Why Are Republicans So Relentlessly Cruel to the Poor?

[Weatherman2020]

What's a healthy diet to you then?

Apples?
5 lbs, $4.92
https://www.walmart.com/ip/New-York-Apple-Sales-Jonagold-Apples-5-lbs/49509907

Bananas?
35 cents a pound
https://www.walmart.com/ip/Bananas-1-lb/44390948

Want to keep going?
Loaf of bread?

A healthy diet consists of protein, antioxidant rich foods, some healthy carbs, and adequate time to prepare it in a healthy manner. Bread is a shitty food.

List it out. I bet I can buy a weeks worth for less than $60, cheaper than fast food.

I dont have to. Read this and educate yourself.

http://www.scholarsstrategynetwork.org/brief/why-poverty-leads-obesity-and-life-long-problems

Poor families have limited food budgets and choices, and must often stretch supplies toward the end of the month, before another check or allocation of Food Stamps arrives. This leads to unhealthy behaviors in several ways:

• Families choose high-fat foods dense with energy – foods such as sugars, cereals, potatoes and processed meat products – because these foods are more affordable and last longer than fresh vegetables and fruits and lean meats and fish.
  
  
• Poor families often live in disadvantaged neighborhoods where healthy foods are hard to find. Instead of large supermarkets, poor neighborhoods have a disproportionate number of fast food chains and small food stores providing cheap, high-fat foods.
  
  
• Economic insecurity – such as trouble paying bills or rent – leads to stress, and people often cope by eating high-fat, sugary foods.

Options for regular physical activity can also be restricted for poor people:

• Families cannot usually afford to pay for organized children’s activities outside of school – and schools in impoverished areas are less likely to run sports or physical activity programs than schools with more resources.
  
  
• Due to inflexible work schedules, lack of transportation, or unmet needs for child care, poor parents, especially single mothers, may find it hard to support extra activities for their children. Leaving kids in front of the TV is often all stressed poor parents can manage.
  
  
• In many poor neighborhoods, parks, playgrounds, trails, and free public gyms are often not available or safe. Neighborhoods may be crime-ridden, and there may be no nearby indoor places for play or exercise. Ironically, parental efforts to keep kids safe and indoors may increase encourage sedentary behaviors such as watching TV and playing video games.

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.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Why do you suppose Americans won't do those jobs? Perhaps it's because they don't pay enough. The reason they don't pay enough because eventually some foreigner will come along and take the job.

If you think foreigners only pick fruit and wash toilets, then you have another thing coming. They are in nearly every field of work in the USA. Trust me, I'm a truck driver, and they are flooding our industry. They are on the highway driving right next to your family mini-van in a 75,000 lbs truck and can't read a Fn word of English.

He specifically said illegal immigrants. The legal immigrants that come over here are trained for the high tech jobs most americans are clueless about. I saw it alot in my field.

This is true, but to me, they are one of the same because both groups bring the same negative effect to our native born citizens.

if there were no immigrants legal or illegal tomatoes would cost $20 each, you would need to be a millionaire to eat at a restaurant or stay at a hotel, the tech industry would collapse, etc etc.

Not even close. Prices may increase, but not by all that much. Plus we would be creating better paying American jobs instead of jobs specifically for foreigners legal and illegal alike.

I'm more than happy to pay more for my lettuce, tomatoes, or beans if I know it's giving some American a job. I don't go to hotels anymore, but if I had to, it's worth an extra five or ten bucks a night to stay in a room prepared by American workers.

You keep forgetting the bottom line. Companies dont want to pay more salary unless they are owned by liberals who understand the effects. Thats why conservatives dont want the minimum wage to go up. This goes double for businesses that are publicly traded. Their sole goal in life is creating a profit for their share holders. Not employing americans.

That's exactly right. Nobody opens up a business to provide good jobs and benefits. Nobody opens up a business as a social obligation.

Some companies do share their profits with their employees either as a benefit such as profit sharing, or they pay their employees more than they actually have to. But the standard is pay your employees only what they are worth.

When a forced minimum wage takes place, that's when you have government running our businesses for the owners. That's what Republicans are actually against. It doesn't matter whether it's the government or the unions, Republicans support only business owners making business decisions.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

He specifically said illegal immigrants. The legal immigrants that come over here are trained for the high tech jobs most americans are clueless about. I saw it alot in my field.

This is true, but to me, they are one of the same because both groups bring the same negative effect to our native born citizens.

if there were no immigrants legal or illegal tomatoes would cost $20 each, you would need to be a millionaire to eat at a restaurant or stay at a hotel, the tech industry would collapse, etc etc.

Not even close. Prices may increase, but not by all that much. Plus we would be creating better paying American jobs instead of jobs specifically for foreigners legal and illegal alike.

I'm more than happy to pay more for my lettuce, tomatoes, or beans if I know it's giving some American a job. I don't go to hotels anymore, but if I had to, it's worth an extra five or ten bucks a night to stay in a room prepared by American workers.

You keep forgetting the bottom line. Companies dont want to pay more salary unless they are owned by liberals who understand the effects. Thats why conservatives dont want the minimum wage to go up. This goes double for businesses that are publicly traded. Their sole goal in life is creating a profit for their share holders. Not employing americans.

That's exactly right. Nobody opens up a business to provide good jobs and benefits. Nobody opens up a business as a social obligation.

Some companies do share their profits with their employees either as a benefit such as profit sharing, or they pay their employees more than they actually have to. But the standard is pay your employees only what they are worth.

When a forced minimum wage takes place, that's when you have government running our businesses for the owners. That's what Republicans are actually against. It doesn't matter whether it's the government or the unions, Republicans support only business owners running their business.

The government should protect the people against the powerful corporations.
I disagree about the companies paying employees what they are worth. they pay them what they can get away with. there is a massive difference.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

This is true, but to me, they are one of the same because both groups bring the same negative effect to our native born citizens.

if there were no immigrants legal or illegal tomatoes would cost $20 each, you would need to be a millionaire to eat at a restaurant or stay at a hotel, the tech industry would collapse, etc etc.

Not even close. Prices may increase, but not by all that much. Plus we would be creating better paying American jobs instead of jobs specifically for foreigners legal and illegal alike.

I'm more than happy to pay more for my lettuce, tomatoes, or beans if I know it's giving some American a job. I don't go to hotels anymore, but if I had to, it's worth an extra five or ten bucks a night to stay in a room prepared by American workers.

You keep forgetting the bottom line. Companies dont want to pay more salary unless they are owned by liberals who understand the effects. Thats why conservatives dont want the minimum wage to go up. This goes double for businesses that are publicly traded. Their sole goal in life is creating a profit for their share holders. Not employing americans.

That's exactly right. Nobody opens up a business to provide good jobs and benefits. Nobody opens up a business as a social obligation.

Some companies do share their profits with their employees either as a benefit such as profit sharing, or they pay their employees more than they actually have to. But the standard is pay your employees only what they are worth.

When a forced minimum wage takes place, that's when you have government running our businesses for the owners. That's what Republicans are actually against. It doesn't matter whether it's the government or the unions, Republicans support only business owners running their business.

The government should protect the people against the powerful corporations.
I disagree about the companies paying employees what they are worth. they pay them what they can get away with. there is a massive difference.

That's correct, they pay them whatever they can to keep them working.

The government should protect people from powerful corporations? Protect them from what? They offer jobs, and you either take the job or you don't. No need for protection from anybody.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

if there were no immigrants legal or illegal tomatoes would cost $20 each, you would need to be a millionaire to eat at a restaurant or stay at a hotel, the tech industry would collapse, etc etc.

Not even close. Prices may increase, but not by all that much. Plus we would be creating better paying American jobs instead of jobs specifically for foreigners legal and illegal alike.

I'm more than happy to pay more for my lettuce, tomatoes, or beans if I know it's giving some American a job. I don't go to hotels anymore, but if I had to, it's worth an extra five or ten bucks a night to stay in a room prepared by American workers.

You keep forgetting the bottom line. Companies dont want to pay more salary unless they are owned by liberals who understand the effects. Thats why conservatives dont want the minimum wage to go up. This goes double for businesses that are publicly traded. Their sole goal in life is creating a profit for their share holders. Not employing americans.

That's exactly right. Nobody opens up a business to provide good jobs and benefits. Nobody opens up a business as a social obligation.

Some companies do share their profits with their employees either as a benefit such as profit sharing, or they pay their employees more than they actually have to. But the standard is pay your employees only what they are worth.

When a forced minimum wage takes place, that's when you have government running our businesses for the owners. That's what Republicans are actually against. It doesn't matter whether it's the government or the unions, Republicans support only business owners running their business.

The government should protect the people against the powerful corporations.
I disagree about the companies paying employees what they are worth. they pay them what they can get away with. there is a massive difference.

That's correct, they pay them whatever they can to keep them working.

The government should protect people from powerful corporations? Protect them from what? They offer jobs, and you either take the job or you don't. No need for protection from anybody.

Thats simplistic. How can you moan about globalism and give the vested interests a free hand to do what they want.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Ridiculous. Our poor are wildly wealthy compared to much of the world. Liberals like to concoct sob stories to excite sympathy just to get more and more.

When Clinton and Newt ended welfare as we know it by making it workfare fully half decided they were no longer poor. Our poor are often too fat because we treat them too well!!

"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer."

Benjamin Franklin, On the Price of Corn and Management of the Poor, November 1766

 

[Wyatt earp]

A healthy diet consists of protein, antioxidant rich foods, some healthy carbs, and adequate time to prepare it in a healthy manner. Bread is a shitty food.

List it out. I bet I can buy a weeks worth for less than $60, cheaper than fast food.

I dont have to. Read this and educate yourself.

Why Poverty Leads to Obesity and Life-Long Problems | Scholars Strategy Network

Poor families have limited food budgets and choices, and must often stretch supplies toward the end of the month, before another check or allocation of Food Stamps arrives. This leads to unhealthy behaviors in several ways:

• Families choose high-fat foods dense with energy – foods such as sugars, cereals, potatoes and processed meat products – because these foods are more affordable and last longer than fresh vegetables and fruits and lean meats and fish.
  
  
• Poor families often live in disadvantaged neighborhoods where healthy foods are hard to find. Instead of large supermarkets, poor neighborhoods have a disproportionate number of fast food chains and small food stores providing cheap, high-fat foods.
  
  
• Economic insecurity – such as trouble paying bills or rent – leads to stress, and people often cope by eating high-fat, sugary foods.

Options for regular physical activity can also be restricted for poor people:

• Families cannot usually afford to pay for organized children’s activities outside of school – and schools in impoverished areas are less likely to run sports or physical activity programs than schools with more resources.
  
  
• Due to inflexible work schedules, lack of transportation, or unmet needs for child care, poor parents, especially single mothers, may find it hard to support extra activities for their children. Leaving kids in front of the TV is often all stressed poor parents can manage.
  
  
• In many poor neighborhoods, parks, playgrounds, trails, and free public gyms are often not available or safe. Neighborhoods may be crime-ridden, and there may be no nearby indoor places for play or exercise. Ironically, parental efforts to keep kids safe and indoors may increase encourage sedentary behaviors such as watching TV and playing video games.

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.

Exactly... I can eat on $60 bucks a week easily and not even have to cook much or make it complex...

$2.50 each at Walmart x 7 days = $17.50 and dinner for a week is done.

 

[AsianTrumpSupporter]

Why are liberals so relentlessly racist with their pecking order for minorities?

 

[ptbw forever]

Why are liberals so relentlessly racist with their pecking order for minorities?

They hate white people more.

Read some Salon articles sometime.

 

[Rob37]

Seems like I recently saw this leftist-bitch gripe from another. Must be parrot points.

 

[Markle]

Why Are Republicans So Relentlessly Cruel to the Poor?

Interesting article and much of it chimes with what we see in the UK.

It has to be coated with a thin veneer of religion to make it acceptable but in essence right wing politics is based on a selfish me me me doctrine. DISCUSS

 

[Luddly Neddite]

It's not even that they're cruel. It's that they work so hard to hurt them even worse. Read this board and see some of the most vile and vicious nastiness - it's astounding.

RWNJ traitors, who love Pooting and have the gall to say they're christian !!!, do all they can NOT to follow the teachings of Jesus. Then they come up with even more ways to keep people down.

Reason is obvious. They blame others for their own failures. RWNJs blame blacks, Hispanics, children, the poor for their own mistakes and failures.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Ridiculous. Our poor are wildly wealthy compared to much of the world. Liberals like to concoct sob stories to excite sympathy just to get more and more.

Excellent example.

Tipsycatlover has said she is a doctor and a lawyer and, amazingly, a dog washer.

IOW, she is incapable of telling the truth and has to blame others for the fact that she really is just a dog washer.




Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Markle]

Considering conservatives give more to charity and donate volunteer time 3X more than leftists it looks like once again you are chewing your own shoe.

Who’s More Generous, Liberals or Conservatives?

Who Gives More -- The Rich or The Poor?

Who's more charitable -- conservatives or liberals?

Giving Differently: Liberals and Conservatives Have Radically Different Views of Charity

Absolutely true!

This has been true for decades.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why Are Republicans So Relentlessly Cruel to the Poor?

Interesting article and much of it chimes with what we see in the UK.

It has to be coated with a thin veneer of religion to make it acceptable but in essence right wing politics is based on a selfish me me me doctrine. DISCUSS

It's what Republicans are hired to do. Their bankrollers pay them to widen the gap between rich and poor, and you see it every one of their policies.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Considering conservatives give more to charity and donate volunteer time 3X more than leftists it looks like once again you are chewing your own shoe.

Who’s More Generous, Liberals or Conservatives?

Who Gives More -- The Rich or The Poor?

Who's more charitable -- conservatives or liberals?

Giving Differently: Liberals and Conservatives Have Radically Different Views of Charity

Absolutely true!

This has been true for decades.

There is another book called "Who Really Cares" and its covered in John Stosells books too!!

 

[NYcarbineer]

Ridiculous. Our poor are wildly wealthy compared to much of the world. Liberals like to concoct sob stories to excite sympathy just to get more and more.

And the above is a classic example of that cruelty.

 

[Markle]

Why Are Republicans So Relentlessly Cruel to the Poor?

Interesting article and much of it chimes with what we see in the UK.

It has to be coated with a thin veneer of religion to make it acceptable but in essence right wing politics is based on a selfish me me me doctrine. DISCUSS

Truth is, Conservatives even give MORE BLOOD than do the faux compassionate Progressives.

From ABC 20/20

To test what types of people give more, "20/20" went to two very different parts of the country, with contrasting populations: Sioux Falls, S.D. and San Francisco, Calif. The Salvation Army set up buckets at the busiest locations in each city -- Macy's in San Francisco and Wal-Mart in Sioux Falls. Which bucket collected more money?

Sioux Falls is rural and religious; half of the population goes to church every week. People in San Francisco make much more money, are predominantly liberal, and just 14 percent of people in San Francisco attend church every week. Liberals are said to care more about helping the poor; so did people in San Francisco give more?

It turns out that this idea that liberals give more…is a myth. Of the top 25 states where people give an above average percent of their income, 24 were red states in the last presidential election.

Arthur Brooks, the author of "Who Really Cares," says that "when you look at the data, it turns out the conservatives give about 30 percent more." He adds, "And incidentally, conservative-headed families make slightly less money."

And he says the differences in giving goes beyond money, pointing out that conservatives are 18 percent more likely to donate blood. He says this difference is not about politics, but about the different way conservatives and liberals view government.

[...]

See more: Who Gives More -- The Rich or The Poor?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Ridiculous. Our poor are wildly wealthy compared to much of the world. Liberals like to concoct sob stories to excite sympathy just to get more and more.

And the above is a classic example of that cruelty.

When Clinton made welfare work fare fully half decided they were no longer poor. Do you know what lesson we learned from that?

 

[Markle]

Because there will never be enough jobs for everyone to have a high quality of life. As we speak the pool gets smaller and smaller. I agree there should be training but it costs money to train people which repubs are against.

Of what pool do you speak?