Is the GOP self-destructing?

And no one on the Right side of the aisle had anything to do with creating the current economic environment? No one? Are you saying that it is purely the fault of Democrats because they fight for the issues that concern poverty, social justice, and inequality? So if you stand up and try to do something for the poor, it is YOU that are guilty of keeping them poor? You should pick up a book on poverty so you can figure out what the hell you are talking about before you leave this world. I hear Barnes & Noble is having a sale this week.

Government dependency is a silly, self-serving, convenient meme the Right uses to justify it's own greed and indifference towards the most vulnerable population. I guess more than anything, that is why you all make me sick.

 

If he isn't, I am!
What may have started from a benevolent place has been deviously exploited by liberal politicians to firm up a solid voting bloc. As far back as the 1960's the libs realized those receiving gov't money responded more favorably to the party that continued to promise the subsidies than they did to they party that tried to show them the way out of gov't dependence.
"Tough love" seems to work in every sector of our society except where gov't subsidies are concerned.

 

The poor, like any other constituency in this country, whether they be the wealthy, the small business owner, the concerned citizen, the farmer, or any other group that the politicians in Washington are supposed to represent, have a right and a duty to elect people that represent their interests. Wouldn't you agree? Now the poor don't have multimillion dollar lobbying organizations to represent their interests like the wealthy have but they do have their elected officials. So the only voice they have are Democrats because it is pretty clear to anyone paying attention that the Republicans are paying attention to the wealthy and profiting as a result. So even if what you are saying is 100% true, the Democrats are guilty of helping the poor by pushing issues that the poor want them to push in exchange for their votes - I believe that is also known as representative government, while Republicans push tax breaks for the wealthy, sweetheart legislation designed to benefit specific industries, and deregulation of other industries in exchange for personal financial gain, who is really doing the work of the people here and who is doing the work of special interests?
So saying that the poor are "dependent" on government is really a false narrative because they have no other voice except their elected representatives. If that makes them dependent, then democracy is functioning well. Now if we could just get the money out of politics that the Republicans are so dependent on.

 

The issue is jobs, and Democrats are partly to blame for the lack of them, because they join the republicans in allowing cheap trade products to be made overseas and sold to consumers in America.

They don't have much choice in that though, as the idea of limiting trade is a death-sentence to our economy. Remove cheap products from our shelves and inflation goes through the roof. Not only that, voters would remove Democrats from office, so it's not something they can seriously consider doing.

What Democrats DO do better than rpublicans is attempt to alleviate the worst impacts of chronic poverty: Housing, food, medicine and health issues.

republicans want to increase jobs and get people out of poverty? Close the loopholes that allow their big donors to rake in massive profit from overseas production of goods, ensure there are stiff penalties for those American-based companies that own overseas companies and sell those foreign-made products here in America, if they dare.

Nah, they'll ignore the issue too, because they too are beholden to corporate $$$.

 

If you use the same logic they do, the wealthy are dependent on government to keep themselves wealthy bastardizing the very principles of capitalism and the free market. No business should be dependent on government giving it special treatment. A business should stand or fall based on it's own ability to operate on the same level playing field as all other businesses. Just because you can afford to buy political influence doesn't mean that you aren't the single most corrupting influence in politics. The corrupting of the government is more serious and affects everyone far more than anything the poor can possibly do to hurt this country by needing help to climb out of poverty.

 

What you call "represent" many call exploiting. What may have originally come about as a sincere effort to help the less fortunate has been bastardized into something much different. I liken the liberals use of entitlements & social policy to a drug dealer giving free samples (and getting people hooked) in order to shore up his customer base.

 

So if you talk about issues that affect the poor and you push legislation to help the poor, you are exploiting them? Hum? Would it better if Democrats just never talking about these issues, never passed legislation to help the poor? Is that your solution?

 

When your solutions only serve to keep the poor poor then, yes, it's exploitation.

 

And your solution? Tough love? Typical.

 

I would expect you to disagree with me when I express opposition to such a long-held & dear liberal vote-buying tactic. Typical? Okay, considering the source, I can live with that.

 

Every time I hear this Right wing victim blaming nonsense, I can't help but hear the opening words to U2's ONE:

Is it getting better
Or do you feel the same
Will it make it easier on you now
You got someone to blame
You say...

Jesus never said anything about tough love. He did say, "Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers that you do unto me also" Why do you hate Jesus?

 

Spoken like a true - uhm - atheist.

 

Atheism is simply the unwavering belief that God doesn't exist. Christianity for example, is the unwavering belief that God does exist. How could either group really know? Both are absolutist views. I tend not to be an absolutist.

All I'm saying is that, A society is measured by how it treats its weakest members.

 

I didn't see a lot of "tough love" going around when the government gave multibtrillion dollar handouts to banks and big industry. They turned wall street into a welfare state. Yet when they spend 1/5000 of that to help people who are poor some cry foul and spew words like government dependency, takers, entitlists. What's wrong with this picture? If anyone is a suckling dependant whore it's the government.

 

I totally agree...but which is the better treatment- keeping the poor poor or helping them break the cycle?

 

Again: Who is the poor?

You're assuming the poor are people who can work. Some can, some can't. You want them out of poverty? PROVIDE JOBS. You think businesses give a damn about jobs? THEY DON'T. They care about PROFIT, as in the least expenditure necessary to make money FOR THEMSELVES.

Stop giving welfare to businesses, penalize them for manufacturing products overseas, increase the tariffs for products bought overseas.

Will that hurt trade? Yep. Will other countries be angry? Yep. Will inflation increase? Yep. But at least Americans will have JOBS.

 

Define exactly how you are "helping" the poor to break the cycle please. I just don't see how cutting food stamps off, cutting funding for education, and certainly trying to de-fund the Affordable Care Act for the most vulnerable children, elderly, and working poor in society helps them. I mean, not to be fascecious, but help them die?
In a wealthy country such as this one, there should be a level of poverty that we as a society are unwilling to allow people to fall below. That doesn't mean we can't have rich people. It does mean the a certain level of government assistance will always be necessary.

 

At a bare minimum, according to his plans: grave-diggers.

Is that the republican's idea of creating jobs?

NEXT!

 

The left doesn't want to cure any of our social ills- there are too many votes at stake. Your side preys on the fear of many & caters to the laziness of others. I'm not advocating the total elimination of social programs, I'm saying we need to reform & re-evalute them. Those in true & desperate need should be helped but those who are capable of supporting themselves should be expected to do so.