Why do democrats hate poor black people and want them permanently on welfare?

[Ray From Cleveland]

Really? Then why does every city with many low income areas vote almost exclusively Democrat?

Because they know that at least with the Dems they've got a shot at a decent life.

The republicans would just as soon they up and die.

Do they have a decent life now?

Maybe it's because they know the Republicans might make them work for what they have instead of it being delivered to their mailbox every month.

Yeah, nice theory.

Too bad real life doesn't work that way.

It does work that way unfortunately. Trust me, I take note at what goes on next door to me at the HUD house.

 

[Redfish]

Really? Then why does every city with many low income areas vote almost exclusively Democrat?

Because they know that at least with the Dems they've got a shot at a decent life.

The republicans would just as soon they up and die.

Do they have a decent life now?

Maybe it's because they know the Republicans might make them work for what they have instead of it being delivered to their mailbox every month.

Yeah, nice theory.

Too bad real life doesn't work that way.

sorry, but it does. the liberal fantasy exists only in your small minds.

 

[Redfish]

How do conservatives take from the needy when the needy doesn't have anything of their own?

Raise minimum wage, and you encourage more businesses to invest in automation. Raise minimum wage, employers cut jobs. Why do you suppose many jobs left the country or were replaced with automation? That's right, because American labor is too expensive. So how will making it more expensive help?

You don't know what the conservatives have in mind for healthcare, so until it comes out, your statement is ridiculous.

The needy have Obamacare for one thing and the GOP wants to take it away. The working poor do some of the most dangerous jobs but the GOP wants to tone down safety requirements. Most egregious of all is the exploitation of poor kids who see hope in joining the military for a better future...only to be used as canon fodder when capitalists deem it necessary to start a war somewhere to protect their investments. Moreover, war is profitable... war doubles annual profits at the expense of the poor soldier looking for a better life.

Key findings include:

• Increasing the federal minimum wage would raise the wages of about 28 million workers, who would receive nearly $40 billion in additional wages over the phase-in period.2
• Across the phase-in period of the minimum-wage increase, GDP would increase by roughly $25 billion, resulting in the creation of approximately 100,000 net new jobs over that period.
• Those who would see wage increases do not fit some of the stereotypes of minimum-wage workers.
  • Women would be disproportionately affected, comprising nearly 55 percent of those who would benefit.
  • Nearly 88 percent of workers who would benefit are at least 20 years old.
  • Although workers of all races and ethnicities would benefit from the increase, non-Hispanic white workers comprise the largest share (about 56 percent) of those who would be affected.
  • About 42 percent of affected workers have at least some college education.
  • Around 54 percent of affected workers work full time, over 70 percent are in families with incomes of less than $60,000, more than a quarter are parents, and over a third are married.
  • The average affected worker earns about half of his or her family’s total income.

How raising the federal minimum wage would help working families and give the economy a boost

You have to be completely brainwashed or completely stupid to believe that any politician gives a shit whether you (or the poor) have healthcare or not. This was not about getting everybody covered, it was about creating as many government dependents as they could. The more government dependents, the more likely Democrat voters.

As for minimum wage: those workers are only 3% of our workforce, hardly any percentage large enough to create any positive effect on the economy or poverty. Considering most of those workers are kids in school, stay at home moms working for extra money while their kids are in school, or senior citizens looking to get out of the house, raising minimum wage would only encourage employers to invest in automation to replace them as McDonald's and Wendy's are currently doing.

The politicians care about staying in office. I haven't suggested they are concerned about anything else. Threatening to fire them via the vote is the only leverage we have to get them to do what we want. Obviously that tactic worked... we still have Obamacare.

You seem to be completely delusional and selectively ignorant. Even when I put data right in front of you it is ignored and you ramble on.
I said:
"Across the phase-in period of the minimum-wage increase, GDP would increase by roughly $25 billion, resulting in the creation of approximately 100,000 net new jobs over that period."

You looked at that and wrote:

"As for minimum wage: those workers are only 3% of our workforce, hardly any percentage large enough to create any positive effect on the economy or poverty. "

How do you figure?

According to the DumBama White House, they created 20 million more new government dependents. 20 million more in a country of 315 million people.

Many others (including myself) got screwed because DumBama gave reasonable healthcare to Democrat constituents at the expense of likely Republican voters.

I think there are more of us than more of them, and making us happy about the change outweighs the liberal losers even if it boiled down to them losing their healthcare.

If they do something so I can get my coverage back, guess what? I could care less if all of them lost theirs. After all, they had no concern about people like us when they got coverage paid by us.

DO you want to go back to the days of "pre-existing conditions"and "drop 'em when they get sick" no matter how much they paid for the premiums?

I would love to, because I've been an insulin dependent diabetic for the last 30 years, and until Commie Care became the law of the land, I was covered with my preexisting condition my entire adult life.

You were one of the lucky ones. But the world does not revolve around YOU. Other folks had horrific experiences before Obamacare.

your last sentence is a blatant lie. NO one was denied medical care before ACA. NO ONE, even those in our country illegally.

Note the date:

July 2, 2008 8:22:53 AM PDT
Eyewitness News
KINGS COUNTY --
New York City hospital officials promised reforms at a Brooklyn psychiatric ward where surveillance footage captured a woman falling from her chair, writhing on the floor and dying as workers watched without helping for an hour. Esmin Green, 49, had been waiting in the emergency room at the city-owned Kings County Hospital Center for nearly 24 hours when she toppled from her seat at 5:32 a.m. on June 19, falling face down on the floor.

that could have happened whether the person was insured or not. Overcrowded ERs have nothing to do with socialized medicine, except that under socialized medicine all medical care will look like that ER.

 

[danielpalos]

It's your dupe boss to blame. And I'm sorry. Won't he have to do it soon under ACA? Or FIX IT. It was just a framework to use forever- The GOP plan. And needs a little time to work.

There is no difference in standing between white Dems and GOPers- Yes, blacks are feqed. And rural GOPers have been helped more than anyone by ACA.

Obama's Health Law: Who Was Helped Most - The New York Times
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/.../obamacare-who-was-helped-most.html
Oct 29, 2014 - Rural areas have fallen further behind larger metropolitan areas. Women are the one modest exception. They have benefited more from Obamacare than men, and they ... who was helped most by the passage of the Affordable Care Act. ... insurance gains does not mean that only Republicans signed up; ...
PressReader - Los Angeles Times: 2017-03-12 - Obamacare ...
PressReader.com - Connecting People Through News
Mar 12, 2017 - Obamacare replacement hits Trump voters hard ... in conservative, rural parts of the country — stand to lose the most in ... In nearly 1,500 counties nationwide, such a person stands to lose more than$6,000 a ... But many of the areas where Trump won big have been helped most by Obamacare's system of ...
Obamacare Repeal Threatens Rural Hospitals and the Trump Voters ...
www.newsweek.com/obamacare-repeal-threatens-rural-hospitals-and-trump-voters-w...
Jan 4, 2017 - Obamacare Repeal Threatens Rural Hospitals and the Trump ... “This hospital, all my life, has been here,” says Keller, now retired. ... In the past six years, more than 70 such facilities have closed, citing ... While the passage of Obamacare was described as historic, many here do not think it helped them.
Donald Trump's Betrayal of the White Working Class - The Atlantic
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/trump-healthcare.../508325/
Nov 22, 2016 - Simply Repealing Obamacare Will Hurt the White Working Class ... its passage, Republicanswill have what they need to repeal the Affordable Care Act. ... Trump has been widely credited for tapping the economic anxiety of many white .... discovers is way more complicated than “anyone” ever imagined?
As Republicans And Democrats Argue Over Obamacare Repeal - NPR
www.npr.org/.../fact-check-once-again-lawmakers-are-stretching-the-facts-of-obamacare
Jan 4, 2017 - Lots of facts have been thrown around as the new GOP Congress takes steps ... Obamacareis also actually cheaper on average than the typical employer-provided plan. ... Most people buying insurance on the exchanges receive a ... Schumer also suggested that repealing Obamacare would hurtrural ...

Don't have time to go through all of them, so I selected your very own NYT article, and here is their conclusion which I'm sure you didn't read:

People with the lowest incomes tended to benefit the most from the law. That makes sense, given how the Affordable Care Act is designed. In states that expanded Medicaid, low-income people can get insurance without having to pay a premium. And for middle-income people who qualify for tax credits to help them buy insurance, the subsidies are most generous for those lowest on the income scale. Poorer people were always the least likely to have insurance because their jobs rarely offered it and private premiums were often unaffordable.

So my conclusions was correct: Commie Care was designed to help likely Democrat voters at the cost to middle-class voters like myself who either pay out the ass, or simply can't afford Commie Care plans.

White GOP voters are just as poor as white Dem voters, dupe.Even poorer, actually. Ignorant racists are poor....

Really? Then why does every city with many low income areas vote almost exclusively Democrat?

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage in big cities, instead of lower taxes for the rich?

 

[danielpalos]

Irrelevant. Congress is delegated the Social Power to Tax, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.

Well let's hope this administration cuts the general welfare to the bone, and forces these people to take care of themselves, and let us working people keep more of our money instead of having to give it to lowlifes.

we don't have a common offense clause nor a general warfare clause; let's cut spending for the common defense, to "the bone".

The defense of this country is an obligation of our representatives; giving people free shit is not.

so is the General welfare. if it can be done for the Common defense it can be done for the General welfare.

Again, welfare back then was not defined as giving people free stuff as it is today. Promoting the General Welfare and Funding the General Welfare are two totally different thing. Nowhere in the US Constitution will you find Funding the General Welfare.

Again, the welfare clause is General, not Common. Any more questions?

Providing for the general welfare and common defense, means just that.

 

[Mr Natural]

Maybe it's because they know the Republicans might make them work for what they have instead of it being delivered to their mailbox every month.

When did republicans ever make them go to work?

And what are they capable of doing? They have no skills, no education, no work ethic. Cut off their government checks and many will turn to crime. Is that what you want?

 

[danielpalos]

Maybe it's because they know the Republicans might make them work for what they have instead of it being delivered to their mailbox every month.

When did republicans ever make them go to work?

And what are they capable of doing? They have no skills, no education, no work ethic. Cut off their government checks and many will turn to crime. Is that what you want?

For-profit prisons is a capital, right wing solution.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

When did republicans ever make them go to work?

It was called the Welfare Reform act.

And what are they capable of doing? They have no skills, no education, no work ethic. Cut off their government checks and many will turn to crime. Is that what you want?

That's exactly what they predicted after the Welfare Reform act passed. It turned out quite the opposite.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Well let's hope this administration cuts the general welfare to the bone, and forces these people to take care of themselves, and let us working people keep more of our money instead of having to give it to lowlifes.

we don't have a common offense clause nor a general warfare clause; let's cut spending for the common defense, to "the bone".

The defense of this country is an obligation of our representatives; giving people free shit is not.

so is the General welfare. if it can be done for the Common defense it can be done for the General welfare.

Again, welfare back then was not defined as giving people free stuff as it is today. Promoting the General Welfare and Funding the General Welfare are two totally different thing. Nowhere in the US Constitution will you find Funding the General Welfare.

Again, the welfare clause is General, not Common. Any more questions?

Providing for the general welfare and common defense, means just that.

I think we posted about a dozen or so links explaining it to you, but you refuse to learn anything.

 

[Mr Natural]

When did republicans ever make them go to work?

It was called the Welfare Reform act.

And what are they capable of doing? They have no skills, no education, no work ethic. Cut off their government checks and many will turn to crime. Is that what you want?

That's exactly what they predicted after the Welfare Reform act passed. It turned out quite the opposite.

Well then, if that's the case then the problem has been solved.

Yay republicans!

 

[danielpalos]

When did republicans ever make them go to work?

It was called the Welfare Reform act.

And what are they capable of doing? They have no skills, no education, no work ethic. Cut off their government checks and many will turn to crime. Is that what you want?

That's exactly what they predicted after the Welfare Reform act passed. It turned out quite the opposite.

Just poor legislative lifestyle choices from our Congress?

We have a federal doctrine in American (US) law, regarding the legal concept of employment at will.

 

[danielpalos]

we don't have a common offense clause nor a general warfare clause; let's cut spending for the common defense, to "the bone".

The defense of this country is an obligation of our representatives; giving people free shit is not.

so is the General welfare. if it can be done for the Common defense it can be done for the General welfare.

Again, welfare back then was not defined as giving people free stuff as it is today. Promoting the General Welfare and Funding the General Welfare are two totally different thing. Nowhere in the US Constitution will you find Funding the General Welfare.

Again, the welfare clause is General, not Common. Any more questions?

Providing for the general welfare and common defense, means just that.

I think we posted about a dozen or so links explaining it to you, but you refuse to learn anything.

I am citing our Constitution, not right wing fantasy.

 

[Papageorgio]

Really? Then why does every city with many low income areas vote almost exclusively Democrat?

Because they know that at least with the Dems they've got a shot at a decent life.

The republicans would just as soon they up and die.

What an ignorant bunch of BS!

 

[Mr Natural]

What an ignorant bunch of BS!

What's your solution, have them get jobs?

Fat chance.

 

[Papageorgio]

What an ignorant bunch of BS!

What's your solution, have them get jobs?

Fat chance.

What are Dems solutions? They have done nothing in the last 50 years for the the, other than bribe for votes by dangling carrots and then giving them a way to stay poor and continue to vote Democratic. The Democrats hate the poor but they want the vote. The Democratic Party is scum for doing that. They have no concern for the poor without the vote. We saw that this last election cycle. The poor were ridiculed by the Democrats for not voting for Clinton, the Democrats are nothing but liars, cheats and scum.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The defense of this country is an obligation of our representatives; giving people free shit is not.

so is the General welfare. if it can be done for the Common defense it can be done for the General welfare.

Again, welfare back then was not defined as giving people free stuff as it is today. Promoting the General Welfare and Funding the General Welfare are two totally different thing. Nowhere in the US Constitution will you find Funding the General Welfare.

Again, the welfare clause is General, not Common. Any more questions?

Providing for the general welfare and common defense, means just that.

I think we posted about a dozen or so links explaining it to you, but you refuse to learn anything.

I am citing our Constitution, not right wing fantasy.

You can say the words, but if you don't know what the words mean, what's the point?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

When did republicans ever make them go to work?

It was called the Welfare Reform act.

And what are they capable of doing? They have no skills, no education, no work ethic. Cut off their government checks and many will turn to crime. Is that what you want?

That's exactly what they predicted after the Welfare Reform act passed. It turned out quite the opposite.

Just poor legislative lifestyle choices from our Congress?

We have a federal doctrine in American (US) law, regarding the legal concept of employment at will.

You keep repeating the same shit over and over again. I told you, nobody is forced to work in this country. There is no doctrine that says you are owed payments for not working.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

When did republicans ever make them go to work?

It was called the Welfare Reform act.

And what are they capable of doing? They have no skills, no education, no work ethic. Cut off their government checks and many will turn to crime. Is that what you want?

That's exactly what they predicted after the Welfare Reform act passed. It turned out quite the opposite.

Well then, if that's the case then the problem has been solved.

Yay republicans!

You can't solve a problem that large entirely. You can to things to make it better though, and that's what happened after Welfare Reform was enacted. Certainly no out of control crime going on, that's for sure. In fact, that was around the time our violent and gun crime rate began to decrease.

 

[Papageorgio]

Dems have nothing but blame! They can't refute that the hate poor blacks and want them permanently on welfare.

 

[regent]

Welfare for the poor began when the nation began.