“Republicans Hate Poor People:” County GOP apologizes for social media post

[TPIG]

Worded unbelievably badly, but the point itself (that Democrats have a political interest in keeping people poor) is not entirely false.

[TPIG]

Worded unbelievably badly, but the point itself (that Democrats have a political interest in keeping people poor) is not entirely false.

Lol, yes it is. Republicans despise the poor and want to do nothing to actually help them become successful. Just tell them to work harder and pull themselves up by the bootstraps, no actual help.

That is simply not true. Democratic welfare policies have clearly been a failure. We've spent trillions of dollars since LBJ's war on poverty was launched, and yet today the poverty rate is nearly the exact same. That's because the current welfare system essentially locks people in poverty, disincentivizes marriage (a proven alleviator of poverty), and discourages people from finding work by drastically cutting benefits as soon as people get a job (thus making work an economically unsound decision). If you really think the solution for poverty is throwing money at the same failed policies, you're crazy.

(Most) Republicans don't blame, or by any means despise, the poor for the poverty we see and recognize that it's a symptom of failed governmental policy.

I believe the best way to help alleviate poverty is to restructure the welfare system to encourage marriage, slow the decrease of benefits after employment is found, provide educational choice to poor parents so their children aren't locked in failing schools, encourage apprenticeships and more effective job training programs, and free up entrepreneurs from excessive taxes and regulations so they can hire more people (Thank you GOP).

Stop the smears and realize that there's no kindness to be found in supporting policies that keep people trapped in poverty.

[TPIG]

Worded unbelievably badly, but the point itself (that Democrats have a political interest in keeping people poor) is not entirely false.

Lol, yes it is. Republicans despise the poor and want to do nothing to actually help them become successful. Just tell them to work harder and pull themselves up by the bootstraps, no actual help.

That is simply not true. Democratic welfare policies have clearly been a failure. We've spent trillions of dollars since LBJ's war on poverty was launched, and yet today the poverty rate is nearly the exact same. That's because the current welfare system essentially locks people in poverty, disincentivizes marriage (a proven alleviator of poverty), and discourages people from finding work by drastically cutting benefits as soon as people get a job (thus making work an economically unsound decision). If you really think the solution for poverty is throwing money at the same failed policies, you're crazy.

(Most) Republicans don't blame, or by any means despise, the poor for the poverty we see and recognize that it's a symptom of failed governmental policy.

I believe the best way to help alleviate poverty is to restructure the welfare system to encourage marriage, slow the decrease of benefits after employment is found, provide educational choice to poor parents so their children aren't locked in failing schools, encourage apprenticeships and more effective job training programs, and free up entrepreneurs from excessive taxes and regulations so they can hire more people (Thank you GOP).

Stop the smears and realize that there's no kindness to be found in supporting policies that keep people trapped in poverty.

LOL! Clueless kid.

What a great, well thought-out response.

[TPIG]

Worded unbelievably badly, but the point itself (that Democrats have a political interest in keeping people poor) is not entirely false.

Lol, yes it is. Republicans despise the poor and want to do nothing to actually help them become successful. Just tell them to work harder and pull themselves up by the bootstraps, no actual help.

That is simply not true. Democratic welfare policies have clearly been a failure. We've spent trillions of dollars since LBJ's war on poverty was launched, and yet today the poverty rate is nearly the exact same. That's because the current welfare system essentially locks people in poverty, disincentivizes marriage (a proven alleviator of poverty), and discourages people from finding work by drastically cutting benefits as soon as people get a job (thus making work an economically unsound decision). If you really think the solution for poverty is throwing money at the same failed policies, you're crazy.

(Most) Republicans don't blame, or by any means despise, the poor for the poverty we see and recognize that it's a symptom of failed governmental policy.

I believe the best way to help alleviate poverty is to restructure the welfare system to encourage marriage, slow the decrease of benefits after employment is found, provide educational choice to poor parents so their children aren't locked in failing schools, encourage apprenticeships and more effective job training programs, and free up entrepreneurs from excessive taxes and regulations so they can hire more people (Thank you GOP).

Stop the smears and realize that there's no kindness to be found in supporting policies that keep people trapped in poverty.

LOL! Clueless kid.

What a great, well thought-out response.

Going to guarantee you're an upper middle class white guy who has no contact with poor people and no real experiences on how the system as it is now actually barely keeps people above water (most are still below it), so yes, clueless child.

Or a lower-middle class white guy with a single mom who provides for her kids paycheck to paycheck, but sure, act like you know me...

I lived in Atlanta before college and attended a school where a third of the students were refugees and 70% were on free and reduced lunch. But again, PLEASE, tell me how much you know about my life...

[TPIG]

Worded unbelievably badly, but the point itself (that Democrats have a political interest in keeping people poor) is not entirely false.

Lol, yes it is. Republicans despise the poor and want to do nothing to actually help them become successful. Just tell them to work harder and pull themselves up by the bootstraps, no actual help.

That is simply not true. Democratic welfare policies have clearly been a failure. We've spent trillions of dollars since LBJ's war on poverty was launched, and yet today the poverty rate is nearly the exact same. That's because the current welfare system essentially locks people in poverty, disincentivizes marriage (a proven alleviator of poverty), and discourages people from finding work by drastically cutting benefits as soon as people get a job (thus making work an economically unsound decision). If you really think the solution for poverty is throwing money at the same failed policies, you're crazy.

(Most) Republicans don't blame, or by any means despise, the poor for the poverty we see and recognize that it's a symptom of failed governmental policy.

I believe the best way to help alleviate poverty is to restructure the welfare system to encourage marriage, slow the decrease of benefits after employment is found, provide educational choice to poor parents so their children aren't locked in failing schools, encourage apprenticeships and more effective job training programs, and free up entrepreneurs from excessive taxes and regulations so they can hire more people (Thank you GOP).

Stop the smears and realize that there's no kindness to be found in supporting policies that keep people trapped in poverty.

LOL! Clueless kid.

What a great, well thought-out response.

Going to guarantee you're an upper middle class white guy who has no contact with poor people and no real experiences on how the system as it is now actually barely keeps people above water (most are still below it), so yes, clueless child.

Or a lower-middle class white guy with a single mom who provides for her kids paycheck to paycheck, but sure, act like you know me...

I lived in Atlanta before college and attended a school where a third of the students were refugees and 70% were on free and reduced lunch. But again, PLEASE, tell me how much you know about my life...

Then it's amazing how little you know, that's sad kid.

Good job making this discussion about me and not the merits of the welfare system.

[TPIG]

Worded unbelievably badly, but the point itself (that Democrats have a political interest in keeping people poor) is not entirely false.

Lol, yes it is. Republicans despise the poor and want to do nothing to actually help them become successful. Just tell them to work harder and pull themselves up by the bootstraps, no actual help.

That is simply not true. Democratic welfare policies have clearly been a failure. We've spent trillions of dollars since LBJ's war on poverty was launched, and yet today the poverty rate is nearly the exact same. That's because the current welfare system essentially locks people in poverty, disincentivizes marriage (a proven alleviator of poverty), and discourages people from finding work by drastically cutting benefits as soon as people get a job (thus making work an economically unsound decision). If you really think the solution for poverty is throwing money at the same failed policies, you're crazy.

(Most) Republicans don't blame, or by any means despise, the poor for the poverty we see and recognize that it's a symptom of failed governmental policy.

I believe the best way to help alleviate poverty is to restructure the welfare system to encourage marriage, slow the decrease of benefits after employment is found, provide educational choice to poor parents so their children aren't locked in failing schools, encourage apprenticeships and more effective job training programs, and free up entrepreneurs from excessive taxes and regulations so they can hire more people (Thank you GOP).

Stop the smears and realize that there's no kindness to be found in supporting policies that keep people trapped in poverty.

Good comment. Too bad no one will listen. Especially not Republicans. As rightly observe the problem with welfare is that we take it away when people get a job or form a joint household. So the solution actually is MORE WELFARE, to give people welfare regardless of income or marriage status, ie a guaranteed basic income. The GOP will never get behind that. They only want to cut welfare. The Democrats will probably never get behind it either though, since they believe any program which gives to people regardless of circumstances, rather than rewarding them for being failures or rewarding them for being non-white, is inherently problematic. We're just screwed.

I don't think the solution is more welfare but rather a far slower reduction in benefits once people find employment. The point of welfare should be to eliminate the need for its own existence. I do think Republican politicians attack the problem backwards. We should focus on the marriage incenvtives, work encentives, job training, and educational opportunity FIRST and then make cuts to the system once people have started to get themselves out of poverty. Cuts should be the final step, not the first.

[TPIG]

Also rofl at "give business more opportunities". Seriously? They've been doing perfectly fine; the provlem is they give dividends to their  shareholders before their workers.

Really? Does that apply to the enormous number of small businesses who aren't public (thus having no shareholders) but were paying the top individual rate before tax reform? Encouraging small business growth is a great way to provide more opportunity to the economically disadvantaged.

[TPIG]

Worded unbelievably badly, but the point itself (that Democrats have a political interest in keeping people poor) is not entirely false.

Lol, yes it is. Republicans despise the poor and want to do nothing to actually help them become successful. Just tell them to work harder and pull themselves up by the bootstraps, no actual help.

That is simply not true. Democratic welfare policies have clearly been a failure. We've spent trillions of dollars since LBJ's war on poverty was launched, and yet today the poverty rate is nearly the exact same. That's because the current welfare system essentially locks people in poverty, disincentivizes marriage (a proven alleviator of poverty), and discourages people from finding work by drastically cutting benefits as soon as people get a job (thus making work an economically unsound decision). If you really think the solution for poverty is throwing money at the same failed policies, you're crazy.

(Most) Republicans don't blame, or by any means despise, the poor for the poverty we see and recognize that it's a symptom of failed governmental policy.

I believe the best way to help alleviate poverty is to restructure the welfare system to encourage marriage, slow the decrease of benefits after employment is found, provide educational choice to poor parents so their children aren't locked in failing schools, encourage apprenticeships and more effective job training programs, and free up entrepreneurs from excessive taxes and regulations so they can hire more people (Thank you GOP).

Stop the smears and realize that there's no kindness to be found in supporting policies that keep people trapped in poverty.

Good comment. Too bad no one will listen. Especially not Republicans. As rightly observe the problem with welfare is that we take it away when people get a job or form a joint household. So the solution actually is MORE WELFARE, to give people welfare regardless of income or marriage status, ie a guaranteed basic income. The GOP will never get behind that. They only want to cut welfare. The Democrats will probably never get behind it either though, since they believe any program which gives to people regardless of circumstances, rather than rewarding them for being failures or rewarding them for being non-white, is inherently problematic. We're just screwed.

I don't think the solution is more welfare but rather a far slower reduction in benefits once people find employment. The point of welfare should be to eliminate the need for its own existence. I do think Republican politicians attack the problem backwards. We should focus on the marriage incenvtives, work encentives, job training, and educational opportunity FIRST and then make cuts to the system once people have started to get themselves out of poverty. Cuts should be the final step, not the first.

You're being vague. "Cuts should be the final step" Cuts to the program? Or cuts to personal benefits? I agree with your implication that cuts to personal benefits should come later but that means people get benefits for longer, ie more welfare will be given out by the government. Incentivizing good behavior like family formation and getting a job is simply not compatible with GOP orthodoxy because the GOP does not believe the government should offer positive incentives ever. Democrats = incentives to failure/Republicans = no incentives one way or the other.

I meant cuts to personal benefits. Also, I disagree with your assertion about Republicans not accepting any positives incentives. The recent tax reform reduced the marriage penalty for most earners and of course increased the child tax credit. Those are positive incentives. With welfare policies, we're already spending the money, we just need to restructure HOW it's being spent.

[TPIG]

Also rofl at "give business more opportunities". Seriously? They've been doing perfectly fine; the provlem is they give dividends to their  shareholders before their workers.

Really? Does that apply to the enormous number of small businesses who aren't public (thus having no shareholders) but were paying the top individual rate before tax reform? Encouraging small business growth is a great way to provide more opportunity to the economically disadvantaged.

The tax cuts for sole proprietorships, partnerships, etc. were far lower than the cuts for corporations, even though corporationls are only about 20% of businesses

So you agree with me that the tax cuts should have been even bigger?

[TPIG]

Also rofl at "give business more opportunities". Seriously? They've been doing perfectly fine; the provlem is they give dividends to their  shareholders before their workers.

Really? Does that apply to the enormous number of small businesses who aren't public (thus having no shareholders) but were paying the top individual rate before tax reform? Encouraging small business growth is a great way to provide more opportunity to the economically disadvantaged.

Big corporations provide better pay and more stability than small businesses. They also tend to provide better service to customers as well. Support for small business over big business on both the left and right is based on sentimentality more than anything else. Also, it's just not economically feasible to have everyone have their own businesses, unless you are advocating for the Democratic version of the future where the only jobs are food trucks and everyone is just selling tacos to each other and there's no other economic activity.

I'd say support for small business comes from the fact that they employ 120 million people, create 2/3rds of new jobs, and contribute 9 trillion dollars to America's GDP. Any effective reform of business taxation has to focus on small business; it's in no way simply based on sentimentality.

[TPIG]

Also rofl at "give business more opportunities". Seriously? They've been doing perfectly fine; the provlem is they give dividends to their  shareholders before their workers.

Really? Does that apply to the enormous number of small businesses who aren't public (thus having no shareholders) but were paying the top individual rate before tax reform? Encouraging small business growth is a great way to provide more opportunity to the economically disadvantaged.

Big corporations provide better pay and more stability than small businesses. They also tend to provide better service to customers as well. Support for small business over big business on both the left and right is based on sentimentality more than anything else. Also, it's just not economically feasible to have everyone have their own businesses, unless you are advocating for the Democratic version of the future where the only jobs are food trucks and everyone is just selling tacos to each other and there's no other economic activity.

I'd say support for small business comes from the fact that they employ 120 million people, create 2/3rds of new jobs, and contribute 9 trillion dollars to America's GDP. Any effective reform of business taxation has to focus on small business; it's in no way simply based on sentimentality.

Big businesses would step in to fill the void if those small businesses didn't exist, and they would likely do a better job doing what the small businesses were doing in most cases.

Considering there are 28 million small businesses in the US, of which 22 million are individually owned (without any other employees), it would be incredibly inefficient for a few big businesses to absorb these businesses and still provide their services (imagine the overhead). Yes, increased firm size leads to greater ability for specialization and more efficiency up to a point, after which that efficiency stalls and inefficiencies creep in (look at long run average cost curves). Either way, that's obviously not going to happen, and policy should focus on the business environment as it currently is.

[TPIG]

We've cut welfare a lot since the great society, so no wonder poverty rates are about the same.

Not to mention muh prosperty bible fails very hard when productivity has massively increased yet compensation is only slightly higher. These financial and tech firms are screwing over workers and are getting far more money than they deserve. These guys dont deserve 30 times the pay of a teacher just because they got lucky with some financial investment.

I am an upper middle class guy that gets over $50k a year by doing nothing but puttinng stocks in a mutual fund. This sh**t is just completely unfair and shouldn't happen, but that is the fcked up societ thatConservativeGuy jerks off too.

Whew, almost missed this one...
 
Please tell me about these great cuts to welfare spending...

[TPIG]

We've cut welfare a lot since the great society, so no wonder poverty rates are about the same.

Not to mention muh prosperty bible fails very hard when productivity has massively increased yet compensation is only slightly higher. These financial and tech firms are screwing over workers and are getting far more money than they deserve. These guys dont deserve 30 times the pay of a teacher just because they got lucky with some financial investment.

I am an upper middle class guy that gets over $50k a year by doing nothing but puttinng stocks in a mutual fund. This sh**t is just completely unfair and shouldn't happen, but that is the fcked up societ thatConservativeGuy jerks off too.

Whew, almost missed this one...
 
Please tell me about these great cuts to welfare spending...

Tbf, $0.25 bought you a gallon of milk a few decades ago

Also, the aging of baby boomers who are an increasingly large % of the population makes SS, Medicare, and even Medicaid higher.

Also notice how welfare spending went down for a while under Obama but skyrocketed under Bush

Well, it's not just SS, Medicare and Medicaid that have seen increased spending.

It's also -

Foodstamps...


School lunches -


Federal Housing Assistance...



...and a whole host of others. To claim that the problem is programs cuts is simply wrong...

[TPIG]

We've cut welfare a lot since the great society, so no wonder poverty rates are about the same.

Not to mention muh prosperty bible fails very hard when productivity has massively increased yet compensation is only slightly higher. These financial and tech firms are screwing over workers and are getting far more money than they deserve. These guys dont deserve 30 times the pay of a teacher just because they got lucky with some financial investment.

I am an upper middle class guy that gets over $50k a year by doing nothing but puttinng stocks in a mutual fund. This sh**t is just completely unfair and shouldn't happen, but that is the fcked up societ thatConservativeGuy jerks off too.

Whew, almost missed this one...
 
Please tell me about these great cuts to welfare spending...

I suspect this takes into account social welfare items that are not typically associated with "welfare" when people talk about it.  But I can't be sure.

What I can be sure of, however, is that it does not take into account things that rise faster than inflation like medical costs and housing costs.  

Here's a graph that is sad and alarming:  The impact of welfare reform for impoverished children in the U.S. has been very bad.

Without additional information, all this graph tells me is that less children are using this particular program (which you state correctly was restructured with the '96 welfare reform). I will say though, I disagree with the block grant structure of TANF and think that, with this particular program, it makes more sense to have one Federal standard (with looser standards than some of the current state policies) thus making sure families in emergency situations are able to get assistance.

[TPIG]

Worded unbelievably badly, but the point itself (that Democrats have a political interest in keeping people poor) is not entirely false.

MasterJedi's responses to you are pretty idiotic, but this post is also really dumb. Saying Democrats have a political interest in keeping people poor is like saying that people have a political interest in murdering their opposition. Sure, in some fantasy land, Democrats are strategizing about how to keep people poor so they will continue to vote for them. But that level of cynicism and lack of faith have the same level of intellectual merit as asserting that Obama was born in Kenya (probably less, to be honest). Even if you want to argue that welfare systems are ineffective that's entirely different than saying that Democrats trying to keep people poor.

Yeah, on the whole you're probably right. I think the average Democrat does truly want to see people be lifted out of poverty, and I'm not trying to say popular support for welfare programs is based around a desire to keep poor people voting for Democrats. However, I think a lot of Democratic politicians like having this as an issue to run on, as it's very easy to paint Republicans as boogey-men. The debate about poverty is one that needs to be VERY nuanced and thoughtful, but is often presented by Democrats as "We good, GOP wants you to die. The end", and nothing could be further from the truth.

[TPIG]

Worded unbelievably badly, but the point itself (that Democrats have a political interest in keeping people poor) is not entirely false.

Lol, yes it is. Republicans despise the poor and want to do nothing to actually help them become successful. Just tell them to work harder and pull themselves up by the bootstraps, no actual help.

That is simply not true. Democratic welfare policies have clearly been a failure. We've spent trillions of dollars since LBJ's war on poverty was launched, and yet today the poverty rate is nearly the exact same. That's because the current welfare system essentially locks people in poverty, disincentivizes marriage (a proven alleviator of poverty), and discourages people from finding work by drastically cutting benefits as soon as people get a job (thus making work an economically unsound decision). If you really think the solution for poverty is throwing money at the same failed policies, you're crazy.

(Most) Republicans don't blame, or by any means despise, the poor for the poverty we see and recognize that it's a symptom of failed governmental policy.

I believe the best way to help alleviate poverty is to restructure the welfare system to encourage marriage, slow the decrease of benefits after employment is found, provide educational choice to poor parents so their children aren't locked in failing schools, encourage apprenticeships and more effective job training programs, and free up entrepreneurs from excessive taxes and regulations so they can hire more people (Thank you GOP).

Stop the smears and realize that there's no kindness to be found in supporting policies that keep people trapped in poverty.

Then why do you favor policies that concentrate income among the wealthy.  To get people out of poverty we need to have policies that grow the economy by increasing consumption and it ain't the wealthy who consume; it's the lower classes (and lower middle classes).  In the midst of an economy doing well enough that having sufficient capital to expand businesses was not a problem, the GOP passed a tax cut whose primary effects are to bloat the debt and let the rich expand their portfolios rather than their businesses.

I think tax policy should encourage both consumption among the lower and middle classes and savings (and thus investment) among the upper classes. That's exactly what the tax reform did by lowering individual rates at both the bottom and top. Those with lower incomes have a higher propensity to spend the money they receive from the cut and those with higher incomes save it. You have to remember though, saving isn't sticking money under a mattress. That money is either directly invested or put in banks which then lend it out to businesses, helping them expand and keeping the economy growing, allowing businesses to keep up with the increased demand from the middle and lower classes.

[TPIG]

On a serious note (meaning I'm not playing Tankie at the moment), reading through this thread really shows that movement conservative-types are just as empathy-deficient and fundamentally bad as white nationalists/the "alt-right", even if they hide under the veil of Respectability.

Gosh... what's the point of trying to engage in thoughtful debate on this forum? Whether I had responded with "Yeah, the poor suck and deserve to die" or responded the way I actually did (trying to show how I think conservative solutions can actually help the poor) the response from you, obviously, would have been the same.

The left doesn't have a monopoly on kindness and empathy, and to cast me and other conservatives in the same lot as white nationalists is truly reprehensible. I mean honestly, why are you even here? Is it to engage in debate or simply to engage in self-righteous posturing?

[TPIG]

On a serious note (meaning I'm not playing Tankie at the moment), reading through this thread really shows that movement conservative-types are just as empathy-deficient and fundamentally bad as white nationalists/the "alt-right", even if they hide under the veil of Respectability.

Gosh... what's the point of trying to engage in thoughtful debate on this forum? Whether I had responded with "Yeah, the poor suck and deserve to die" or responded the way I actually did (trying to show how I think conservative solutions can actually help the poor) the response from you, obviously, would have been the same.

The left doesn't have a monopoly on kindness and empathy, and to cast me and other conservatives in the same lot as white nationalists is truly reprehensible. I mean honestly, why are you even here? Is it to engage in debate or simply to engage in self-righteous posturing?

well some of what you posted seems to imply significantly more government investment than a lot of what we've seen out of the republican party. also i'd imagine a lot of this is just because of how bitter certain people are here. i know jedi is some ex republican. idk that much on his background otherwise

And yet even I, a Republican who takes an unorthodox conservative approach to poverty-elimination (that doesn't involve immediate drastic cuts to programs), am still equivalent to Nazi-sympathizers... how great...

This is the point I'm trying to make. It doesn't matter how much nuance is put into the argument, unless you fall completely in line with leftist thinking, you're an empathy-deficient sociopath who chuckles at the thought of poor children starving.

[TPIG]

The reason I think Republicans hate poor people has nothing to do with their policies. It has everything to do with their rhetoric. When Republicans like Orrin Hatch say the poor are lazy and need to help themselves, despite the fact that the working poor are very hard working, then what on earth do you want me to conclude other then Republicans don't like poor people?

Sure, I think that's a fair conclusion that any rational person could come to in response to a comment like that. Obviously Hatch was wrong. I, and a lot of conservatives, blame the government for the failure of welfare policies and the sustained poverty we see, not the poor themselves.