Republicans to cut health for poor; lets talk about republican ideology

[No Limit]

Yes, this is another one of No Limit's republican bashing posts because these assholes deserve it. If you don't like it don't post.

Congress is back in town and their first agenda item this week is to start cutting programs that help protect the oldest and most vulnerable members of society.

House Republican leaders have moved from balking at big cuts in Medicaid and other programs to embracing them, driven by pent-up anger from fiscal conservatives concerned about runaway spending and the leadership's own weakening hold on power.

Beginning this week, the House GOP lawmakers will take steps to cut as much as $50 billion from the fiscal 2006 budget for health care for the poor, food stamps and farm supports, as well as considering across-the-board cuts in other programs. Only last month, then-House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (Tex.) and other GOP leaders quashed demands within their party for budget cuts to pay for the soaring cost of hurricane relief.

So again, lets take from the poor by cutting programs they use and give to the rich by cutting their taxes during a time of war. This leads me to a post I read on another Democratic board, it hits the nail on the head:

I don't often encounter what I would consider a completely "Republican" attitude on these boards, but once in a while I see something that is so purely exemplary of Republican thinking that it is worth taking a second look at.

Last week I started a thread reminding folks that the working man, the man who struggles to make his monthly bills and make ends meet, is our natural base as Democrats. The thread degenerated a little bit into arcane economic theory about who was "labor" and who was "capital", and I realized that I had made some poor characterizations in the original post.

One exchange stood out, however, and it was along these lines. One of our economically conservative brothers made a comment along the lines of 'we're all working men, and that the man who must decide how to invest capital must work just as hard as the man who must receive hourly wages to make the ends meet in the middle each month.'

My response was, "If you can't see a difference between a man or woman struggling each month and working his ass off to pay the monthly bills and a man working his ass off to figure out where to invest his next million dollars, I can't help you."

The reply was along the lines of, "I can see a difference, all right. One is a success and the other is a failure."

Well, I thought about that reply all weekend (when I couldn't post).

I can think of no better example of what I call the Republican attitude. In the Republican mind, all economics boils down to a football game, with winners and losers. The winners are to be rewarded, the losers are to be dismissed out of hand with a 'better luck next time, sucker.' This attitude explains so well the economic policy that justifies tax cuts to the rich 'winners' at the expense of the poor 'losers'. It explains corporate welfare, it explains no-bid contracts, it explains cronyism as just rewards to the 'winners', whether they're wealthy or just well connected.

This is the attitude we need to stand against. We must be the party that recognizes that working people, hard working people, are the foundation of our country. They existed before large capital expenditures, they existed before large capital. They are not 'losers' just because they aren't rich. The man/woman who gets up in the early morning hours, works his butt off for minimum wages to put food on the table and clothes on the back of his family is a noble, integral and essential part of who we are as Americans.

We need to be the party that looks out for him/her, remembers him, and fights against the attitude that says he doesn't deserve the same opportunities as the one who strikes it rich. That's the Democratic attitude.

This guy is dead on, what I don't understand is how so many people vote agains their own interests. I can't count the number of times I see a beat up car with a driver that looks like he is in horrible economic shape have a Bush 04 sticker on it; what is wrong with these people?

 

[Lemonking]

didnt Bush spend alot more money then Bush on poverty as Clinton?
I dunno If thats right so correct me If Im wrong

 

[No Limit]

didnt Bush spend alot more money then Bush on poverty as Clinton?
I dunno If thats right so correct me If Im wrong

No, he didn't. This is a Bill O'Reilly talking point which si completely false. He cherry picked numbers to try and make a case for it, I'll get a link shortly.

Edit: here it is:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200509140004

 

[>>FrEnZy<<]

w00t! Go no limit GO!

 

[MrWhite]

they're cutting 50 billion for food stamps, poor and senior medicare, and other help programs?

Ladies and gentlemen, it is now a fact. The government is officially trying to kill us.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Moving away from subsidization of farms and other ag. programs to the private sector is better.

As far as food stamps and other welfare dependance programs, this could be a catalyst for serious reform, and I hope it ushers in. These programs aren't meant to be depended on, at all.

 

[MrWhite]

Moving away from subsidization of farms and other ag. programs to the private sector is better.

As far as food stamps and other welfare dependance programs, this could be a catalyst for serious reform, and I hope it ushers in. These programs aren't meant to be depended on, at all.

You're right, and I agree. I know one of my mom's friends who refuses to work because any job she can get with her credentials wont pay her more than her welfare does. But that's not productive, it's just leeching. However uctting that much so drastically? Some people need welfare because they can't even get jobs, hey the world is a cruel place, so maybe a sort of inbetween balance? But I agree in the fact that america right now needs some serious reform, and this, though odd sounding, may be a misguided step into the right direction.

Haha, I remember when I said to her, "Get some better credentials bitch!" and slapped the taste out of her mouth then skull ****ed her brains out.

YAEH :KD f;lkg

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

You're right, and I agree. I know one of my mom's friends who refuses to work because any job she can get with her credentials wont pay her more than her welfare does. But that's not productive, it's just leeching. However uctting that much so drastically? Some people need welfare because they can't even get jobs, hey the world is a cruel place, so maybe a sort of inbetween balance? But I agree in the fact that america right now needs some serious reform, and this, though odd sounding, may be a misguided step into the right direction.

Haha, I remember when I said to her, "Get some better credentials bitch!" and slapped the taste out of her mouth then skull ****ed her brains out.

YAEH :KD f;lkg

Well as far as that huge figure goes, you KNOW a lot of it is going to come from the subsidized programs. It's a scare tactic and sounds like personal welfare programs are 'immediately vanishing or you'll lose almost all benefits tomorrow' but no, it's not working that way. People need to view what's going on, where, when, and with what programs before they freak out.

 

[Adabiviak]

Our system needs some reform, I think.

 

[gh0st]

this just in bush eliminates welfare. in other news, scare tactics still abound. welfare as it is now is grossly out of spirit with what it was during hoovers administration. it was meant to assist people getting out of the great depression not as a means of subsistence over years of time. hopefully this leads to HUGE reform of the entire system.

 

[MrWhite]

Well as far as that huge figure goes, you KNOW a lot of it is going to come from the subsidized programs. It's a scare tactic and sounds like personal welfare programs are 'immediately vanishing or you'll lose almost all benefits tomorrow' but no, it's not working that way. People need to view what's going on, where, when, and with what programs before they freak out.

Well put.

 

[No Limit]

Yes, the system needs reform; I've said this for a long time. But the point here is that poverty rates are rising, we are at war, and the Republicans have the nerve to cut billions of dollars from programs that benefit the elderly, the poor, the disabled, and the children in this country while they turn right around and give out trillions to the richest americans. You guys honestly don't have a problem with this?

 

[No Limit]

Well as far as that huge figure goes, you KNOW a lot of it is going to come from the subsidized programs. It's a scare tactic and sounds like personal welfare programs are 'immediately vanishing or you'll lose almost all benefits tomorrow' but no, it's not working that way. People need to view what's going on, where, when, and with what programs before they freak out.

50 billion is a lot of money, its not just some minor figure to spark reform.

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0

Under Outlays for Mandatory Spending you will see income security, thhis is where 50 billion will mostly come from. That means that the 190 billion that was spent will now be cut by almost 30%. What cuts is this administration proposing for corporate welfare or welfare for the richest of americans? I'll give you a hint, its none.

 

[MrWhite]

Yes, the system needs reform; I've said this for a long time. But the point here is that poverty rates are rising, we are at war, and the Republicans have the nerve to cut billions of dollars from programs that benefit the elderly, the poor, the disabled, and the children in this country while they turn right around and give out trillions to the richest americans. You guys honestly don't have a problem with this?

Oh I have a problem with it, still dont think its a good idea, but Rakurai had a pretty good point.

 

[Milkman]

Which "richest americans" are getting trillions of dollars?

 

[Pesmerga]

I am not Independant, I'm Indifferent!

 

[Milkman]

And I am not rascist, I hate everyone equally?

 

[No Limit]

Which "richest americans" are getting trillions of dollars?

http://slate.msn.com/id/2088237/

According to Robert McIntyre, director of Citizens for Tax Justice, a labor-backed nonprofit whose data on tax policy have proven extremely reliable over the years, the combined revenue loss from Bush's three tax bills for fiscal year 2004 will be $266 billion.
...
What would middle- and lower-income people lose if the pre-Bush tax code were restored? Not much. According to a June 4 study by Citizens for Tax Justice, by the end of this decade the average combined Bush tax reduction for everyone except the richest one percent of the population would be only 5 percent. (That's less than a third of the average combined Bush tax reduction for the richest one percent of the population.) The fact that Bush's tax cuts were heavily tilted toward the rich makes it relatively easy for most of us to ponder giving them up. As for President Bush's worry that a tax hike right now would spoil the current fragile economic recovery, a $301 billion budget deficit ought to provide sufficient stimulus. Besides, aren't we supposed to make sacrifices during wartime?

Be sure to look at the chart that leads in to a surplus, you know, the one we had under Clinton.

If you combine the tax cuts of the last 4 years and add all the nobid contracts along with corporate welfare this administration has given out the total will be far more than a trillion. And these people have the nerve to cut back 50 billion for the poorest americans.

 

[Kmack]

trickle down economics.

basically, if you are rich, you benefit directly, if you are poor you are supposed to benefit indirectly. it seems good on paper... but so did communism.