Hypocrites on both ends

[Conservative Democrat]

There’s a lot of stuff in the Bible about caring for the poor. I wonder why the Republican Party, the self-described organization of religious values, constantly ignores the working man in favor for the wealthy and elite.

Just look at Mitt Romney.

Not to say that the Democrats have been any better. I find it hypocritical for them to say they are the party for the working class when many of them are wealthy and elitist, as well.

Just look at Barack Obama.

This country is screwed. 

[Mr. Dirlewanger]

How do the Repubs ignore the working class and what about the poor? It's not clear what you mean to say.

[Conservative Democrat]

How do the Repubs ignore the working class and what about the poor? It's not clear what you mean to say.

Republicans don’t bother to recognize middle and lower class folks. Mike Huckabee is an exception. He talked about issues regular Americans could relate to. Mitt Romney had the wealthy businesspeople.

Who matters more in building the American economy, CEOs or the middle class? I believe it’s the middle class. If you ask that question to some Republicans, they may have to think about it for a second. But remember, I trashed the Democrats, too, so don’t label me a hypocrite. Please.

[Hibbidy Ha]

D-wang, I think you know exactly "what about the poor?"
We have a HUGE problem with poverty in this country, particularly in urban areas.  What is NOT clear is how to address this issue without engaging in something that could be considered "wealth redistribution".
Unfortunately, there simply is no way to offer a way out of poverty without some rich people making a little bit less money.  And I don't want to get into that again, because I know the only argument I'm going to hear is that "the poor bring it upon themselves" and "the poor class consists mainly of minorities who don't deserve help"...

MY question is, are people who are against giving a step-up for the poor REALLY against it because they sympathize for the wealthy; or do they just want to keep their foot on top of an undesirable class of people to promote white supremacy?

So I lied.  I guess I DO want to get into this again.


I agree with you, C-dem.  There is indeed hypocrisy on both sides.  Nobody wins.



By the way, can somebody provide me a definition of "elitist"?  I see this word thrown around so much.

[Mr. Dirlewanger]

How do the Repubs ignore the working class and what about the poor? It's not clear what you mean to say.

Republicans don’t bother to recognize middle and lower class folks. Mike Huckabee is an exception. He talked about issues regular Americans could relate to. Mitt Romney had the wealthy businesspeople.

Who matters more in building the American economy, CEOs or the middle class? I believe it’s the middle class. If you ask that question to some Republicans, they may have to think about it for a second. But remember, I trashed the Democrats, too, so don’t label me a hypocrite. Please.

I was suggesting nothing of the kind (i.e. that you are a hypocrite). I only want to ask what makes you think that the Repubs ignore the middle class? Are you talking about tax cuts? You can't give the poor income tax cuts.

[Mr. Dirlewanger]

D-wang, I think you know exactly "what about the poor?"
We have a HUGE problem with poverty in this country, particularly in urban areas.  What is NOT clear is how to address this issue without engaging in something that could be considered "wealth redistribution".
Unfortunately, there simply is no way to offer a way out of poverty without some rich people making a little bit less money.  And I don't want to get into that again, because I know the only argument I'm going to hear is that "the poor bring it upon themselves" and "the poor class consists mainly of minorities who don't deserve help"...

MY question is, are people who are against giving a step-up for the poor REALLY against it because they sympathize for the wealthy; or do they just want to keep their foot on top of an undesirable class of people to promote white supremacy?

So I lied.  I guess I DO want to get into this again.


I agree with you, C-dem.  There is indeed hypocrisy on both sides.  Nobody wins.



By the way, can somebody provide me a definition of "elitist"?  I see this word thrown around so much.

No, we do not have a huge problem with poverty in this country. Furthermore, rural areas have more economic problems and more "poverty" than urban areas. If you eliminate wealth redistribution you beg the question I just asked. How do the Repubs ignore the working class and poor? By not redistributing my money?

I know the only argument I'm going to hear is that "the poor bring it upon themselves" and "the poor class consists mainly of minorities who don't deserve help"...

You have never heard this argument from me or anyone else here. For shame, sir.

[Mr. Dirlewanger]

And how exactly does White supremacy fit into this? 

[Conservative Democrat]

D-wang, I think you know exactly "what about the poor?"
We have a HUGE problem with poverty in this country, particularly in urban areas.  What is NOT clear is how to address this issue without engaging in something that could be considered "wealth redistribution".
Unfortunately, there simply is no way to offer a way out of poverty without some rich people making a little bit less money.  And I don't want to get into that again, because I know the only argument I'm going to hear is that "the poor bring it upon themselves" and "the poor class consists mainly of minorities who don't deserve help"...

MY question is, are people who are against giving a step-up for the poor REALLY against it because they sympathize for the wealthy; or do they just want to keep their foot on top of an undesirable class of people to promote white supremacy?

So I lied.  I guess I DO want to get into this again.

I agree with you, C-dem.  There is indeed hypocrisy on both sides.  Nobody wins.

By the way, can somebody provide me a definition of "elitist"?  I see this word thrown around so much.

We should not become a welfare state. That’s what progressives want. Instead on just giving the poor government welfare, we should concentrate more on education. Education can lead to prosperity for all people.

The tax burden needs to be lifted from the middle class and placed upon those who can afford it. OnTheIssues.org has a tax policy calculator…let me take some of that and share with you my particular goals…

[Conservative Democrat]

Taken from the OnTheIssues.org Tax Policy Calculator --

Lowest tax bracket: 13.5% / $75,000
Second tax bracket: 18% / $125,000
Third tax bracket: 23% / $250,000
Fourth tax bracket: 35% / $700,000
Highest tax bracket: 37.5%

Maximum charitable donations deduction: $7,500
Maximum mortgage interest deduction: $850,000
Standard deduction per child: $750
Standard deduction per adult: $850
Other deductible targeted tax cuts: $100

[Hibbidy Ha]

D-wang, I think you know exactly "what about the poor?"
We have a HUGE problem with poverty in this country, particularly in urban areas.  What is NOT clear is how to address this issue without engaging in something that could be considered "wealth redistribution".
Unfortunately, there simply is no way to offer a way out of poverty without some rich people making a little bit less money.  And I don't want to get into that again, because I know the only argument I'm going to hear is that "the poor bring it upon themselves" and "the poor class consists mainly of minorities who don't deserve help"...

MY question is, are people who are against giving a step-up for the poor REALLY against it because they sympathize for the wealthy; or do they just want to keep their foot on top of an undesirable class of people to promote white supremacy?

So I lied.  I guess I DO want to get into this again.

I agree with you, C-dem.  There is indeed hypocrisy on both sides.  Nobody wins.

By the way, can somebody provide me a definition of "elitist"?  I see this word thrown around so much.

We should not become a welfare state. That’s what progressives want. Instead on just giving the poor government welfare, we should concentrate more on education. Education can lead to prosperity for all people.

The tax burden needs to be lifted from the middle class and placed upon those who can afford it. OnTheIssues.org has a tax policy calculator…let me take some of that and share with you my particular goals…

That is what I am talking about.  More education.  More opportunity.  Less oppression (c'mon.  It exists, at some level or another).  Less sympathy for the well-off and people who are more than able to take care of themselves--but not necessarily more sympathy for the poor, just more opportunity and more encouragement.  People need some motivation, and a vision.  A reason to make a plan for themselves.  Hell, a reason to get up in the morning.

I guarantee, when people begin to see that the government CARES about them, there will be less crime and less poverty.

[pittypat65]

I wish I had had the opportunity that exists for the youth today. I had no help but managed to get an education and a decent job. I did not depend on handouts from the government or anyone else. People live better and have more today than ever. We make choices in our lives and we cannot blame the government if we make the wrong ones. There are way too many handouts today.  Guess many of us baby boomers spoiled our kids.

[Gunit Hussein Sangh]

There’s a lot of stuff in the Bible about caring for the poor. I wonder why the Republican Party, the self-described organization of religious values, constantly ignores the working man in favor for the wealthy and elite.

For the last 30 years, the GOP has courted the religious right for their votes -- not because they shared their values -- but because it was an untapped resource that they successfully mined. They *pretended* to care about their hot-button issues like abortion and gay marriage to get their votes .. cuz let's be honest ... these two issues don't cost anything.

Following the examples set by JC a few thousand years ago and feeding the poor, clothing the naked, and taking care of the sick ... that costs money ... and therefore it is not a priority of the GOP and is something to be demonized. That take from the rich and give to the poor thing is just too much for them.

Giving handouts to folks who WON'T take care of themselves is wrong. Giving handouts to those CAN'T take care of themselves is compassion ... which doesn't describe the GOP.

Being a beneficiary of the GI Bill & a state vet college program that paid my tuition and book fees I can state with confidence that giving people a hand-UP is a win-win situation. Yes it costs a few bucks ... but I have paid back far more in increased taxes that I was given to go to school. Our society is enriched by educating folks, but educated folks who think for themselves shrinks the pool of people available to be republican voters.

[bored]

That is what I am talking about.  More education.  More opportunity.  Less oppression (c'mon.  It exists, at some level or another).  Less sympathy for the well-off and people who are more than able to take care of themselves--but not necessarily more sympathy for the poor, just more opportunity and more encouragement.  People need some motivation, and a vision.  A reason to make a plan for themselves.  Hell, a reason to get up in the morning.
I guarantee, when people begin to see that the government CARES about them, there will be less crime and less poverty.

There is no oppression. However, the more money companies (ie the rich) have the more money they have to invest in new projects and jobs. The only wealth redistribution that works. I agree that people need more motivation and vision, but how to tackle this? Education is the only way the gov't can really do this. I believe they have and it has helped to a small degree but there is a point when it no longer applies. Do you increase the money spent on education? That's 'been done.

The gov't does care, it is unfortunate that people don't see it. Being a right leaning kind of guy, I often use the opprotunity to point out that the dems (and the media) say things like "tax cuts for the rich", "the greedy rich guy" and other such things to make the repubs look bad. But at the same time, the repubs have done a piss-poor job educating their cause.

[Gunit Hussein Sangh]

It would be nice if they invested in projects and jobs here in the US ... but it should be readily apparent, even to republicans, that the rich are investing in jobs in China and elsewhere instead of in this country.

[bored]

Outsourcing is cheaper. That's it. Though I am not in total in disagreement with you, in defense of corporations outsourcing the money saved by outsourcing goes back into the company in other ways. More outsourcing? More projects at home? One can only speculate.

I've read an article where the author argued outsourcing equals itself out in the end. In other words, a US company is buying the service of a foreign labor. Meaning that the money going overseas is trading for labor hours of American goods, etc. Therefore nullifying the difference. Again, i'm not sure if I completely agree but I thought it was interesting enough to post.