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

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

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.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

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.

It's not April 1st anymore. You don't need to pretend Verizon customer service is great, and that Walmart pays a living wage, or that Amazon warehouse jobs are stable.

[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.

[Dr. Arch]

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.

False, they only want those who can't afford to live to die. Of course, they won't say it, but their policies clearly aim for that kind of privative and sociopathic social Darwinism.

[courts]

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.

there are other studies that point to obviously better life outcomes for people on certain programs even in ways you wouldn't expect. like children that had access to health insurance through medicaid are less likely to be obese. and less likely to be on food stamps or other government programs in adult hood

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mille/MillerWherry_Prenatal2015.pdf

[TheSaint250]

Add him to the list of Republicans who should be kicked out of the party.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Wow, an honest conservative! At least he's honest about their social Darwinism. If someone's poor, obviously there's something wrong with them, not the capitalist system.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

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.

With reform of AFDC to TANF, there was also the expansion of EITC and the Child Tax Credit. Together these policies likely helped reduce the official child poverty rate for the next decade or so. But these policies assumed a generally good economic outlook for them to be at all effective at addressing poverty, and with the financial crash it became very apparent that a lot of families were falling through the cracks and were worse off then they'd have been under the old system.

[Torie]

Nobody is old enough but me to remember the genial black TV talk show host, Louis Lomax, in Los Angeles, who had on this chap on his who once who opined that it is a "sin" to be poor. Louis responded, hey, now I know what my Dad meant when he said that I was born in sin.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

[Kingpoleon]

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.

The fact of the matter is that three things get you out of poverty:
1. Education, education, education.
2. Marriage, children, marriage.
3. A secure job.

The problem is the difficulty for someone attempting to prioritize one - job - over the others.

[136or142]

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.

The fact of the matter is that three things get you out of poverty:
1. Education, education, education.
2. Marriage, children, marriage.
3. A secure job.

The problem is the difficulty for someone attempting to prioritize one - job - over the others.

"The number one cause of poverty is poverty itself."

[Fuzzy Bear]

There are factors in poverty that are beyond people's control.  There are other factors that are, very much, within one's ability to control, that enable folks to resist falling into poverty and utter destitution:

1.  Abstain from alcohol and drugs.  Alcohol and drugs are poverty-makers.

2.  Abstain from sexual activity outside of marriage.  Child support is tough to pay and tough to live on.  The decision to have children out of wedlock is a devastating one, economically.

3.  Get married and stay married to a stable person.  Divorce is economically devastating.  If someone's beating you, using drugs, committing crimes, etc., that's a reason to bail.  If you've just "outgrown one another" or "fallen out of love",  you NEED to stay married for a variety of reasons, but economic stability is a big reason (especially if you have kids).  The two-income advantage is a necessity these days.

4.  Don't get arrested, and don't become a felon.  This will kill your earning power fast and for a long time.

5.  If you are working for a large organization, full-time, with benefits, you need to think long and hard before you change jobs, especially if you're desiring to "go into business" or you want a change.  Married couples that stay at such jobs, even with only high school diplomas, or only some community college, are often in better shape at 30 than some college grads.

Nothing is a guarantee.  But my money is on the folks who are able to delay gratification and tolerate frustration to succeed and not on the "dreamers" who "follow their heart".  Successful people LEAD their heart; I'm a firm believer in that.  Not everyone will be mega-rich, but there is a difference between being stable and being one step away from the homeless shelter. 

[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.

[Rookie Yinzer]

LOL at Democrats wanting to keep people poor so they will for them.

People who are stuck in generational poverty hardly vote.

LOL at Republicans wanting to lift people out of poverty. Which is why President Bone Spurs tried to appoint the notorious wage thief Andrew Puzder as his Labor Secretary?

[Badger]

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.

On behalf of one of those small businesses that supposedly can't offer is good or service as big businesses, f*** you. You are so ignorant the proper reaction is somewhere between laughter and tears.

Seriously though, don't you have a Eugenics rally to go to? Aren't some of your so-called Master race Buddy's supposed to be hooking up later?

[All Along The Watchtower]

True statement.

[Famous Mortimer]

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.

Republican: Democratic policies don't work.

Democrat: Ah ha! Neither do Republican policies though!

Great. So we've established that neither party has policies that do anything to fight poverty.

[mvd10]

I don't even think the Dems have a huge interest in keeping poor people poor. Once you run a regression model that takes all demographic factors of a person into account an increase in income probably will make someone only marginally more likely to vote D (ceteris paribus ofc). That wealthier people vote more Republican (undenieably correct) doesn't necessarily mean someone becomes much more likely to vote Republican if he becomes wealthier while keeping all of his other characteristics. The effect income had on voting probably was more significant in 2012, people earning under $30k voted 63-35 for Obama while people earning over $250k voted 55-42 for Romney. But when you take all demographic factors into account I'm pretty sure that gap quickly narrows. And in 2016 the gap was much smaller.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

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...

The graph basically says welfare spending skyrocketed after the recession.

[RINO Tom]

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.

Great comeback.

[Antonio the Sixth]

A rare moment of honesty.

[kyc0705]

Seems about right:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

(Source)

[Badger]

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.

Great comeback.

In fairness, that quite historically and fiscally inaccurate post really didn't deserve much better.

[courts]

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.

yeah a lot has been written on how buybacks have worsened inequality

https://www.cnbc.com/2014/09/23/nequality-end-buybacks-harvard-business-review.html
http://money.cnn.com/2018/03/05/investing/stock-buybacks-inequality-tax-law/index.html