Skip to comments.LEFT OF THE RIGHT: Why Republicans Hate The Poor
Posted on 08/15/2011 9:11:21 AM PDT by no gnu taxes
click here to read article
At which point you know you are dealing with a totally brain dead author and no future reading of the article is need.
[ But they(republicans) see a world of finite wealth and you better get yours or you might get left out. ]
That is the liberal stance projected onto republicans.. by this liberal..
Capitalism creates wealth, socialism uses that wealth up...
They want to re-distribute available resources out of an available pie.. not create MORE WEALTH..
He displays liberal concepts of republicans well.. inaccurate but well..
A “firing line” discussion of these things would do well on TV..
Who can make a bigger pie democrats or republicans?..
And who even WANTS TOO..democrats do not know how..
This drivel makes sense to most RINOs... thats why they are RINOs..
Socialism was, is now, and will always be parasitism..
Socialists are parasites.. even scavengers.. like hyenas..
RINOs are not beyond consuming financial and economic carrion..
And democrats, well thats just who they are..
Good article displaying parasitism...
The author's EEG.
I don’t “hate the poor”, but I do detest illogical liberal’s (sic) who bombard us with drivel such as this.
Well, fits of laughter, yeah.
...but like it says in my byline, I have a deep passion for issues dealing with the poor.
How many "poor" do you know?
I know second-graders who could write better papers than this. LOL
Imputing one set of axioms to results created from a different set of axioms doesn’t work.
“Myth #1. The poor are poor because they are lazy.”
This may often be right, but is obviously incomplete. Some rich are lazy; some poor work hard. It’s not about laziness, it’s about consequences of choices, and that those consequences may ripple beyond the one making the choice. Much of the time, the choice is “be lazy” and the consequence is “become poor”; not always, but often enough to warrant the sweeping generalization.
“Myth #2. The poor are poor because they are irresponsible with their money.”
Author proceeds to validate the “myth”. Responsible choices may be very difficult to make & follow. A person may not even know what the responsible choice is, or that there is a choice - doesn’t mean that the option they do take isn’t irresponsible. A person may not know that they can make dinners for a buck a plate (pimp my website: http://abuckaplate.blogspot.com/) and buys a bag of chips instead thinking that’s the best option, but it’s still the irresponsible money choice.
“Myth #3. The poor are subsidized by welfare.”
Author proceeds to obfuscate the definition of “poor”. Half the world lives on less than $2/day; if you’re making more than 20x that (the US official poverty line) you’re not poor - life may be hard, and choices unpleasant, but you’re not poor.
Oh, the author is a stand-up comedian. Yeah, real heavy thinking there.
Is this guy saying that lazy, irresponsible people do not exists or that lazy, irresponsible people somehow make enough money to not be considered poor.
Oh man, you nailed it. That article is going to become Exhibits 1 through 30 in the Museum of Self-Regarding Liberal Narcissism. This is some kind of self-preening kryptonite wholly antithetic to rational thought. This is weapons-grade pomposity. Man, what a rush!
I hope for the author’s sake she’s a 6th grader.
WORK?!? You don't OWN it? What kind of Republican are you? Or do you mean you spend half your day "working" by browbeating the real employees, like the guy you describe; and the other half schmoozing on the golf course?
What a pant load that article is.
Oh, and in town, every business owner we know is Conservative, either Republican or Libertarian, and spends their day WORKING ...right alongside their employees, if they have any... unlike this "stand up comedian" author.
The only Democrat business "owner" we know is the newspaper "publisher", who inherited the town's formerly independent newspaper: he drove it into the ground, then sold it to a media company in return for remaining as "editor".
There was another one a few years ago, a developer. He cheated the city by downsizing the golf course expansion by building the new back nine at 90% scale of the plans; skimming off of, and double-biliing ("accounting errors") on, the club house expansion; and (totally stupid) under reporting his income to IRS--he is now a federal felon...or maybe now a member of Obama's administration.
The poor are not poor because they are lazy?
The poor in my family certainly are.
What does he call a refusal to finish high school or get a GED?
What does he call a refusal to take career training fully funded by another?
What does he call a refusal to take driver’s ed when half of it is paid for?
Contrast these choices with the excellent example set for these people by a family member who took a full semester load of nursing classes for two years while working three jobs to suppost herself and pay her tuition so she had no debt.
Poor people have poor ways.
This guy was an engineer? Remind me to stay away from anything he designed....
This attitude about Republicans is especially prevalent among college students, because they get a full dose of this from their (usually liberal) college professors. The best we can do is counter this with the truth. We DO care for the poor, it's just that we want them to gradually become LESS poor. It is not in our political interest to KEEP them poor, unlike Democrats, who derive much of their power from said poor.
ROTFL!! That’s hilarious! I’m fixing to read “Eats, Shoots & Leaves”, a grammarian’s take on the woeful state of punctuation in today’s world.
First I agree with you this is a stupid article. However, it is also 4.5 years old.
Second it is really democrats and progressives (liberals) that truly hate the poor. They have conspired for the last 50 years to keep the poor dependent on government handouts (read entitlement programs.) None of their programs to help the poor and downtrodden become self sufficient have ever worked for an extended period of time. They usually get one or two people that the program actually helped and then promote them as poster children to increase and continue funding for said programs.
He’s saying that sweeping generalizations are invalid outright because nuanced exceptions exist.
Sure, there are some hardworking responsible people who are poor, and there are some lazy irresponsible people who are not.
Sure, some people have hard choices and pick easier options with unpleasant consequences.
Sure, some people aren’t poor but still seem like it.
The exceptions do not invalidate the rules, much to his annoyance.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.