour wealth redistribution. That's because my own economic interests are not the only things that interest me when I vote. I have a vision of a society that I'd like to live in that goes beyond my own bank account.

It's patronising in the extreme to assume that poorer white people don't understand that. I may disagree with their decisions to vote on issues like abortion and gay marriage, but it's a different thing entirely to suggest that when they prioritise those things it's because they don't know what's best for them. Paradoxically, given that this argument comes from liberals, it is underpinned by an insistence not that they be less selfish, but more.

Secondly, if they were voting on economic issues alone, that might be a reason not to vote Republican but it's not necessarily a reason to vote Democrat. With unemployment still about 8%, many of the benefits of healthcare reform still to kick in and bankers still running amok, it's not like Democrats are offering much that would support the economic interests of the poor, regardless of their race. It was Bill Clinton who cut welfare, introduced the North American Free Trade Agreement and repealed the Glass-Steagall Act – which helped make the recent crisis possible. If you were going to trade your religious beliefs for economic gain, you could be forgiven for demanding a better deal than that.

Indeed, the people most likely to have voted Democrat four years ago – the young, the black and Latinos – are among the groups that have fared worse under Obama. And all the polls suggest they're about to do it again, albeit in lesser numbers. One could just as easily argue that they are the dupes. Democrats have no god-given right to the votes of the poor of any race and for the past 30 years can hardly claim to have earned them.

In a country where class politics and class organisations are weak, it's too easy to dump on the white working class as a bunch of know-nothings when the problem is a political class that is a bunch of do-nothings. That doesn't mean there isn't a problem here. When asked which candidate is most likely to advance the economic interests of you or your family, white people backed Romney 50 to 37 while non-whites backed Obama 71 to 22. That kind of discrepancy cannot just be put down to white people being better off.

Since the mid-60s Republicans have seen an electoral opportunity in appealing to the basest, racist sentiments of a section of the white electorate. What became known as the "Nixon strategy" aimed to use the dog whistle of racial symbolism – like "Welfare Queens" and "Willie Horton" – to draw white southerners into the Republican fold and peel off disaffected whites in the north too. It worked. Since the second world war, Democrats have won the presidency with the white vote alone only once – in 1964. One of the appeals for some whites of voting Republican is a desire to maintain whatever limited racial privileges they have acquired over the years combined with a fear that what little they have will be taken away by feckless non-whites and undocumented migrants. While in Nevada in 2010 I asked a white Republican without health insurance why she wouldn't support a candidate who might give it to her. "I never really got into that Obamacare insurance stuff," she said. "My mind is focusing 250% on this illegal immigration."

None of this means all Republican supporters are racist. But it does suggest they make their appeal on racial grounds and, as the poll shows, it is effective. But it won't be for ever. Whites will be a minority in the US in about 30 years. Republicans' appeal to Latinos is already pitifully low and has made several western states, including Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona and Colorado, extremely competitive.

Nonetheless, time and again during the Republican primaries Republicans evoked racial themes in the whitest places. "I don't want to make black people's lives better by giving them somebody else's money," said Rick Santorum in Sioux City. "I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money."

"Right," said one audience member, as another woman nodded.

"And provide for themselves and their families," Santorum added.

The black population of Sioux City is 2.9%. In Woodbury County, in which Sioux City sits, 13% of the people are on food stamps, an increase of 26% since 2007, with nine times as many whites as blacks using them.

Just a few days later, in Plymouth, New Hampshire, Newt Gingrich said: "I will go to the NAACP convention and explain to the African-American community why they should demand paychecks [instead of] food stamps." African-Americans make up 0.8% of Plymouth's population. Food stamp use in Grafton County is 6% – a 48% increase since 2007.

Those who are struggling and believe Romney will improve their economic lot are wrong, regardless of their race. Eight years of George W Bush proved that. But it does not follow automatically from that that their home should be supporting Democrats under whom things have gotten less bad less quickly. True, those are the only two choices on offer. But if you're poor they are not great choices. What they need is a party that represents their interests. In a country where corporate money chooses the candidates and therefore shapes the debate that will demand a change in politics, not just politicians.