How to stick it to the poor: A Republican strategy

[FA_Q2]

A mile high blazing example of Republican obstruction was provided just two months ago. The government shutdown. The GOP refusing to pass a budget that did not defund ObamaCare. But the GOP paid a heavy price in the polls for that monumental fuckup.

Lucky for them, Obama's big "you can keep your plan" lie blew up not long after. Most partisans have the memory capacity like that of a goldfish, and so the GOP shutdown thing has already been forgotten and Obama's lie is now front and center.

And the reason that relying on the ACA issues to sail them through the next election is a bad idea but you will not see a single republican here acknowledge that reality. It is sad to see them consistently loose for such obvious reasons and not learn.

 

[FA_Q2]

Since no budget had been passed, there is no such thing as "defunding" Obamacare, there is only funding, and nothing is funded until it is funded by a Constitutionally enacted budget. Members of prior congresses don't get to vote on the current budget. Also, people seem to be grasping pretty clearly why Republicans were fighting funding for Obamacare.

Irrelevant. The original supposition was that shutting down the government over Obamacare funding slammed the republicans pretty hard in public support and that is NOT disputable. That is cold hard fact. You might agree with the premise of what they were doing but you cannot claim that the country was behind them – that is why they buckled anyway. They realized the position they had taken was a losing one.

It is also rather funny that the funding aspect was NOT really in question as the program is SELF FUNDED. IOW, it never needed congress to fund it anyway that year and is one of the reasons that the program went online even when the government was shut down. The entire debacle was inane as the dems were never going to go along with it. As you said, they DID have the right to not fund it but the fact is that the senate and the president were obviously going to block such legislation and stomping your feet because you couldn’t get the defunding bill passed did nothing but damage the republicans. The dems could have held out indefinitely – they were winning the public opinion over it.

 

[FA_Q2]

Washington Post:

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) currently costs about $80 billion per year and provides food aid to 14 percent of all U.S. households — some 47 million people. Those numbers swelled dramatically during the recession.

But the food-stamp program is now set to downsize in the weeks ahead. There's a big automatic cut scheduled for Nov. 1, as a temporary boost from the 2009 stimulus bill expires. That change will trim about $5 billion from federal food-stamp spending over the coming year.

Food stamps will get cut by $5 billion this week - and more cuts could follow

The number one problem with ‘stimulus.’ It is never stimulus after the fact – it is now the new norm and when you do away with it all those attached at the tit go insane.


It matters less when the economy grows to take over but in this case it has not and more is not going to make it so.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Since no budget had been passed, there is no such thing as "defunding" Obamacare, there is only funding, and nothing is funded until it is funded by a Constitutionally enacted budget. Members of prior congresses don't get to vote on the current budget. Also, people seem to be grasping pretty clearly why Republicans were fighting funding for Obamacare.

Irrelevant. The original supposition was that shutting down the government over Obamacare funding slammed the republicans pretty hard in public support and that is NOT disputable. That is cold hard fact. You might agree with the premise of what they were doing but you cannot claim that the country was behind them – that is why they buckled anyway. They realized the position they had taken was a losing one.

It is also rather funny that the funding aspect was NOT really in question as the program is SELF FUNDED. IOW, it never needed congress to fund it anyway that year and is one of the reasons that the program went online even when the government was shut down. The entire debacle was inane as the dems were never going to go along with it. As you said, they DID have the right to not fund it but the fact is that the senate and the president were obviously going to block such legislation and stomping your feet because you couldn’t get the defunding bill passed did nothing but damage the republicans. The dems could have held out indefinitely – they were winning the public opinion over it.

Firstly, the negative public opinion of Republicans were driven by their past attempts to defund what was previously and erroneously deemed a functional and sound law. Second, the Republican warnings were prophetic, they didn't care about public opinion then. They were proven right over and over and over after the law came into effect. Public opinion polls are now beginning to show that.

For me, this is the proverbial Phoenix rising from the ashes, what was then an indefensible position has become a position of strength. When a website and a law fail to function properly after nearly two and a half months in existence, I'd say such a situation vindicates the Republicans. I admire people who go to any lengths to warn and protect others from the inherent chaos laws such as Obamacare would inflict on the American people.

 

[sfcalifornia]

No doubt about that.






How to stick it to the poor: A congressional strategy

The 113th Congress has stuck it to the poor at pretty much every opportunity. In fact, if you take all their past and future plans into account, it looks like they have accomplished that rare feat: To close in on enacting an overarching, radical agenda without control of the Senate or the presidency. How did they do it? Probably by escaping scrutiny through a piecemeal approach to legislation, a president who is willing to meet them halfway, and one diabolic word: Sequester

You do know that Republicans control only one-third of the federal government. Not much can be done without Senate and/or Presidential approval.

But hey!! Don't let mere facts stand in the way of your delusions.

Like that means anything more than jack-shit.

The Republicans control the 1% and that's worth a shit ******* ton of money and you and I both know it's money which runs this country.

_________________________________________________________________

Preacherlike, the president draws the crowd into a call-and-response. "Do you think the millionaire ought to pay more in taxes than the bus driver," he demands, "or less?"

The crowd, sounding every bit like the protesters from Occupy Wall Street, roars back: "MORE!"

The year was 1985. The president was Ronald Wilson Reagan.

Today's Republican Party may revere Reagan as the patron saint of low taxation. But the party of Reagan – which understood that higher taxes on the rich are sometimes required to cure ruinous deficits – is dead and gone. Instead, the modern GOP has undergone a radical transformation, reorganizing itself around a grotesque proposition: that the wealthy should grow wealthier still, whatever the consequences for the rest of us.

Modern-day Republicans have become, quite simply, the Party of the One Percent – the Party of the Rich.

"The Republican Party has totally abdicated its job in our democracy, which is to act as the guardian of fiscal discipline and responsibility," says David Stockman, who served as budget director under Reagan. "They're on an anti-tax jihad – one that benefits the prosperous classes."



Read more: How the GOP Became the Party of the Rich | Politics News | Rolling Stone

 

[FA_Q2]

Since no budget had been passed, there is no such thing as "defunding" Obamacare, there is only funding, and nothing is funded until it is funded by a Constitutionally enacted budget. Members of prior congresses don't get to vote on the current budget. Also, people seem to be grasping pretty clearly why Republicans were fighting funding for Obamacare.

Irrelevant. The original supposition was that shutting down the government over Obamacare funding slammed the republicans pretty hard in public support and that is NOT disputable. That is cold hard fact. You might agree with the premise of what they were doing but you cannot claim that the country was behind them – that is why they buckled anyway. They realized the position they had taken was a losing one.

It is also rather funny that the funding aspect was NOT really in question as the program is SELF FUNDED. IOW, it never needed congress to fund it anyway that year and is one of the reasons that the program went online even when the government was shut down. The entire debacle was inane as the dems were never going to go along with it. As you said, they DID have the right to not fund it but the fact is that the senate and the president were obviously going to block such legislation and stomping your feet because you couldn’t get the defunding bill passed did nothing but damage the republicans. The dems could have held out indefinitely – they were winning the public opinion over it.

Firstly, the negative public opinion of Republicans were driven by their past attempts to defund what was previously and erroneously deemed a functional and sound law. Second, the Republican warnings were prophetic, they didn't care about public opinion then. They were proven right over and over and over after the law came into effect. Public opinion polls are now beginning to show that.

For me, this is the proverbial Phoenix rising from the ashes, what was then an indefensible position has become a position of strength. When a website and a law fail to function properly after nearly two and a half months in existence, I'd say such a situation vindicates the Republicans. I admire people who go to any lengths to warn and protect others from the inherent chaos laws such as Obamacare would inflict on the American people.

Except they didn’t ‘go to any lengths to warn’ us about Obamacare. Instead they played a political game aimed at, well, gaining support. Simple as that. The fact that they buckled like a house of cards shows very well that they were not going to go to any length. Further, they knew what the outcome would be before getting into it. They knew damn well that the dems would not allow those bills to pass. They tried anyway not to warn people (they were doing that anyway) but rather as political brinksmanship. That failed miserably. Had they not shut down the government they would be in an even stronger position now never having taken the blows over the shutdown and STILL able to point the finger at a failed Obamacare.

How does the shutdown fortify the republican position? I don’t think there is a valid answer to that. If the 40 votes to overturn the law was not enough to outline their objections the shutdown is not going to do it either.

 

[Claudette]

Exactly. Meanwhile people are suffering.

Yeah. The taxpayers who are forced to support them.

Yes the people who are going to owe the fine, but get no subsidies, no insurance and no SS that they paid in back are being supported by the taxpayer.

How do you function in real life with your head up your ass? I mean you must walk into a lot of walls and stuff right?

I'll ask you the same question. How do you function with your head up your ass?

Idiots like you use the poor like a bludgeon. You feel it should be everyones duty to take care of the poor.

Got news for ya. I could give **** one about the poor. If the poor don't want to be poor the ball is in their court.

I just hate like hell to be forced to pay for their lives.

If thats your cup of tea then super. Whip out your wallet and your checkbook and YOU take care of them. Believe me. They will take every dime you want to give them and more. Oh and don't expect a big thank you because after all, its their due. They are poor.

 

[Claudette]

That is a shame.

The "poor" has a Constitutional right to be fed and insured by the Taxpayers and producers.

Our Gangsta government has the duty and responsibility to steal loot and plunder in order protect the poor, who tend to vote early and often.

.

.

Yup. What a ******* shame. The POOR might have to get of their asses and, oh God, take care of themselves.

I can honestly say I could give **** one about the poor.

I find it hard to fathom why some folks on this board have made it their mission to try to get everyone to pity the poor.

I have very little pity for people who suck of the social system as a matter of course. People who expect others to provide for them.

If you want to better yourself, and loads of the poor don't want that, then get off your ass and make it happen.

It's obvious that "death to the poor" is your mantra in life. Freaking elitist you are! You obviously have yours and **** the rest.

Reality check: Most of the population on earth are poor. But you don't give a damn about those people, no excuse for that you say. Jesus himself had pity for the poor, He made it His mission to help them. He provided for them. It is written that Jesus did not discriminate, nor did he judge the poor with qualification standards. Now, as for the monetary rich... Jesus did frown on that I hear.

Elitist my ass pal.

I've worked my ass off for everything I have. I've worked two and sometimes three jobs.

I'm sick and tired of idiots like you using the poor like a bludgeon. If someone doesn't believe in being taxed to support freeloaders then they are heartless.

If the poor don't want to be poor then they need to get off their asses and make it happen. The ball has always been in their court and its up to them.

I'll tell you just like Polifucks. If helping the poor is your cup of tea then have at it. If it makes you proud and oh so elite. Have at it.

Whip out YOUR wallet and checkbook and you take care of them. Believe me they will take every dime you want to give them and more. Oh and don't expect a big thank you because, hey, they are poor and its their due.

At least according to bleeding hearts like you. Idiot.

 

[kidrocks]

Yup. What a ******* shame. The POOR might have to get of their asses and, oh God, take care of themselves.

I can honestly say I could give **** one about the poor.

I find it hard to fathom why some folks on this board have made it their mission to try to get everyone to pity the poor.

I have very little pity for people who suck of the social system as a matter of course. People who expect others to provide for them.

If you want to better yourself, and loads of the poor don't want that, then get off your ass and make it happen.

It's obvious that "death to the poor" is your mantra in life. Freaking elitist you are! You obviously have yours and **** the rest.

Reality check: Most of the population on earth are poor. But you don't give a damn about those people, no excuse for that you say. Jesus himself had pity for the poor, He made it His mission to help them. He provided for them. It is written that Jesus did not discriminate, nor did he judge the poor with qualification standards. Now, as for the monetary rich... Jesus did frown on that I hear.

Elitist my ass pal.

I've worked my ass off for everything I have. I've worked two and sometimes three jobs.

I'm sick and tired of idiots like you using the poor like a bludgeon. If someone doesn't believe in being taxed to support freeloaders then they are heartless.

If the poor don't want to be poor then they need to get off their asses and make it happen. The ball has always been in their court and its up to them.

I'll tell you just like Polifucks. If helping the poor is your cup of tea then have at it. If it makes you proud and oh so elite. Have at it.

Whip out YOUR wallet and checkbook and you take care of them. Believe me they will take every dime you want to give them and more. Oh and don't expect a big thank you because, hey, they are poor and its their due.

At least according to bleeding hearts like you. Idiot.

You're not only an elitist but I'll bet the farm you are a freaking racist to boot.

 

[Contumacious]

That is a shame.

The "poor" has a Constitutional right to be fed and insured by the Taxpayers and producers.

Our Gangsta government has the duty and responsibility to steal loot and plunder in order protect the poor, who tend to vote early and often.

.

.

Yup. What a ******* shame. The POOR might have to get of their asses and, oh God, take care of themselves.

I can honestly say I could give **** one about the poor.

I find it hard to fathom why some folks on this board have made it their mission to try to get everyone to pity the poor.

I have very little pity for people who suck of the social system as a matter of course. People who expect others to provide for them.

If you want to better yourself, and loads of the poor don't want that, then get off your ass and make it happen.

It's obvious that "death to the poor" is your mantra in life. Freaking elitist you are! You obviously have yours and **** the rest.

Reality check: Most of the population on earth are poor. .

As are the majority of US voters, since they constitute the majority they control the democrats and those Republicans who are members of the Surrender caucus.

So there, you ***** won.

.

 

[whitehall]

Democrats had it figured out as far back as FDR. LBJ uped the anti by creating the ironically named "war on poverty" which confiscated trillions from useful citizens in the last fifty years and transferred the wealth to people who were encouraged to depend on Uncle Sam. Really lefties, how can you defend LBJ's "great society"? Black girls had the same out of wedlock birth rate as white girls before LBJ decided that Uncle Sam would be the great father and Black men were absolved from responsibility for raising a family. Thank you LBJ and today about 70% of Black men do not care enough to support the babies they created.

 

[Clementine]

No doubt about that.






How to stick it to the poor: A congressional strategy

The 113th Congress has stuck it to the poor at pretty much every opportunity. In fact, if you take all their past and future plans into account, it looks like they have accomplished that rare feat: To close in on enacting an overarching, radical agenda without control of the Senate or the presidency. How did they do it? Probably by escaping scrutiny through a piecemeal approach to legislation, a president who is willing to meet them halfway, and one diabolic word: Sequester

You do know that Republicans control only one-third of the federal government. Not much can be done without Senate and/or Presidential approval.

But hey!! Don't let mere facts stand in the way of your delusions.

When I read the OP, I thought for sure it was satire. 'a president who is willing to meet them halfway' was downright hysterical. I've always said that if there were only one Republican in all of Washington, he/she would still get blamed for everything. And they make it sound like all those Dem congress critters and the president are so stupid that they know nothing about what goes on in Washington. Maybe that part is actually true.

 

[Politico]

Yeah. The taxpayers who are forced to support them.

Yes the people who are going to owe the fine, but get no subsidies, no insurance and no SS that they paid in back are being supported by the taxpayer.

How do you function in real life with your head up your ass? I mean you must walk into a lot of walls and stuff right?

I'll ask you the same question. How do you function with your head up your ass?

Idiots like you use the poor like a bludgeon. You feel it should be everyones duty to take care of the poor.

Got news for ya. I could give **** one about the poor. If the poor don't want to be poor the ball is in their court.

I just hate like hell to be forced to pay for their lives.

If thats your cup of tea then super. Whip out your wallet and your checkbook and YOU take care of them. Believe me. They will take every dime you want to give them and more. Oh and don't expect a big thank you because after all, its their due. They are poor.

I said no such thing. You obviously have some kind of brain damage.