the meanness of Georgia Republicans

[Indy Texas]

In a better world we'd all be lighting candles rather than cursing the darkness.

Except that Nathan Deal seems to want to keep it as pitch black as possible.

One of the reasons I gradually left the Republican Party was because they ran out of ideas for how to help people like the ones in the article. Welfare reform was a good idea. Earned Income Tax Credits were a good idea. But this is the kind of resentment-fueled zero-sum crumb-grabbing that used to be the province of unreconstructed conservative Democrats (like Nathan Deal and the rest of them who moved into the GOP).

Wouldn't it be great if the unemployed poor on TANF could, say, fill out a common job application and  undergo a background check and have it uploaded to a database where employers looking for unskilled or low-skilled workers could find them? It would be like LinkedIn or Monster.com for people who didn't go to college. The unemployed would not have to spend time going from McDonalds to Wal-Mart to the car wash to fill out what is essentially the same application. Employers could access an entire clearinghouse of job seekers without having to wait for them to show up to fill out an application.

That's the kind of pragmatic, non-ideological solution that Republicans don't want to offer or even entertain the idea of. They honestly have no interest in poor people becoming non-poor. The goal is no longer to get people into gainful employment and off of welfare rolls. It's to get them off of welfare rolls and look the other way when they crash and burn or fall through the cracks.

[old timey villain]

So...in a nutshell: Georgia GOP justifies war on poor by convincing slightly less poor white people that the really poor ones (usually black) are leeches and if they are cut off then everyone else will become filthy rich.

No surprise to this Georgia resident. The state GOP has become a filthy concoction of bible thumpers, tea party crazies, rednecks and modern day plantation owners. They must be stopped...but how?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

It's become more and more common that Republican policies are based more on resentment for certain demographics than "smaller government" or any of the buzzwords used to justify it. Another example: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?action=profile;u=6521;sa=showPosts

[old timey villain]

It's become more and more common that Republican policies are based more on resentment for certain demographics than "smaller government" or any of the buzzwords used to justify it. Another example: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?action=profile;u=6521;sa=showPosts

well, obviously. That's why they do so well in the South. We invented racial resentment.

[Ban my account ffs!]

One could argue that a significant part of the GOP has always wanted to knock the poor off the dole out of spite/meanness.

That attitude is hardly something new and prevailed as the main policy until the early/mid 20th century.

The truly mean part about it is that we've now seen what programs that lower poverty can do for society and we still choose to screw these people.

[old timey villain]

One could argue that a significant part of the GOP has always wanted to knock the poor off the dole out of spite/meanness.

That attitude is hardly something new and prevailed as the main policy until the early/mid 20th century.

The truly mean part about it is that we've now seen what programs that lower poverty can do for society and we still choose to screw these people.

The problem is that very wealthy people seem to be ok with programs that help the poor. It's been my experience that very wealthy people whose money aint going anywhere have a sense of noblesse oblige. But Republicans, increasingly, are becoming the party of blue collar to middle class whites and they seem to be the ones who have a problem with these programs. Many are a paycheck away from being on the dole themselves, so they think that increased money and resources spent on poor people will hurt them in the process. This could explain the shift in Republican attitudes.

[All Along The Watchtower]

One could argue that a significant part of the GOP has always wanted to knock the poor off the dole out of spite/meanness.

That attitude is hardly something new and prevailed as the main policy until the early/mid 20th century.

The truly mean part about it is that we've now seen what programs that lower poverty can do for society and we still choose to screw these people.

The problem is that very wealthy people seem to be ok with programs that help the poor. It's been my experience that very wealthy people whose money aint going anywhere have a sense of noblesse oblige.

Nah.

[old timey villain]

One could argue that a significant part of the GOP has always wanted to knock the poor off the dole out of spite/meanness.

That attitude is hardly something new and prevailed as the main policy until the early/mid 20th century.

The truly mean part about it is that we've now seen what programs that lower poverty can do for society and we still choose to screw these people.

The problem is that very wealthy people seem to be ok with programs that help the poor. It's been my experience that very wealthy people whose money aint going anywhere have a sense of noblesse oblige.

Nah.

[Sbane]

One could argue that a significant part of the GOP has always wanted to knock the poor off the dole out of spite/meanness.

That attitude is hardly something new and prevailed as the main policy until the early/mid 20th century.

The truly mean part about it is that we've now seen what programs that lower poverty can do for society and we still choose to screw these people.

The problem is that very wealthy people seem to be ok with programs that help the poor. It's been my experience that very wealthy people whose money aint going anywhere have a sense of noblesse oblige.

Nah.

Don't confuse anti-union views with the anti-poor views displayed by these people in the OP.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

This is the GOP that's talking about the President using mind-control techniques... they're not only mean (or whichever relevant synonyms you prefer), they're also clearly either stupid or completely unhinged... I'll hazard a guess at all three.

Word to the wise... the past election wasn't exactly a ringing endorsement of the GOP and it's policy priorities, but rather than accept this and amend their position... they're acting like a collective group of children "OMG, the bad guy tricked people... so we're going to make his friend's lives really bad for hurting our feelings!!!"

[krazen1211]

All this whining is bizarre. Giving away the farm to the 47ers hasn't been a priority in Georgia even back to the days of Roy Barnes.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Seems like they used to deign to give these unfortunate people scraps from their most high and mighty farmhouse table, though.

[All Along The Watchtower]

One could argue that a significant part of the GOP has always wanted to knock the poor off the dole out of spite/meanness.

That attitude is hardly something new and prevailed as the main policy until the early/mid 20th century.

The truly mean part about it is that we've now seen what programs that lower poverty can do for society and we still choose to screw these people.

The problem is that very wealthy people seem to be ok with programs that help the poor. It's been my experience that very wealthy people whose money aint going anywhere have a sense of noblesse oblige.

Nah.

Don't confuse anti-union views with the anti-poor views displayed by these people in the OP.

Because wealthy people's anti-union views are so much better!

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

One could argue that a significant part of the GOP has always wanted to knock the poor off the dole out of spite/meanness.

That attitude is hardly something new and prevailed as the main policy until the early/mid 20th century.

The truly mean part about it is that we've now seen what programs that lower poverty can do for society and we still choose to screw these people.

The problem is that very wealthy people seem to be ok with programs that help the poor. It's been my experience that very wealthy people whose money aint going anywhere have a sense of noblesse oblige.

Nah.

Don't confuse anti-union views with the anti-poor views displayed by these people in the OP.

Because wealthy people's anti-union views are so much better!

It could be argued that rich people like programs that help the poor in an 'individual'-based, feel-good manner, but don't like it when the poor or even lower middle class are able to organize into political blocs.

[All Along The Watchtower]

One could argue that a significant part of the GOP has always wanted to knock the poor off the dole out of spite/meanness.

That attitude is hardly something new and prevailed as the main policy until the early/mid 20th century.

The truly mean part about it is that we've now seen what programs that lower poverty can do for society and we still choose to screw these people.

The problem is that very wealthy people seem to be ok with programs that help the poor. It's been my experience that very wealthy people whose money aint going anywhere have a sense of noblesse oblige.

Nah.

Don't confuse anti-union views with the anti-poor views displayed by these people in the OP.

Because wealthy people's anti-union views are so much better!

It could be argued that rich people like programs that help the poor in an 'individual'-based, feel-good manner, but don't like it when the poor or even lower middle class are able to organize into political blocs.

Depends on which rich people we're talking about, of course...(regarding the former more than the latter, in which it's safe to say that most if not almost all rich Americans are terrified of the lower classes organizing into political movements...)

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

One could argue that a significant part of the GOP has always wanted to knock the poor off the dole out of spite/meanness.

That attitude is hardly something new and prevailed as the main policy until the early/mid 20th century.

The truly mean part about it is that we've now seen what programs that lower poverty can do for society and we still choose to screw these people.

The problem is that very wealthy people seem to be ok with programs that help the poor. It's been my experience that very wealthy people whose money aint going anywhere have a sense of noblesse oblige.

Nah.

Don't confuse anti-union views with the anti-poor views displayed by these people in the OP.

Because wealthy people's anti-union views are so much better!

It could be argued that rich people like programs that help the poor in an 'individual'-based, feel-good manner, but don't like it when the poor or even lower middle class are able to organize into political blocs.

Depends on which rich people we're talking about, of course...(regarding the former more than the latter, in which it's safe to say that most if not almost all rich Americans are terrified of the lower classes organizing into political movements...)

True. I was just going to edit that post to add in a 'some' before or 'sometimes' after 'rich people'.

[Sbane]

One could argue that a significant part of the GOP has always wanted to knock the poor off the dole out of spite/meanness.

That attitude is hardly something new and prevailed as the main policy until the early/mid 20th century.

The truly mean part about it is that we've now seen what programs that lower poverty can do for society and we still choose to screw these people.

The problem is that very wealthy people seem to be ok with programs that help the poor. It's been my experience that very wealthy people whose money aint going anywhere have a sense of noblesse oblige.

Nah.

Don't confuse anti-union views with the anti-poor views displayed by these people in the OP.

Because wealthy people's anti-union views are so much better!

It could be argued that rich people like programs that help the poor in an 'individual'-based, feel-good manner, but don't like it when the poor or even lower middle class are able to organize into political blocs.

Or maybe they don't like the treasury being looted by public employee unions.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

One could argue that a significant part of the GOP has always wanted to knock the poor off the dole out of spite/meanness.

That attitude is hardly something new and prevailed as the main policy until the early/mid 20th century.

The truly mean part about it is that we've now seen what programs that lower poverty can do for society and we still choose to screw these people.

The problem is that very wealthy people seem to be ok with programs that help the poor. It's been my experience that very wealthy people whose money aint going anywhere have a sense of noblesse oblige.

Nah.

Don't confuse anti-union views with the anti-poor views displayed by these people in the OP.

Because wealthy people's anti-union views are so much better!

It could be argued that rich people like programs that help the poor in an 'individual'-based, feel-good manner, but don't like it when the poor or even lower middle class are able to organize into political blocs.

Or maybe they don't like the treasury being looted by public employee unions.

That would be easier to believe were most of these people's alleged concerns about the treasury's maidenhead not selective at best.

[Sbane]

One could argue that a significant part of the GOP has always wanted to knock the poor off the dole out of spite/meanness.

That attitude is hardly something new and prevailed as the main policy until the early/mid 20th century.

The truly mean part about it is that we've now seen what programs that lower poverty can do for society and we still choose to screw these people.

The problem is that very wealthy people seem to be ok with programs that help the poor. It's been my experience that very wealthy people whose money aint going anywhere have a sense of noblesse oblige.

Nah.

Don't confuse anti-union views with the anti-poor views displayed by these people in the OP.

Because wealthy people's anti-union views are so much better!

It could be argued that rich people like programs that help the poor in an 'individual'-based, feel-good manner, but don't like it when the poor or even lower middle class are able to organize into political blocs.

Or maybe they don't like the treasury being looted by public employee unions.

That would be easier to believe were most of these people's alleged concerns about the treasury's maidenhead not selective at best.

Oh sure, the Republican party has no credibility since it always tries to exempt their buddies from reform. Also they themselves write tax loopholes to benefit their donors.

[All Along The Watchtower]

One could argue that a significant part of the GOP has always wanted to knock the poor off the dole out of spite/meanness.

That attitude is hardly something new and prevailed as the main policy until the early/mid 20th century.

The truly mean part about it is that we've now seen what programs that lower poverty can do for society and we still choose to screw these people.

The problem is that very wealthy people seem to be ok with programs that help the poor. It's been my experience that very wealthy people whose money aint going anywhere have a sense of noblesse oblige.

Nah.

Don't confuse anti-union views with the anti-poor views displayed by these people in the OP.

Because wealthy people's anti-union views are so much better!

It could be argued that rich people like programs that help the poor in an 'individual'-based, feel-good manner, but don't like it when the poor or even lower middle class are able to organize into political blocs.

Or maybe they don't like the treasury being looted by public employee unions.

Sad to see that you buy the propaganda.

[Cory]

Giving away the farm to the 47ers hasn't been a priority in Georgia even back to the days of Roy Barnes.

Or Jefferson Davis for that matter. Good to see you know your roots.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Sbane is from California and therefore understandably has a slanted opinion on public unions.

[Simfan34]

Sbane is from California and therefore understandably has a slanted opinion on public unions.

This is the most absurd thing I've ever seen here. Why are they slanted? Because they're particularly bad in California? And this is somehow some kind of failing? Patently inane.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Sbane is from California and therefore understandably has a slanted opinion on public unions.

This is the most absurd thing I've ever seen here. Why are they slanted? Because they're particularly bad in California? And this is somehow some kind of failing? Patently inane.

They're out of control in California to a degree that makes me cringe. If I lived in a municipality featuring Californian public employees, I might have an unusual anti-union boner as well.

[krazen1211]

Seems like they used to deign to give these unfortunate people scraps from their most high and mighty farmhouse table, though.

It is mere chance that Roy Barnes had to deal with fewer of those types. One wonders why they have not self-deported to San Francisco over the last decade.