1
147
148

Why do they keep doing it..? (i.imgur.com)

chabanaisFortis est veritasによる前の投稿

all 41 comments
sorted by:
best
best
トップ
新着
注目
論争中
古い順

[–]unibuckeye 7 ポイント8 ポイント 前

there is no 'safety net', there is only 'payment to stay poor'. I am married with 4 kids. I work 40+hrs every week. right now we are doing ok. that wasn't always the case. we had to apply for food stamps once, we had a major medical issue that cost me time at work. we were denied, because in the infinite wisdom of the US govt, we 'made too much money'. I was making around 30k at that time. the employee implied to my wife that if 'she left me or I quit (not get fired, quit) my job", we would then qualify for assistance. needless to say, from that day on, I have worked harder, longer, and stronger to make sure I keep the govt out of my life.

[–]narcedmonkey 8 ポイント9 ポイント 前

thinking for yourself is hard. spending other people's money is easy.

[–]Bamin 1 ポイント2 ポイント 前

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmDwe43J9nQ

[–]MiyegomboBayartsogt -1 ポイント0 ポイント 前

Consistency is the hobgoblin of the ordered mind.

[–]Sydonai 4 ポイント5 ポイント 前

There are many poor Republicans, and many rich Democrats. Party affiliation is not an effective indicator of wealth potential.

[–]chabanaisFortis est veritas[S] 5 ポイント6 ポイント 前

It is an effective indicator of multi generational urban poverty.

[–]atizzyLibertarian Conservative 9 ポイント10 ポイント 前

Social class though...

Detroit has had Democrat mayors for like 60 years. The general election is usually 2 democrats.

[–]Jonny_Watts 0 ポイント1 ポイント 前

Poor inner-city urban people have been voting Democrat for 50 years

[–]Bart10 -1 ポイント0 ポイント 前

I'd imagine it's because they're not liking what republican candidates on a national level value. Republicans in congress consistently want to cut social programs that directly (negatively) effect the poor voters you're talking about. That has an impact on a local level when it comes to elections.

I believe that they think that the options are to vote democrat and continue being poor, but have some sort of safety net or to vote republican, continue being poor and lose what little security they have left. Democrats have effectively labelled themselves as party for the poor in their efforts to ensure that basic social programs like food stamps and meals on wheels don't have their budgets cut. Not surprisingly, they can easily demonize republicans who want to cut these programs especially when the goal is to use the savings to expand already vast budgets, like the DoD. It's a losing strategy since the budgets for these particular programs are small to begin with and cuts wouldn't even be a blip on the budget radar. It gives the republican candidates a bad image simply for being associated with the party, even if they don't want to cut those programs, and voters will turn away from them.

[–]blatherskiterReagan Conservative 16 ポイント17 ポイント 前

It's tough running against santa clause. It's a tough battle convincing low information voters who vote out of greed that liberal policies exacerbate poverty, not ameliorate it.

[–]chabanaisFortis est veritas[S] 10 ポイント11 ポイント 前

Liberals have spent trillions to "cue" poverty and it's only made it worse so it appears style of substance wins the day.

[–]Macroaggression 2 ポイント3 ポイント 前

If you subsidize corn syrup, you get more corn syrup. If you subsidize poverty, you get more poverty.

[–]chabanaisFortis est veritas[S] 1 ポイント2 ポイント 前

One is sweet, one isn't but both are fattening.

[–]bunknownConservative 0 ポイント1 ポイント 前

long term unemployment has not been reinstated, and this month figures come out that long term unemployment is down...shocking

[–]Bart10 -1 ポイント0 ポイント 前

Republicans really don't do themselves any favors with cutting the smaller programs though, because it really is an insignificant amount of money. Like I said, the one that's easier to demonize will lose the election. The poor aren't going to change their minds so long as they think they'll get the shaft by doing so, but their values don't exactly lean conservative, so why bother with them?

[–]chabanaisFortis est veritas[S] 2 ポイント3 ポイント 前

Standing on principle doesn't get votes.

Sad.

[–]Bart10 -2 ポイント-1 ポイント 前

Yeah, basically - but that's how you get elected.

[–]saxonjfFar-Right 1 ポイント2 ポイント 前

So the only way to get elected is to promise programs that are wrecking the nation? I can never get behind that. I'll never support that

[–]meatinjection 0 ポイント1 ポイント 前

Which programs are wrecking the nation exactly? The programs that are often on the chopping block are a really a very small part of the budget. The biggest issue IMO is the overall deficit.

[–]chabanaisFortis est veritas[S] -3 ポイント-2 ポイント 前

Sad.

[–]bunknownConservative -1 ポイント0 ポイント 前

because it really is an insignificant amount of money

In 2013, spending on defense is at about 4 percent of GDP and falling, while mandatory spending (including net interest) is reaching 14.5 percent of GDP and growing

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/08/federal-spending-by-the-numbers-2013

[–]Bart10 2 ポイント3 ポイント 前

I purposefully said 'smaller' programs for a reason. During the last presidential election cycle, Obama attacked Romney for wanting to cut PBS funding and Planned Parenthood. Both of these programs are insignificant in cost compared to other funding issues, making it easier to paint Romney in bad light for targeting it.

Even today, Paul Ryan is starting to receive flak for a budget proposal he released on Tuesday that would cut funding to Pell grants, "National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, Federal Institute of Museum and Library Services, and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting" (again).

[–]bunknownConservative 1 ポイント2 ポイント 前

would cut funding to Pell grants, "National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, Federal Institute of Museum and Library Services, and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting" (again).

You are cherry picking items in a very complex budget that likely will not get passed. Just come out and say you would only support a democrat budget bart.....

Oh BTW Obama has destroyed the NASA budget.....

[–]Bart10 -1 ポイント0 ポイント 前

You're right, I am cherry picking them. I'm cherry picking them because what I have listed is what I fully expect is going to be used for ammo in this election cycle. You and I both know that this budget will never get passed and it's nothing more than political posturing. I'm sorry if you don't like that, but it's not my problem.

[–]meatinjection 1 ポイント2 ポイント 前

Those numbers don't really say anything... The issue that /u/Bart10 was pointing out was that the small programs that are always on Paul Ryan's chopping block are the ones that are visible and easy to attack the GOP for cutting.

Discretionary spending is where the House budget cuts kick in hardest (and in fact increase military spending for no good reason), yet these are the areas of the budget that (dollar for dollar) actually produce the most economic benefits (i.e. infrastructure spending and education) and are very visible.

The problem with this strategy IMO (and to your point) is that the big parts of the budget that need reform are SSA, Medicare, and the military. SSA is solvent (for now), but it won't be in a couple years. Reducing the military to 2% of GDP and increasing the SSA retirement age to 69 would be far more effective in promoting long term fiscal balance than cutting the couple million that goes to public broadcasting.

[–]bunknownConservative 0 ポイント1 ポイント 前

would be far more effective in promoting long term fiscal balance than cutting the couple million that goes to public broadcasting.

You are joking right? That is your end argument?

[–]timmurphysblackwife 1 ポイント2 ポイント 前

If you were offered free cash for virtually the rest of your life with the only caveat being you have to pop out a kid once in a while and never work, why in the hell would you not?

Why do you think the first argument from every democrat ever is, "xxxxx is going to TAKE YOUR MONEY AWAY!"

Don't you remember Paul Ryan having to deal with an opponent's commercial of him pushing grandma off a cliff for proposing a budget?

[–]chabanaisFortis est veritas[S] 1 ポイント2 ポイント 前

If you were offered free cash for virtually the rest of your life with the only caveat being you have to pop out a kid once in a while and never work, why in the hell would you not?

Yup.

[–]Bonzai88 0 ポイント1 ポイント 前

Its sad you get down voted so much in a conservative sub. There are more liberals here trying to change hearts and minds by down voting everything conservative and up voting liberal comments. Then again, all the conservatives are at work making money so they're not here to upvote, while these entitled handout takers are sitting at home in moms basement trying to justify their position by lurking in an opposing sub and down voting conservative ideals. I have never entered the liberal sub, I dont know why the liberals are even here.

That said, your comment nails the whole Democrat party's ideals. They're taking away any incentive to improve your standing. Soon more people are going to realize they get the same thing for doing less and soon enough we will have our socialist utopia all the lazy handout takers long for. I dont blame them either, like you said if the government is going to provide opportunities like that, why wouldn't you take them? I think its a low life move, but at the same time I dont blame them when the government provides it.

[–]seeellayewhy -1 ポイント0 ポイント 前

Question from a liberal: is that really the answer? Barkely and OP seem to think voting Republican would completely transform the lives of every single member of "the poor". Does anyone really think it's that simple?

[–]Slippery_Slope_GuyConservative 4 ポイント5 ポイント 前

Barkely and OP seem to think voting Republican would completely transform the lives of every single member of "the poor".

How did you reach that conclusion?