Why Are Republicans So Relentlessly Cruel to the Poor?

[Redfish]

11 million people got jobs under Obama
Three times the number that got jobs under BOTH Bush's

Sure didn't accomplish very much considering the MILLIONS of people who have dropped out of the workforce. Please don't throw up that debunked Progressive talking point regarding the baby boomers retiring. You are "forgetting" that millions come into the workforce as they reach 16 and millions enter our country by way of legal and illegal immigration.

Civilian labor force in the United States from 1990 to 2016 (in millions)

December 2008 154.29 Million

December 2016 159.19 Million

U.S. labor force 1990-2016 | Timeline


US Population by Year

July 1, 2009 306.77 Million

Mar 1, 2017 323.42 Million

US Population by Year

40 million baby boomers retiring kind of kills your theory

Can we talk about stay at home moms, the handicapped and students now?

only the mentally or physically handicapped are due government assistance. Students are students by choice. moms are moms by choice.

No shit Sherlock

We are talking about them being voluntarily out of the workforce

are people who are no longer looking for work "out of the workforce"? They must be since they are not counted as unemployed.

 

[Markle]

ONE co. out of 36 went belly up, dupe, only 200 billion was for infrastructure, it worked great. SS is in great shape, not what the GOP tells you dupes.

Yeah boy, that infrastructure was great! We here in Tallahassee got a beautiful $3.2 MILLION TURTLE TUNNEL!

About SS being in great shape.

 

[Markle]

You ever been homeless? If not, you don't know shite. They're often harassed by Republican Nazi jerkoffs.

As I thought. You've got NOTHING!

 

[Markle]

40 million baby boomers retiring kind of kills your theory

Over how many years and how much will our population grow during those years?

 

[francoHFW]

[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

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?

ACTUALLY, 10% is the overhead, 90% is what they spend on good works. You believe a giant pile of Pubcrappe, dupe. The Foundation IS THE CHARITY, rated A+. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

You are confused Moon Bat

[/QUOTE]
The Foundation IS a charity, brainwashed functional moron.

 

[francoHFW]

Actual, I have a Masters in History and you believe a pile of Pubcrappe- All they have.

for someone with a Masters you are very bad at conveying thoughts via written speech
it's because you have no thoughts all you have are the talking points that have been spoon fed to you

Nah. I can also do that in fluent French and to a lesser extent Spanish. I blame my lack of typing skill and interest. Much info in few words, yes. "a pile of Pubcrappe- All they have."

no info

all you have are the talking points you have been spoon fed

Check the sig any time- more info than you get on the GOP propaganda machine in years...

don't need to you post the same drivel over an over again anyway

like I said you have no thoughts of your own so all you do is parrot

These are FACTS I personally put together for my book, dupe. It's too bad we Libs don't have a propaganda machine to organize our propaganda for us like you dupes have- AND overwhelm the internet with our drivel so dupes believe the crap.

 

[francoHFW]

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

Processed food is fattening, unhealthy crap. Look at the packaging. Sugary crap. All you can buy in the inner city.

uh huh.

Why do you think diabetes is an epidemic, esp. in black areas? DUH.

 

[Avatar4321]

no we get our money wasted by people who we cannot vote out of office

As a UNITED States we have become the wealthiest and most powerful nation in the world.
We could not achieved that with 50 states looking out for themselves

well if all you want is power

I wouldn't care if we weren't a super power and we just minded our own business

You're ignoring history, which is why we have these laws and policies, Mr. Engineering Whiz/political ignoramus. See sig, last line.

Why is it when we argue for upholding to the constitution you say we are backwards outdated [insert insult here] but you argue for unconstitutional laws and bloated bureaucracies and we are the ones that are ignoring history.

It's precisely because we understand history that we argue for the constitution

In dupe world...In reality, Dems cut gov't and help people while the GOP is an incompetent kleptocracy. Barack Obama has shrunk the US federal workforce more than Ronald Reagan

How do you pass the biggest "entitlement" program in a generation and claim to shrink the government? It defies common sense.

Which department shrank under Obama? It wasn't HHS. EPA, state department, IRS, etc. Which one was cut enough to counteract the rate of growth?

Can you name an area where Democrats what the federal government to regulate less? Because I can't

 

[francoHFW]

It's been working for a hundred years in Canada, Scandinavia, Oz, NZ, etc etc

NONE of those countries have Socialism.

Venezuela has Socialism.

Do you even know the definition of Socialism?

Always democratic, fair capitalism, with a good safety net. Venezuela is 3rd word socialism with a collapsed oil based economy. "We're all socialists now!"- Finland PM when ACA passed.

As a RW dupe/ignoramus, you can't separate it from communism and failure. Socialism is the final solution. NOT COMMUNISM, dickhead. lol

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

I we oppress the Poor ....

 

[francoHFW]

As a UNITED States we have become the wealthiest and most powerful nation in the world.
We could not achieved that with 50 states looking out for themselves

well if all you want is power

I wouldn't care if we weren't a super power and we just minded our own business

You're ignoring history, which is why we have these laws and policies, Mr. Engineering Whiz/political ignoramus. See sig, last line.

Why is it when we argue for upholding to the constitution you say we are backwards outdated [insert insult here] but you argue for unconstitutional laws and bloated bureaucracies and we are the ones that are ignoring history.

It's precisely because we understand history that we argue for the constitution

In dupe world...In reality, Dems cut gov't and help people while the GOP is an incompetent kleptocracy. Barack Obama has shrunk the US federal workforce more than Ronald Reagan

How do you pass the biggest "entitlement" program in a generation and claim to shrink the government? It defies common sense.

Which department shrank under Obama? It wasn't HHS. EPA, state department, IRS, etc. Which one was cut enough to counteract the rate of growth?

Can you name an area where Democrats what the federal government to regulate less? Because I can't

Good Dem regulation is great. ACA didn't add gov't, just regulation- setting up competition and giving poor workers Medicaid. Dupe. Everything you know is crap RW propaganda.

 

[Avatar4321]

well if all you want is power

I wouldn't care if we weren't a super power and we just minded our own business

You're ignoring history, which is why we have these laws and policies, Mr. Engineering Whiz/political ignoramus. See sig, last line.

Why is it when we argue for upholding to the constitution you say we are backwards outdated [insert insult here] but you argue for unconstitutional laws and bloated bureaucracies and we are the ones that are ignoring history.

It's precisely because we understand history that we argue for the constitution

In dupe world...In reality, Dems cut gov't and help people while the GOP is an incompetent kleptocracy. Barack Obama has shrunk the US federal workforce more than Ronald Reagan

How do you pass the biggest "entitlement" program in a generation and claim to shrink the government? It defies common sense.

Which department shrank under Obama? It wasn't HHS. EPA, state department, IRS, etc. Which one was cut enough to counteract the rate of growth?

Can you name an area where Democrats what the federal government to regulate less? Because I can't

Good Dem regulation is great. ACA didn't add gov't, just regulation- setting up competition and giving poor workers Medicaid. Dupe. Everything you know is crap RW propaganda.

Regulation is more government. A thousand pages of regulation plus the hiring of thousands of people for enforcement of regulation.

Not to mention you now have government intruding in our health care. I thought our bodies were out of tough of government.

Please tell me how you add hundreds of thousands of new regulations and shrink the size of government.

 

[Cecilie1200]

To answer the question in the OP, it's because conservatives are selfish pieces of shit,.

but they give more to charity than liberals??

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%.

How do you know that? Are you a member of the church or did you just grab that 1% out of your ass?

Because I worked the numbers. That's what the predominant religion in my area contributes. Maybe some religions are more generous - but I doubt it's by much.

May I just say, for someone who claims to be an accountant, you are remarkably stupid when it comes to financial issues - particularly those in your own purported field - and the way the world works in general? If you really believe that churches work by "contributing money back to actual charities" . . . just, wow.

Here's a little primer on the way REAL churches work, courtesy of the preacher's daughter. You're welcome.

1) Churches are classified as tax-exempt charitable organizations. That is why donations to them are tax-deductible: because they are, themselves, "actual charities", just as much as Goodwill or the Red Cross or the Pediatric AIDS Foundation are.

2) What this means is that, while they may or may not contribute assistance to other charities, they typically engage in and administer charitable behavior directly. For example, the Catholic Church - the best-known of the Christian denominations - operates soup kitchens, homeless shelters and aid for the indigent, drug rehabilitation centers, food distribution centers, orphanages and care facilities for foster children, nursing homes and adult day care centers, medical clinics and hospitals, domestic violence shelters . . . and that's just off the top of my head. When the government runs out of assistance programs to offer you, they give you a big list of private charities in your area, and guaranteed, at least half of them will be under the auspices of the Catholic Church.

3) In order to maintain its tax-exempt status, a church must spend a substantial percentage of its income on its not-for-profit activities (hint: that percentage is NOT 1%). There are limits to how much money an individual church can keep on hand, and whole reams of tax regulations governing how that is handled.

4) If a church engages in a for-profit activity - for example, renting out a house or building it owns to tenants - then that income can be taxed, and separate records need to be kept for that purpose. Again, there are whole reams of regulations regarding how this is handled.

I can go on if you need me to, but absolutely none of this is a secret, or even particularly hard to find out, unless one has a serious hate-on toward churches and works at remaining ignorant of the functions they perform in their communities. And I would have to suggest that such a person would definitely not be the best person for a church to turn to for financial and accounting services.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I'd like a link too just one article referencing "Poor man locked up for being poor".

Just one.

Obviously, y'all use other terminology in justifying abusing our poor homeless. But the bottom line is, y'all arrest and imprison them for merely being poor. Most aren't hurting anyone. Yet y'all feel a need to harass them. It's a Nazi-like bully mentality.

Here is what happens if you just let them linger on the streets. Would you want your downtown to look like this?

Help them, don't arrest and imprison them. Don't make them criminals, when they're not. That's certainly not helping them. It isn't right to just arrest and lock them all away in cages. If we are truly a kind just nation, we can't 'Disappear' them. That's pure evil.

They're not being arrested. That's the point. This is what it looks like when you don't remove them from an area. It turns into a shit hole, businesses pack up and leave, people fear walking down the street, it's just a damn shame.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Criminalizing being poor has been done all throughout history.

not in USA we bail them out at a cost of $trillions and they never have to pay back a penny!!

"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

Way to justify being cruel to the least fortunate among us. You sound like an average 'Good Christian' Republican wanker. Jesus is not proud of you my friend.

And when did Jesus put you in charge of making those calls for him????

Y'all 'Good American'/Good Christian' Republicans really should go back and read Jesus' teachings again. You clearly didn't get it. Till you get right with Jesus again, you're just gonna be frauds playing the role of the 'Good American/Good Christian.'

For most of my childhood, I was raised in an all Catholic school. I was even an alter boy.

Jesus never taught that government should forcefully take from people to give to anybody. Jesus taught that you should give of yourself through your own free will. According to Jesus, charity is an individual thing--not a government thing. Jesus didn't get along with the government very well back in his time.

Taking a persons property against their will is called theft, and theft is in God's top ten no-no's in life. Stealing property from people is just wrong no matter what you use the seized property for.

 

[JoeNormal]

To answer the question in the OP, it's because conservatives are selfish pieces of shit,.

but they give more to charity than liberals??

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%.

How do you know that? Are you a member of the church or did you just grab that 1% out of your ass?

Because I worked the numbers. That's what the predominant religion in my area contributes. Maybe some religions are more generous - but I doubt it's by much.

May I just say, for someone who claims to be an accountant, you are remarkably stupid when it comes to financial issues - particularly those in your own purported field - and the way the world works in general? If you really believe that churches work by "contributing money back to actual charities" . . . just, wow.

Here's a little primer on the way REAL churches work, courtesy of the preacher's daughter. You're welcome.

1) Churches are classified as tax-exempt charitable organizations. That is why donations to them are tax-deductible: because they are, themselves, "actual charities", just as much as Goodwill or the Red Cross or the Pediatric AIDS Foundation are.

2) What this means is that, while they may or may not contribute assistance to other charities, they typically engage in and administer charitable behavior directly. For example, the Catholic Church - the best-known of the Christian denominations - operates soup kitchens, homeless shelters and aid for the indigent, drug rehabilitation centers, food distribution centers, orphanages and care facilities for foster children, nursing homes and adult day care centers, medical clinics and hospitals, domestic violence shelters . . . and that's just off the top of my head. When the government runs out of assistance programs to offer you, they give you a big list of private charities in your area, and guaranteed, at least half of them will be under the auspices of the Catholic Church.

3) In order to maintain its tax-exempt status, a church must spend a substantial percentage of its income on its not-for-profit activities (hint: that percentage is NOT 1%). There are limits to how much money an individual church can keep on hand, and whole reams of tax regulations governing how that is handled.

4) If a church engages in a for-profit activity - for example, renting out a house or building it owns to tenants - then that income can be taxed, and separate records need to be kept for that purpose. Again, there are whole reams of regulations regarding how this is handled.

I can go on if you need me to, but absolutely none of this is a secret, or even particularly hard to find out, unless one has a serious hate-on toward churches and works at remaining ignorant of the functions they perform in their communities. And I would have to suggest that such a person would definitely not be the best person for a church to turn to for financial and accounting services.

I don't know where you got the idea that I'm an accountant. I'm an engineer and as such, no stranger to numbers.

The only charities that I'm aware of that this church engages in is offering food assistance to its members, blankets to disaster areas (which they promote to maximum PR effect) and hiring the nearly unhireable for their thrift stores. Given the PR efforts that I've seen, if there were anything else, I'd have heard about it. The rest of the money as far as I can tell goes into edifice building, funding of initiatives to influence public policy and proselytizing (particularly missionary support). It has become a large corporation with its own accounting, legal and PR arms in order to maximize profit and minimize tax exposure.

 

[francoHFW]

Bush did not protect us on 9-11
3000 Americans lost their lives

How was he to have protected us on 9/11/2001?

Former President Clinton had built a wall of silence between all the various intelligence agencies so none knew what the other knew and no one could connect the dots.

Bottom line....he didn't protect us

Otherwise, we would not have had 3000 killed

Name one thing Bush did after he was elected to protect us from 9-11?

'

after you tell us what obozo did to protect us from radical Islamic murderers like the Orlando shooter, san Bernardino shooter, Chattanooga shooter, and boston marathon bombers.

That is a local police matter

Are you accusing the Boston police of "acting stupidly"?

Protecting the country from acts of terrorism is a federal responsibility. Keeping dangerous people out of this country is a federal matter. 9/11 happened because the federal government failed to recognize and stop a long planned effort to attack this country. The planning was done under the Clinton administration and was not discovered because Clinton had prevented our intelligence services from doing their jobs.

Not according to Booosh's terrorism czar who couldn't get in to see the president...absolute incompetence for 8 years...

Obama did all that could be done. Only lone wolves succeeded. SO much news you dupes don't get...

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

yep, Obama created lots of part time, minimum wage, no benefit jobs------ Wow!!!!

GIVEN with the shit GWB left him Obama did a pretty damn good job and if the fn ah' republicans would've helped out it could have been even better But those traitors are, as we all know, for party not country

Do you remember 9/11/2001? Bush inherited that from Clinton. Obama tried to destroy this great nation and turn it into a large copy of failed European socialism. The American people rejected him and his left wing ideology. The GOP members of congress did their jobs in stopping the tyrant traitor Obama. Now, they need to do their jobs and repeal the worst legislation in the history of our nation, obamacare.

Trump has done more good for this country in 90 days than Bush and Obama did in 16 years. In case you missed it, I am not a Bushie.

Bush did not protect us on 9-11
3000 Americans lost their lives

the 9/11 attack would never have been possible if Clinton had done his job, The planning and personnel placement for 9/11 was done under Clinton and was possible because he castrated our intelligence services.

Sorry to destroy your fantasy, but the truth is the truth.

Anyone can plan from anywhere in the world. You or I can "make a plan" with nothing happening
The execution of the plan occurred while Bush was President. The hijackings occurred while Bush was President. The attacks occurred while Bush was President....Bush did not protect us

Clinton warned Bush of the threat of terrorism....Bush shrugged it off

YOU LIE!

What Bush Knew Before Sept. 11

 

[rightwinger]

11 million people got jobs under Obama
Three times the number that got jobs under BOTH Bush's

Sure didn't accomplish very much considering the MILLIONS of people who have dropped out of the workforce. Please don't throw up that debunked Progressive talking point regarding the baby boomers retiring. You are "forgetting" that millions come into the workforce as they reach 16 and millions enter our country by way of legal and illegal immigration.

Civilian labor force in the United States from 1990 to 2016 (in millions)

December 2008 154.29 Million

December 2016 159.19 Million

U.S. labor force 1990-2016 | Timeline


US Population by Year

July 1, 2009 306.77 Million

Mar 1, 2017 323.42 Million

US Population by Year

40 million baby boomers retiring kind of kills your theory

Can we talk about stay at home moms, the handicapped and students now?

only the mentally or physically handicapped are due government assistance. Students are students by choice. moms are moms by choice.

No shit Sherlock

We are talking about them being voluntarily out of the workforce

are people who are no longer looking for work "out of the workforce"? They must be since they are not counted as unemployed.

Now you are getting closer

 

[rightwinger]

GIVEN with the shit GWB left him Obama did a pretty damn good job and if the fn ah' republicans would've helped out it could have been even better But those traitors are, as we all know, for party not country

Do you remember 9/11/2001? Bush inherited that from Clinton. Obama tried to destroy this great nation and turn it into a large copy of failed European socialism. The American people rejected him and his left wing ideology. The GOP members of congress did their jobs in stopping the tyrant traitor Obama. Now, they need to do their jobs and repeal the worst legislation in the history of our nation, obamacare.

Trump has done more good for this country in 90 days than Bush and Obama did in 16 years. In case you missed it, I am not a Bushie.

Bush did not protect us on 9-11
3000 Americans lost their lives

the 9/11 attack would never have been possible if Clinton had done his job, The planning and personnel placement for 9/11 was done under Clinton and was possible because he castrated our intelligence services.

Sorry to destroy your fantasy, but the truth is the truth.

Anyone can plan from anywhere in the world. You or I can "make a plan" with nothing happening
The execution of the plan occurred while Bush was President. The hijackings occurred while Bush was President. The attacks occurred while Bush was President....Bush did not protect us

Clinton warned Bush of the threat of terrorism....Bush shrugged it off

YOU LIE!

What Bush Knew Before Sept. 11

Bush did not meet with his antiterrorism experts till AFTER 9-11
He did nothing to protect us from an attack