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.
