Republican Ideology and the Poor

What is breeding dependence is the hollowed out manufacturing economy, being replaced with a low wage service sector walmart and hamburger selling economy. Forcing your own people to be dependent, or starve.

If your own economic model does not provide living wage jobs in sufficient numbers because wall street bankers and big corporations want to move jobs to cents on the dollar labor and then get access to our market to sell that stuff, and our gov't allows their lawyers to write the policy and law that allows this, then this created dependence on welfare. Your economic model and the degree of welfare spending are related!! Interrelated. What happens with the economic model, affects welfare spending. Take away living wage jobs, send them to mexico or china, and welfare spending goes up. Not rocket science.

 

Sigh.

Your facile “argument” is easily defeated: Redicing the burden on one party while increasing it on others results in an unequal distribution of the burden. This has the same net result as taking monies from the latter and giving it to the former.

A small town in Iowa wants to put up a new stop sign on Main St.. The cost is $1,000. The city assesses each of the town’s 100 residents $10. 20 of them protest to City Hall that they can’t afford it because they all just bought new cars. The city exempts them from the tax. It is now short $200. But that new stop sign is a critical public safety investment. So they issue a new assessment to the remaining 80 residents of $12.50. The city gets its sign and the other 20 get to keep their new cars. Their 80 neighbors have just subsidized those cars by assuming a greater share of the burden. Yet all residents enjoy the same benefit of the new stop sign. This is a transfer of wealth no different than the new car owners robbing each of their 80 neighbors, to borrow from your “argument” above.

If basic math does not help your understanding, you could always read this: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/subsidy.asp

 

And yet, you remain insanely jealous of him.

 

What agencies and what standards? Who inspects the agencies?

 

Why? The poor person can get government grants to go to school and then get their license and then not be poor anymore.

Well I would suggest you not brand the services I use I makebaure they are a licensed and bonded business. What that has to do with persons who use dangerous chemicals and proceedures on other people escapes me.

Again should food handlers have to have a food handlers permit proving they know safe food handling proceedures?

So you think if you started a campaign in your county or state to remove any licensing of food handlers after passing your local health board examination would gain much traction.

 

Reform..........

 

Inspection agencies that I trust.

 

Which ones and how do you know to trust them? Who inspects them and who sets the standards for the inspections?

Why do you believe matters of public health and safety are not a matters of local governments?

 

My choice of barber should not be a matter of local government. It should be between me and my barber.

 

The new right wing christian ideology....Take from the poor, raise taxes on them and give it to millionaires. Shrub Jr. gave $3 trillion to millionaires and just added it to the national debt. Twerp just gave $1.5 trillion to corporations and added it to the national debt, also raised taxes on the poor. Raygun tripled the national debt, Shrub daddy doubled it again in only four years. Bubba Clinton balanced the budget, which Shrub Jr. destroyed in his first six months with the $3 trillion millionaire welfare.

Twerp bragged about sexually assaulting women, and the right wing christians voted for him. Only the anti-christ could do that. " You shall know them by their fruits."-Jesus

You can only deny that Jesus exists, until your last day.

 

The federal government should not give money to anyone. It should simply exercise its legislative powers as enumerated in article 1, section 8.

 

Taking less of someone's income by way of a tax cut is not giving them anything. A flat tax solves all of this. Certainly you support fairness.

 

Wait now I deal with Conservatives and see major problems with the system take me it incentivizes me NOT to try to work with complicated rules and dubious benefits for trying now other countries say Britain if a disabled person works they give benefits as needed to make up a difference between their pay and benefits and what they need even if married to another person on benefits. Here I try I can lose everything if I make a certain amount of money including Medicaid which covers my large medical need and a $12k job a year won't cut it. Now if I could work making that and KEEP Medicaid and some SNAP and I would work I would be better off psychologically and financially. If I marry I'd lose a lot. So how the hell is this good the reason most of us don't try is there is not reason to.

Now take single mothers I feel the main support should be a HUSBAND so they should be encouraged to marry of they opt not to give them benefits to be worse than being married and maybe remove the children if they cannot independently support them enough, take away the benefit of the government helps you as much or more than a husband would. Or hell another woman spouse. But marriage should be the support expected of them. And any benefits should favor married couples with children.

 

Kinda late to the party in this thread, but this was a well written essay. I am an Independent, not a Republican, but I am fairly conservative. But I do believe that taking care of our most vulnerable is our obligation, and I would much prefer to provide them with the necessities of life than to just leave them on the streets. A couple of questions for you ...

I am also from Oregon. I don't mind taking care of our state's citizens who need the help, but if we offer this charity to all of the homeless, doesn't that have the effect of attracting them to our area from other areas?

And does this "not care" attitude only belong to Republicans? Look at what's happening in CA, a state with a Democratic super majority in the Legislature and a liberal Democratic governor. In this overwhelmingly Democratic state, the gap between rich and poor is wider than ever, and there are tent cities all over the streets in L.A. and elsewhere in the state. CA brags that it has a great economy - the 7th largest in the world - and yet its poor have to live in squalor on the streets. So when Democrats point their self-righteous fingers at Republicans for "not caring about the poor", I think of CA, and I smell hypocrisy. It seems to me that "not caring" is not just a Republican thing. Somebody is choosing to hold on to their wealth and not taking care of their poor in CA, and that somebody is Democrats. There is no blaming Republicans in CA for the situation there because Republicans have zero power there.

Seth

 

So why are democrats insisting on an open border, sanctuary cities, and social welfare services for all? It's like if you took your front door off its hinges and put a big sign in your front yard that says "free food and place to sleep!".

I think it's pretty obvious that this is exactly what democrats want. The only question is why? Democrats refuse to answer that question, so I dunno...

 

Which points out the problem of "leaving it up to the states"

 

There are so many different issues and misrepresentations in that screed that it can't be addressed adequately in one post

 

Translation: You cannot negate anything he said.

 

Breal them out and we'll debunk them

 

Because a sovereign state can't take care of its citizens?

 

I see your point. But I have concerns about a federal bureaucracy taking over the problem. When that happens, states lose all control, and we create yet another federal entitlement in the non-discretionary federal budget. States have the advantage of doing things using smaller bureaucracies that must operate within a budget. In my state, the budget must balance. This is not true of the federal budget. "Non-discretionary" means "must pay" the payee if they are due an entitlement, and so we end up with even more deficit spending. Furthermore, I would think that states could impose residency requirements to qualify for free housing.

So I have responded to your point. Would you respond to my comments about CA and the homeless problem there and the fact that Dems run that state? Why does the most overwhelmingly liberal and richest state in the union have tent cities all over its cities?



Is the reason for this that rich California Democrats are selfish and greedy and refuse to pay to house the poor, vulnerable, and homeless?

 

Yeah I know the libertarian there should be no regulation spiel. That doesn't address the matter of public health safety and standards and you keep avoiding what I ask. You said they WOULD be inspected which means you DO believe they should be it is just a matter of how. I say local governments have a role in matters of public safety and health. You say it should all be private I assume with what appears to be your libertarian viewpoint. Well who sets the standards for these private inspections. What power would they have to shut down an establishment if a serious violation was found? And again do you really want people who have not been trained in certified in proper food handling to be in the back of the restaurant preparing your food and the whole place just inspected by his brother Bob's Acme Inspection Service?

 

Ahhh perhaps you were not aware that after the Bush tax rate cuts were fully implemented tax revenues SOARED hitting a record 15% increase in 2005, his 15% capital gains rate brought in DOUBLE the revenues of the Clinton 29% rate in their best years. That brought the last Republican deficit in the 2007 fiscal year to a paltry $161B. So what exactly are you talking about? He certainly didn't give anything to millionaires they paid HUGELT more in tax revenues and a higher share of income taxes, what's your beef?

 

Yadda, yadda (insert self-congratulatory leftist blah, blah, blah here). Everywhere that leftists control turns out to be a variation of hell on Earth for the poor. San Francisco is the current leftist example of the same. The Dem Party and its leadership utterly suck at helping the poor; but they absolutely insist upon continuing with their form of rank insanity no matter what. The result? Dem Party policies GROW the poor.

 

'Fraid not, bub. Your small town in Iowa wouldn't grant an exception based on the purchase of a new car. They might grant exceptions to religious institutions or to those who couldn't afford the $10. But let's suppose that it granted the exceptions to 20 people who couldn't afford the $10. So the town is short $200. Instead of raising taxes on the remaining 80 people, the town should find a way to buy the sign for $800 or find an alternative source for the remaining $200. The problem with your formulation is that you assume that X amount of dollars must be raised for the budget, and that everyone must be assessed for that X amount of dollars, so anyone who is "excused" from the assessment is getting a break while everyone else is forced to make up the difference. That's not how it works. The federal government raises a couple trillion dollars a year in taxes, from numerous sources, and borrows nearly another trillion on top of that. It spends all of that on a thousand different budget items. Most of those budget items have considerable leeway in how much they get. So there's no X amount of dollars that must be raised from Y number of people, and if Z number of people get a tax break, Y-Z people have to make up the difference. No. The government can reduce spending, and it should. For places like religious institutions that have never paid taxes, the government isn't losing anything it ever had in the first place. For reduced taxes, the government isn't losing anything, the taxpayers are just getting to keep more of their own money. Likewise the other way with those on welfare... reducing their benefits isn't taking money away from them, it's reducing the amount they get. If I give a street bum $10 today and $5 tomorrow, did I take $5 away from him? Of course not. I only reduced the amount I gave him. The same applies to welfare programs.

As per my previous statement, defining a tax break as a subsidy is a misuse of terminology.