Why Are Republicans So Relentlessly Cruel to the Poor?

[Skull Pilot]

You have confused what happened when Reagan was president with Reaganism. Franco dropped out and does not know that Reagan favored limited government.

That's why he tripled the debt and grew gov't more than anyone in history, dupiscimus...

he was president not God. If you hadn't dropped out you would know that. Also if he grew govt so much then as a standard libcommie you should love him?? Getting to complicated for you?

Libs cut gov't and add services that cost nothing in the end, dupissimus ignoramus.

no "service" performed by the government costs nothing in fact everything the government does costs more than it would if the private sector did it

Balogna. I was thinking of paid parental leave- all I want after ACA...

and you don't think paying people while they're not working costs anything?

You really are clueless

 

[Skull Pilot]

I'm speaking from the perspective of the fucked up theocracy I live in (Utah). State government would fund what they consider their base (huge families and the LDS church) and leave everybody else out in the cold. At least with some federal government involvement, you have a broader base that receives the assistance.

It's not the role of the federal government to provide such assistance. The things that government is supposed to provide is listed in Article I and taxes are to be collected to pay for THOSE things.

The role of the federal government is to do what needs doing as determined by We the People

If it wasn't for Article I, you might have actually had a point. But, you don't.

You might have noticed a trend away from strict Constitutionalism. There's a reason for it. The American people have gained immeasurably from government involvement in R&D, infrastructure and a safety net. None of these things are numerated in the Constitution. Good luck convincing people they'd be better off going your way.

People have forgotten we are a Republic and NOT a straight democracy. All it would take would be for everyone to have to pay income tax and they'd start to see the light.

not only that but we should get rid of the payroll deductions of income tax and make everyone write a check so they know how much of their money actually gets taken in taxes

then we should change tax day to the day before election day so it's fresh in the voters' minds just how much the government takes

 

[Skull Pilot]

I'm speaking from the perspective of the fucked up theocracy I live in (Utah). State government would fund what they consider their base (huge families and the LDS church) and leave everybody else out in the cold. At least with some federal government involvement, you have a broader base that receives the assistance.

It's not the role of the federal government to provide such assistance. The things that government is supposed to provide is listed in Article I and taxes are to be collected to pay for THOSE things.

The role of the federal government is to do what needs doing as determined by We the People

and we the people empowered trump and the GOP to do our governing. So why is it you feel the dems should have some stronghold because of their gigantic losses.

We the People voted against him

If we lived in the straight democracy you imagine, you'd have a point. But, of course, we'd also have segregation and limited rights for women and Gays. So, not even YOU would support a straight democracy.

I don't think the majority of people in this country are in favor those things

 

[Skull Pilot]

I thought you knew it was a republic and 'we the people' won!

The people of Russia won

Perhaps you could provide proof that ANYONE in Russia voted in the election, or even give evidence that Russians changed one vote in a ballot box or voting machine?

Prove me wrong
Up to five million "Russians" voted for Trump

You made the claim, you can't provide an example of one Russian voting, therefore I have proven you wrong by using your own failure to prove your claim.

You aren't very good at debating, but I'm sure you're not very good at much.

Sorry pal...It doesn't work like that

This is Trump's America...I get to make the claim, It is up to you to disprove it

Ball is in your court

that's not how it works in this country.

You have to prove that a person is guilty

 

[Skull Pilot]

I believe have healthy food not taxed.

You go down kicking and screaming. PLEASE show us which state do not tax "healthy food". Who decides what is healthy and what is not healthy?

healthy has nothing to do with it

I don't know if all states do not tax grocery items but there are many that do not and some that do tax them at a lower rate than the state sales tax

Which States Tax Groceries? - Tax Foundation

 

[Skull Pilot]

It's not how govt operates, but then people have votes with which they can change the way govt operates. Sure, it's not going to happen because the people are zombies and the rich have the buttons needed to get the zombies to do what they like.

In politics it's vote D or R, with food it's buy McDonald's, Coca Cola or whatever. People are being advertised to death and this is fair game, but actually doing something RIGHT is wrong.

/---- it's none of anyone's business what others eat. Don't like McDonalds then don't buy their food. I don't.

that is such a hard concept for these people to grasp

they think it's better to tax people into submission so they do what these control freaks think they should do

after all it's for their own good right?

Well after all they hand out massive tax rebates to large corporate companies with food that is slammed full of sugar. And that's alright. It's basically lowering the cost of their products to make them more competitive than healthy food which doesn't get such subsidies.

But you have a problem if it works the other way.

https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/25/untangling-what-companies-pay-in-taxes/

"Soft-drink companies are among those paying taxes well below average, partly because of their ability to locate the manufacturing plants for soda concentrate in low-tax countries, as I discuss in the column. Coca-Cola paid a combined tax rate of 15.25 percent between 2007 and 2012, while PepsiCo paid 21.31 percent."

And that doesn't even mean they paid this much, they probably paid half this or less. Making them very competitive, and overly competitive against healthy food. But that's okay, right? That's capitalism, that's great. If it's done for the wrong reason, hell yeah.

it is amazing to me how you on the left hate the corporations who give millions of jobs to citizens. just fkin amazes me.

It amazes me how you on the right hate small businesses, hate the small guy being able to take a slice of the pie. just fkin amazes me.

But then I don't hate multinationals. You might think it's a nice attack, but you're wrong. Multinationals have their place, but they need to be paying at least their fair share of taxes, if not more, but they don't, they pay far too little.

But they, we all know this is deflecting from the issue here, right?

The large companies are getting things cheaper, they're more competitive because the govt has decided this is so. You said it's WRONG to have a policy of encouraging people to eat healthy food, but NOW you seem to think it's fkin amazing that the multinationals are able to ply people with crap food at cheaper prices. just fkin amazes me.

it is never cheaper to eat processed food than it is to prepare your own.

 

[Skull Pilot]

No, no one is taxed if they don't buy something. I'm not sure what your point is.

Nonsense, see Obamacare!

It's like paying a ******* game of silly idiots. What the **** does your reply have to do with anything?

If you buy health insurance, you are getting something. You're getting health insurance. ******* hell. Just because it's not a physical thing, doesn't mean you don't have something.

the statement was you are not taxed if you don't buy anything

if you do not buy health insurance you are taxed

 

[Skull Pilot]

here we go again

more ham handed social engineering via taxes

taxes are only to be used to fund the necessary function of government not to punish people for behavior that you don't like

Food gets taxed, right? Ever wondered why milk is often cheaper than bottled water and other such weird pricing? Why shouldn't society try and make things more attractive?

I mean, the govt does this ALL THE TIME, especially in America with large corporations paying almost no tax as an "incentive" for them to locate or not relocate. The right doesn't have a problem with this, in fact they actively encourage it. But do it with good food or whatever and they suddenly get all jumpy.

food doesn't get taxed in my state
only idiots buy bottled water

it's not up to "society" to coerce people to do anything other than obey the law.

and really just because governemnt does shit like this all the time doesn't make it right it merely becomes accepted by people like you. you know people with a desire to control other people for their own good

Some states have food not taxed, other I believe have healthy food not taxed.

Well, it is up to society to coerce people to do things, it happens ALL THE TIME. So many decisions are made by government where this happens.

So you don't want to control people for their own good? You don't want laws against murder? Laws against stealing? Laws against violence?

You're an anarchist then!

Every example you gave are laws that address harm done to OTHER people, not harm done to themselves. Next.

Here's a hint you might want to try. Motorcycle helmet laws.

Actually I think you're wrong. If it were legal to murder, I could murder, but I could also be murdered. It protects me that I can't murder or be murdered. But then again you could have responded to the point I was making.

you can murder and you can be murdered whether it's against the law or not

 

[Skull Pilot]

It's not how govt operates, but then people have votes with which they can change the way govt operates. Sure, it's not going to happen because the people are zombies and the rich have the buttons needed to get the zombies to do what they like.

In politics it's vote D or R, with food it's buy McDonald's, Coca Cola or whatever. People are being advertised to death and this is fair game, but actually doing something RIGHT is wrong.

/---- it's none of anyone's business what others eat. Don't like McDonalds then don't buy their food. I don't.

that is such a hard concept for these people to grasp

they think it's better to tax people into submission so they do what these control freaks think they should do

after all it's for their own good right?

Well after all they hand out massive tax rebates to large corporate companies with food that is slammed full of sugar. And that's alright. It's basically lowering the cost of their products to make them more competitive than healthy food which doesn't get such subsidies.

But you have a problem if it works the other way.

https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/25/untangling-what-companies-pay-in-taxes/

"Soft-drink companies are among those paying taxes well below average, partly because of their ability to locate the manufacturing plants for soda concentrate in low-tax countries, as I discuss in the column. Coca-Cola paid a combined tax rate of 15.25 percent between 2007 and 2012, while PepsiCo paid 21.31 percent."

And that doesn't even mean they paid this much, they probably paid half this or less. Making them very competitive, and overly competitive against healthy food. But that's okay, right? That's capitalism, that's great. If it's done for the wrong reason, hell yeah.

it is amazing to me how you on the left hate the corporations who give millions of jobs to citizens. just fkin amazes me.

It amazes me how you on the right hate small businesses, hate the small guy being able to take a slice of the pie. just fkin amazes me.

But then I don't hate multinationals. You might think it's a nice attack, but you're wrong. Multinationals have their place, but they need to be paying at least their fair share of taxes, if not more, but they don't, they pay far too little.

But they, we all know this is deflecting from the issue here, right?

The large companies are getting things cheaper, they're more competitive because the govt has decided this is so. You said it's WRONG to have a policy of encouraging people to eat healthy food, but NOW you seem to think it's fkin amazing that the multinationals are able to ply people with crap food at cheaper prices. just fkin amazes me.

yet when it comes to easing regulations that hit small businesses much harder than they do large corporations you people are against it

 

[Tommy Tainant]

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%.

You are confused Moon Bat.

Our church is a big contributor to feeding the poor and providing services in the community to those that really need it.

This next Sunday morning we will meet at the regular service time and go en mass to the grocery stores and buy food instead of having the normal worship service. We do that several times a year.

What are you going to be doing this Sunday morning Moon Bat, laying in bed?

The third weekend of every month my wife and I go to the grocery store and buy food and donate it to our church's food pantry. We also help to support an orphanage.

What do you do Moon Bat other than ***** that the rich are not being taxed enough?

Not knowing the specifics of your church, I'll try not to discourage your efforts to do good. However, from my experience GENERALLY, church charities shelter tax revenues that would go as far or farther in providing for the poor if they were collected.

Church charities are operated by non-paid volunteers. Give the money to the government and it would take 40 or 50 high paid civil servants to do the same thing.

From my mainstream standpoint.

I would find a charity handout from a foodbank to be humiliating.

But I would have no problem with welfare. There is a contract between the state and the individual that gives it respectability. I have paid into the welfare state for years and am entitled to its protection when times are tough.

The work of charities is admirable but essentially it is just a top up to the work of the state (all of us) in providing a safety net for those who have fallen on hard times.

We live in rich advanced countries where mechanisation and technology have made so many manual jobs redundant. But the people who did those jobs havent gone away. How we look after those people and their families is going to be a big test for us.

 

[Markle]

NY State for example

Food and Food Products Sold by Food Stores and Similar Establishments

Nuts are exempt from sales tax "unless honey-roasted, chocolate, or candy-coated"

It's not totally healthy v. non-healthy, but there are some distinctions. Who decides? Well, everyone can decide what is healthy and what not.

 

[Markle]

It's like paying a ******* game of silly idiots. What the **** does your reply have to do with anything?

If you buy health insurance, you are getting something. You're getting health insurance. ******* hell. Just because it's not a physical thing, doesn't mean you don't have something.

You must have missed that part of Obamacare. IF you do NOT buy Obamacare, a product from a private business, you are FINED by the government. You have a penalty you must pay with your income taxes.

 

[Flash]

[Q


I would find a charity handout from a foodbank to be humiliating.

.

My goodness gracious. We wouldn't want a welfare queen to be "humiliated" now would we?

I am humiliated every time I have to pay my damn taxes knowing that the government is taking my money by force and giving it away to welfare queens.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, no one is taxed if they don't buy something. I'm not sure what your point is.

Nonsense, see Obamacare!

It's like paying a ******* game of silly idiots. What the **** does your reply have to do with anything?

If you buy health insurance, you are getting something. You're getting health insurance. ******* hell. Just because it's not a physical thing, doesn't mean you don't have something.

Not even remotely.

In the case of Commie Care, if you do buy insurance, in most cases you are not getting anything.

With Obamacare, everyone who pays is covered, right?

No, wrong, you are not covered. That's the problem.

HTF can you say you're covered with anywhere from 7 to 10K deductibles? That's not coverage. You might as well not have anything at all unless you plan on walking in front of a moving bus in the near future.

 

[Markle]

Please show me a source that shows that diet coca cola is healthy.

Where did I say it was healthy? It is little more than flavored water. You were on a silly rant about sugar.

Make up your mind.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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%.

You are confused Moon Bat.

Our church is a big contributor to feeding the poor and providing services in the community to those that really need it.

This next Sunday morning we will meet at the regular service time and go en mass to the grocery stores and buy food instead of having the normal worship service. We do that several times a year.

What are you going to be doing this Sunday morning Moon Bat, laying in bed?

The third weekend of every month my wife and I go to the grocery store and buy food and donate it to our church's food pantry. We also help to support an orphanage.

What do you do Moon Bat other than ***** that the rich are not being taxed enough?

Not knowing the specifics of your church, I'll try not to discourage your efforts to do good. However, from my experience GENERALLY, church charities shelter tax revenues that would go as far or farther in providing for the poor if they were collected.

Church charities are operated by non-paid volunteers. Give the money to the government and it would take 40 or 50 high paid civil servants to do the same thing.

From my mainstream standpoint.

I would find a charity handout from a foodbank to be humiliating.

But I would have no problem with welfare. There is a contract between the state and the individual that gives it respectability. I have paid into the welfare state for years and am entitled to its protection when times are tough.

The work of charities is admirable but essentially it is just a top up to the work of the state (all of us) in providing a safety net for those who have fallen on hard times.

We live in rich advanced countries where mechanisation and technology have made so many manual jobs redundant. But the people who did those jobs havent gone away. How we look after those people and their families is going to be a big test for us.

This is very telling of the leftist mentality.

You would be humiliated by taking food from people that freely offer it to you, but not humiliated by taking food from people that may not have it TO give to you?

 

[Tommy Tainant]

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%.

You are confused Moon Bat.

Our church is a big contributor to feeding the poor and providing services in the community to those that really need it.

This next Sunday morning we will meet at the regular service time and go en mass to the grocery stores and buy food instead of having the normal worship service. We do that several times a year.

What are you going to be doing this Sunday morning Moon Bat, laying in bed?

The third weekend of every month my wife and I go to the grocery store and buy food and donate it to our church's food pantry. We also help to support an orphanage.

What do you do Moon Bat other than ***** that the rich are not being taxed enough?

Not knowing the specifics of your church, I'll try not to discourage your efforts to do good. However, from my experience GENERALLY, church charities shelter tax revenues that would go as far or farther in providing for the poor if they were collected.

Church charities are operated by non-paid volunteers. Give the money to the government and it would take 40 or 50 high paid civil servants to do the same thing.

From my mainstream standpoint.

I would find a charity handout from a foodbank to be humiliating.

But I would have no problem with welfare. There is a contract between the state and the individual that gives it respectability. I have paid into the welfare state for years and am entitled to its protection when times are tough.

The work of charities is admirable but essentially it is just a top up to the work of the state (all of us) in providing a safety net for those who have fallen on hard times.

We live in rich advanced countries where mechanisation and technology have made so many manual jobs redundant. But the people who did those jobs havent gone away. How we look after those people and their families is going to be a big test for us.

This is very telling of the leftist mentality.

You would be humiliated by taking food from people that freely offer it to you, but not humiliated by taking food from people that may not have it TO give to you?

You miss the point Ray. I have no right to the charity handout. I do have a right to the welfare because I have paid into it since I first started work. Its a right not a discretionary gesture.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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%.

You are confused Moon Bat.

Our church is a big contributor to feeding the poor and providing services in the community to those that really need it.

This next Sunday morning we will meet at the regular service time and go en mass to the grocery stores and buy food instead of having the normal worship service. We do that several times a year.

What are you going to be doing this Sunday morning Moon Bat, laying in bed?

The third weekend of every month my wife and I go to the grocery store and buy food and donate it to our church's food pantry. We also help to support an orphanage.

What do you do Moon Bat other than ***** that the rich are not being taxed enough?

Not knowing the specifics of your church, I'll try not to discourage your efforts to do good. However, from my experience GENERALLY, church charities shelter tax revenues that would go as far or farther in providing for the poor if they were collected.

Church charities are operated by non-paid volunteers. Give the money to the government and it would take 40 or 50 high paid civil servants to do the same thing.

From my mainstream standpoint.

I would find a charity handout from a foodbank to be humiliating.

But I would have no problem with welfare. There is a contract between the state and the individual that gives it respectability. I have paid into the welfare state for years and am entitled to its protection when times are tough.

The work of charities is admirable but essentially it is just a top up to the work of the state (all of us) in providing a safety net for those who have fallen on hard times.

We live in rich advanced countries where mechanisation and technology have made so many manual jobs redundant. But the people who did those jobs havent gone away. How we look after those people and their families is going to be a big test for us.

You know what? Everyone who takes a handout be it from government or from a food bank should be a little ashamed

By removing the stigma of shame from taking handouts we make it acceptable

Shame is a great motivator

 

[Tommy Tainant]

[Q


I would find a charity handout from a foodbank to be humiliating.

.

My goodness gracious. We wouldn't want a welfare queen to be "humiliated" now would we?

I am humiliated every time I have to pay my damn taxes knowing that the government is taking my money by force and giving it away to welfare queens.

Your use of the phrase "welfare queen" is telling. Most of your tax money goes to subsidising millionaires and corporations so that might be a comfort to you.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You are confused Moon Bat.

Our church is a big contributor to feeding the poor and providing services in the community to those that really need it.

This next Sunday morning we will meet at the regular service time and go en mass to the grocery stores and buy food instead of having the normal worship service. We do that several times a year.

What are you going to be doing this Sunday morning Moon Bat, laying in bed?

The third weekend of every month my wife and I go to the grocery store and buy food and donate it to our church's food pantry. We also help to support an orphanage.

What do you do Moon Bat other than ***** that the rich are not being taxed enough?

Not knowing the specifics of your church, I'll try not to discourage your efforts to do good. However, from my experience GENERALLY, church charities shelter tax revenues that would go as far or farther in providing for the poor if they were collected.

Church charities are operated by non-paid volunteers. Give the money to the government and it would take 40 or 50 high paid civil servants to do the same thing.

From my mainstream standpoint.

I would find a charity handout from a foodbank to be humiliating.

But I would have no problem with welfare. There is a contract between the state and the individual that gives it respectability. I have paid into the welfare state for years and am entitled to its protection when times are tough.

The work of charities is admirable but essentially it is just a top up to the work of the state (all of us) in providing a safety net for those who have fallen on hard times.

We live in rich advanced countries where mechanisation and technology have made so many manual jobs redundant. But the people who did those jobs havent gone away. How we look after those people and their families is going to be a big test for us.

This is very telling of the leftist mentality.

You would be humiliated by taking food from people that freely offer it to you, but not humiliated by taking food from people that may not have it TO give to you?

You miss the point Ray. I have no right to the charity handout. I do have a right to the welfare because I have paid into it since I first started work. Its a right not a discretionary gesture.

Do you really think that's it? Okay, then what if you were a lifelong contributor to the charity about to offer you food? Would you feel guilt taking their food then????