For GOP, Pitfalls In Ignoring Poor

For GOP, Pitfalls In Ignoring Poor

In the modern-day Republican camp -- a tribe that would have cast out Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, George H.W. Bush and even Reagan as namby-pamby liberals -- disdain for the poor is embraced as a virtue, a signifier that sentimentality will not get in the way of dismantling the social safety net.

People who depend upon the aid of the government via food stamps, unemployment checks and mortgage relief are typically written off as parasites and losers. (Meanwhile, corporations that depend upon government largess for bailouts and subsidies are celebrated as paragons of free enterprise, but that's another matter.)

Romney's lexicon has simply been excised of words like "generosity" when it comes to the poor, along with other problematic nouns such as "Massachusetts," "health care," "diplomacy," and "Cayman."

But as the party faithful gather for the coronation, it is nonetheless worth listening to hear what, if anything, they have to say about poor and vulnerable Americans, because the poor and vulnerable constitute a rapidly growing slice of the population.

Republicans can ignore them, demean them, work around them or punish them, but in any scenario poor Americans and close-to-poor Americans are not going away anytime soon.

[T]he Republican gimmick of promising prosperity through tax cuts while handing most of the loot to the wealthy can only work for so long. Most Americans get how this story played out during the splendiferous reign of George W. Bush.

As more middle-class families suffer growing proximity to poverty, Republicans will face greater electoral risks in ignoring the needs of people who require help. More than merely heartless, this strategy will widen the distance between Republicans and the experiences of Americans who used to feel secure and don't anymore.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-s-g ... 25205.html

"They Only Call It Class Warfare When We Fight Back"

I hope they keep trying to sell that "Let 'em eat cake" / trickle-down stuff... Trickle-down didn't, doesn't, and won't.... But watching them try to sell it is a wonderful thing to behold....

The best you've got today is more regurgitations from the contents of the Huff-n-Puff echo chamber? Actually, I should correct myself and not limit the time span to today - it's all you've ever got.

How about an actual story instead of another opinion piece slandering Republicans? Supposedly the Right hates the poor, but they give much more to charity than the national average.

How about if you don't like it, don't read it.

The GOP, and the Randroids, have made it clear that they don't give a flip about the people in the bottom 20% of this country...



But you know, if I ever decide I want to vote for the Part of Social Darwinism, and the Party of Theocracy, I know where to find it.

Once again although you don't want to admit it, the right donates voluntarily more than their neighbors to the poor. Sounds like they care more than the Dems who just like to force others by penalty of jail and fines to donate to their pet projects. Who cares? And those Christians you hate also tend to donate more than the athiests. So the Left is just like Obama, all talk, no walk.

FredHayek wrote: Once again although you don't want to admit it, the right donates voluntarily more than their neighbors to the poor. Sounds like they care more than the Dems

Sounds like they feel guilty. But I saw another poll this weekend that showed poorer people donate a great percentage of their income to the poor that rich people.

The difference is, the left has a vested interest in keeping the poor poor, by making sure they can't have a good education, and will stay sucking at the govt. teat. Conservatives want to actually help the poor become productive by lifting them up with better school choice, etc.

So, some of the donate to their churches...BFD... I wonder how much of that "trickles-down" to the millions who actually need it?

And yes, I saw the piece on the Mormon warehouses... I wonder how many of the millions that actually helps? I'm not impressed...

Social Darwinism is not a platform...(any more than bat-sh*t-crazy is....)

Social Darwinism? You are confusing our idea that the truly needy should be getting help, it is the able-bodied and lazy that we want to see get off the dole. And we are willing to spend extra money reviewing these cases as opposed to the Dem model which says just fill up their debit cards.

Ah, yes... The standard talking-point (read: delusion) of the mythical "Reagan Welfare Queen", and the lazy shiftless millions (that don't actually exist except in the minds of the Randroids)...

The Right would rather deny access to millions, rather than let a few bad apples get through.

You're right..I'm willing to tolerate a few lazy, shiftless bad-apples to ensure that those who need it, get it...