• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Republican War on the Poor

There was a Republican Party before trump and will be after trump. I don’t think many pubs are willing to throw away decades of political views just because 1 jackass was elected and put egg all over Republican voters faces. Republicans can stand by their party and not support trump. Trump won’t be president forever

Generally I agree with this. Donald really is the natural progression of the GOP from Newt Gingrinch / Henry Hyde to the tea party to Sarah Palin to now. It’s voters have become increasingly emotionally driven less policy and fact driven and its leaders have become increasingly focused on self enrichment. That trend won’t be undone with the 2020 election or whenever Trump leaves the White House. Maybe it’s a frog in a pot of boiling water kind of thing, but most Republicans were perfectly fine with everything that happened in the party up until Trump and most of them still are, more or less, perfectly fine with it expect they don’t like it when he swears.
 
If I was a Board Lib I might call that a "false equivilency" or "whataboutism"....two meaningless terms that they love to throw around. Certainly, all votes should count....all legal votes, anyway. I noticed that you didn't touch that one. Are you naïve enough to think that California Democrats....and Democratic Presidential Candidates....want to give all kind of free benefits to non-citizens simply out of the goodness of their hearts? The Democrats view these illegal caravans of people pouring across our southern border as "voter registration" drives to replace American votes that they have been losing by the millions. There is an excellent probability that Trump's margin of victory came from voters who had voted for Obama four years earlier. However, if you are truly wanting to measure the support of the country as a whole....which you obviously are not....you must consider the margins involved with voter groups. Also, Trump's support did not come from only "small, rural places". And, on the other hand, his opponents came mostly from the Left Coast and extremely large cities.

some retired people choose to spend time with family or take up a hobby or volunteer in their communities

and some miserable selfish shitbags who were handed everything in their lives (house, job, etc.) just choose to troll a message board filled with people they hate

it’s truly sad more than anything
 
Trump is not a Republican aberrancy.

The party (mine for decades) became increasingly rotten intellectually and morally over time. It formed itself over time to become ripe for Trump’s ascension. Now Trumpism (in all its grotesqueness) rules the party (with super-high party approval), and will almost certainly continue to post-Trump. Even if Trump becomes broadly defamed and disavowed.

Any Republican finding Trump/Trumpism abhorrent should have exited by now. I saw the writing on the wall and left a decade ago.
 
Yeah, hard to disagree with that.

I like the dudes stance on trade and generally speaking, I don’t mind him going toe to toe with other leaders. I have big time problems with how negatively he views people who aren’t just like him. He’s proven himself to be a terrible human being with a selfish agenda. He’s incited violence on the far right and he’s as hypocritical as they come. I’m ready to bring morals and acceptance back in the Whitehouse.

When Ayn Rand is considered an intellectual forbearer of your ideological movement, isn't this the end goal?
 
Generally I agree with this. Donald really is the natural progression of the GOP from Newt Gingrinch / Henry Hyde to the tea party to Sarah Palin to now. It’s voters have become increasingly emotionally driven less policy and fact driven and its leaders have become increasingly focused on self enrichment. That trend won’t be undone with the 2020 election or whenever Trump leaves the White House. Maybe it’s a frog in a pot of boiling water kind of thing, but most Republicans were perfectly fine with everything that happened in the party up until Trump and most of them still are, more or less, perfectly fine with it expect they don’t like it when he swears.

Agreed, I've watched this happen in my family. The boomers in my family, specifically the men, are slowly progressing to just voting because they're terrified of the alternative, and they're stuck in the same school of thought they'e always had, with little evolution of beliefs.

Now, having said that, I would vehemently oppose Bernie and would have a hard time voting in that election. I'd vote for literally any of the other candidates against Trump and would push hard for Pete. Pete comes across as a guy who is willing to cross party lines and have adult conversations. I also kind of like Kamala. A gay white dude and black women would make republican heads spins and it would be awesome.
 
When Ayn Rand is considered an intellectual forbearer of your ideological movement, isn't this the end goal?

Whenever I read or hear something about Ayn Rand, I'm always amused to think that after spending decades attacking social welfare programs as an immoral and unjust redistribution of wealth from the worthy "producers" to the unworthy poor, she secretly took Social Security payments and Medicare in her older years. In that sense it's quite fitting that she's one of the icons of the present-day GOP.
 
Republicans are the real takers. Do everything to get out of paying taxes but take every benefit they can get.
 
This is a really interesting piece, about how almost all states confiscate child support payments as "payback" for welfare spending. I honestly had no idea how this system worked or that it was so widespread. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/10/opinion/child-support-states.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage The piece argues, with support, that it's a broken system that is bad for kids and families and actually keeps people in poverty. Reform efforts are underway in some states.

It reminded me that a certain arch-conservative poster used to argue that the solution to most problems was to treat noncustodial parents (usually fathers) as harshly as possible by garnishing their paychecks and taking away their licenses. This, in his telling, would cause them to do better or avoid fathering children or earn more money or something. Turns out, states have actually been doing exactly this for years and it hasn't worked. At all.

Colorado is leading the way on these and many more reforms. “Historically, the child support system was built on a philosophy that people had the ability, but not the desire, to pay. That’s why it was punitive,” Ki’i Powell, the director of the Office of Economic Security for Colorado, explained. “Over the last five years in Colorado, we’ve been flipping that on its head. What would a system look like if it were acknowledging that actually most noncustodial parents have the desire to pay, but not the ability?”
 
This is a really interesting piece, about how almost all states confiscate child support payments as "payback" for welfare spending. I honestly had no idea how this system worked or that it was so widespread. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/10/opinion/child-support-states.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage The piece argues, with support, that it's a broken system that is bad for kids and families and actually keeps people in poverty. Reform efforts are underway in some states.

It reminded me that a certain arch-conservative poster used to argue that the solution to most problems was to treat noncustodial parents (usually fathers) as harshly as possible by garnishing their paychecks and taking away their licenses. This, in his telling, would cause them to do better or avoid fathering children or earn more money or something. Turns out, states have actually been doing exactly this for years and it hasn't worked. At all.

interesting timing with the Medicaid piece from the Atlantic today:

When Medicaid Takes Everything You Own
 
I was aware of it from spending most of my career in the vicinity of estate planning attorneys, but also personal experience: Medicaid took all or almost all of the proceeds from the sale of my grandparents' farm when my grandmother died.
 
F this guy:

Politicians such as then–House Speaker Newt Gingrich tried to justify deep cuts to Medicaid and Medicare by promoting the idea that the programs were exploited by con artists and layabouts—people who “want to be 70 pounds overweight, drink a quart of hard liquor a day, pay no attention to exercise, and then tell you it’s your obligation to make me healthy,” Gingrich said at the time. “You cannot have totally irresponsible humans enjoying the benefits of responsibility.”

7bed082d102a93397602648371c8662aae059374.jpeg
 
Can't edit - so just to clarify that's an excerpt from the Atlantic article on Medicaid.
 
I hope people can understand that the cruelty has been the point for a long time and it's gotten worse.
 
I hope people can understand that the cruelty has been the point for a long time and it's gotten worse.

As long as the pain doesn't affect them personally, they not only don't care, they may actually enjoy seeing a "deserving" minority or liberal suffer. And, even if GOP cuts from plutocrats hurt them personally, they may still support it as long as they can see that people and groups they hate are suffering too. In the end, it's all about owning the libs, even if they're also hurting.
 
interesting timing with the Medicaid piece from the Atlantic today:

When Medicaid Takes Everything You Own

We're pretty much in this same exact boat where I expect long term facility care to wipe out all of my inheritance, but I'm not sure I think the taxpayers should be on the hook if my dad has say $200k in assets to share in some of the costs. He just doesn't have a house so it's not as sad of a story.
 
We're pretty much in this same exact boat where I expect long term facility care to wipe out all of my inheritance, but I'm not sure I think the taxpayers should be on the hook if my dad has say $200k in assets to share in some of the costs. He just doesn't have a house so it's not as sad of a story.

I basically felt the same about Grandma's farm. It's a shame my parents and aunts and uncles didn't get that little bit of inheritance, but it didn't ruin anyone's life. However I am starting to realize that's a very privileged perspective.

The article briefly made another point that I wish they had explored more, which is the inequity between how government health care for the middle class/rich (Medicare) works vs. government health care for the poor (Medicaid). Medicaid comes after you for your house. But if we middle to upper class folks live into our 80s/90s, or get a cancer or other expensive disease after age 62, it is pretty much guaranteed that we will take more money out of Medicare than we ever paid in. In many cases, lots more. A fat slob like Newt Gingrich can be worth millions, have a couple triple bypasses and hip replacements on the taxpayer dime, and spend 5 weeks in the ICU before he dies - and nobody is coming after his estate to recover the costs. Personal responsibility for thee, but not for me.
 
That’s exactly it. Again, the cruelty is always the point.

Lots of bleeding turnips to pay for things while the wealthy just keep stacking cash and socializing their expenses.
 
Back
Top