Do the Republicans really care about the sick and the poor?

There are TV ads running trying to shame those members of Congress who voted against the SCHIP, saying something like: what if this were your child?

But, really, the Republicans that I have met firmly believe that it is up to each citizen to pull himself by the boot straps. That it is not up to government to help them (until they are the ones who need help, of course).

So shaming them really fall on deaf ears.

And I really wish I did't think that was true. But it is. And I do.

it's not that they don't want to help them. They simply would rather leave the issue up to charity and the kindness of strangers to lend a helping hand. It's funny because if you go to their churches they have canned food drives and things of that sort to help the local poor and homeless, but when you get them on the issues, they vote against social programs to alleviate poverty. Anytime you mention government, they automatically think the government is bad news.

To be sure, some of them vote against social programs because they're of the business class and would lose out as far as money goes, but for the majority of them, they are simply trapped into their own belief system about charity as opposed to taxation.

"But I'm GENEROUS! It's not the GOVERNMENT'S responsibility to help our fellow citizens; it's OURS! Now, what are you making for the bake-sale to help the homeless, Mildred?"

Because government isn't, you know, US.

And that's the kicker. You've got a lot of left wing voters who also don't vote anymore or vote third party precisely because they've seen the reality of the government doing something that is against the interests of the people. The two aren't the same in practice, as opposed to theory.

than what they send.

Yes, they believe in charity, but they also fund their "faith based" whatever.

Isn't it amazing that schools, that struggle with cutting funds and increasing demand can get more Federal funds if they teach abstinence only?

They have no ability to extend empathy beyond what's smack in front of their face which is why they choose to believe the religious deserve help and everybody else is lazy.

... but the poor are the end result of not being a "good" person. A "good" person would have the disipline and drive to act in their own self-interest, to be prosperous and self-sufficient and be able to afford his or her own health care. Being poor is punishment for lacking disipline and drive, and/or for acting with the interests of others in mind. When everybody does what is in their own self-interest, everybody as a whole does better, therefore self-interest is moral because it helps everybody. Those that lack disipline and drive and/or who act in the interests of others mess the system up and are a drag on society and must be punished, because their attitudes are not moral.

Also, it is immoral to give to people what they have not earned. The poor, by being poor, have not earned government health insurance, therefore giving it to them is immoral.

That's the "strict father" perspective, at least. Scary, isn't it?

"Also, it is immoral to give to people what they have not earned. The poor, by being poor, have not earned government health insurance, therefore giving it to them is immoral."

This is wrong, nobody thinks like this.

"It is immoral to take from one person by force to give to another" is the issue.

I'm not sure what purpose such rhetoric serves, it's either a straw man or a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue under discussion.

I prefer to win the arguement honestly is all.

... in his book "Don't Think of an Elephant".

This kind of thinking explains an awful lot of how the right wing operates, including the ideal moral world they strive to achieve as well as the tactics and strategies to get half of the 95% of the population that won't benefit from their policies to vote for them anyway.

They've spend $2 billion on conservative think-tanks, conservative scholorships, conservative fellowships and internships, and other conservative personal networking. And we see the results in BushCo. All the Liberty University grads running things. All the inbreeding in the senior levels of conservative politics like Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Don Rumsfeld, etc.

And by running up huge deficits on the federal budget every year, they strip social programs of money. By stripping social programs of money, it is not only morally consistant with "money is God's blessing", but it puts pressure on liberal charities and dontations to fill in the gaps caused by lack of government funding, preventing them from using that money on liberal politics, liberal think-tanks, etc.

That's just one example of why they are winning, and why it is consistant with how it is consistant with their philosophy.

It's a good book; you should read it.

If you are too lazy, too drug addicted, too much of an alocholic
this is why you are poor--Just ask OReilly and some other talkers
at Fox.

Philosophically all the society is the opportunity. Some Democrats
believe this way too. I do not share such beliefs, just sharing
my observations

but is now deeply in debt and concerned about employment (she is over 50 yrs). Still she clings to the conservative view of every man for himself. I keep wondering if she will ever wake up...maybe if it gets painful enough.

and disenfranchised? :(

I don't know. But you really cannot say that they do not care about the poor. Even though it failed, they had the first attempt at universal health care.

And the way FEMA reacted on a flood in the Red River in 1996 (I think) was a stark contrast to Katrina.

party . It is difficult to deipher what makes them different
from Moderate Republicans. If I did not know better, I would
swear, The GOP became so darned conservative they drove the
Moderates out of their party and they joined us. Just kidding.

(or Thatcherite Tory).

But A-OK for corporations to do so. Such is Republican thinking. :eyes:

"If you're rich, you deserve it. If you're poor, you deserve it."


(fits in with their "God decides everything" theory--since they are in power, God
decided that, too. When Clinton was president, he was out taking a leak, or something,
and shit happens)

I've heard people say it, rich people of course ~ even a rich person whose mother was poor. When I pointed out that his mother had been poor, he said, "But she didn't expect the government to help her." (Apparently she deserved to be poor though.)

God shows who He has chosen by who is blessed.

The Republicans are a heartless bunch and running ads to spotlight that fact is not a bad thing.

running for a Minnesota senate seat - campaign.

He tells the story of his mother in law who became a widow and an early age with four children to support. And she survived thanks to survivor benefit. And he adds that she did not even have boots to pull herself by the straps.

Halliburton, DynCorp, Blackwater, etc. etc.

It builds the economy. Sigh...

Those poor, poor CEOs--only making 8 figures when they need 9.

And those sick, sick bastards who screech about homosexuality being a sin but have truckloads of kiddie porn on their computers, or those sick, sick fucks who preach family values but get caught blowing male hookers for meth or beating their children or wives.

See? The GOP does care about the poor and the sick!

Their hearts have dried up while ours still bleed freely ~ but the disdain that they show for us is often jealousy; many of them know they are dead but they're afraid to reawaken. (imo anyway)

should think about what this country would be w/o any gov't input. Many of these people have no idea why they support such things, if they did, they would support gov't "intervention".

How many of these people would support giving up the Earned Income Credit?

How many of these people send back their Social Security checks?

How many of these people realize they are underpaying for fuel because of gov't subsidies?

How many of these people are willing to pay $3 for a loaf of white or wheat bread?

How many of these people would spend $6 for a gallon of milk?

How many of these people realize that the cost of one day in Iraq, could inoculate every child and more against childhood diseases?

(Add to the list, it could go on into the hundreds)

People have their priorities all screwed up. They cannot see beyond tomorrow, they have no thoughts of the future. To people like this, de-funding education is a "good" thing, only because they have already used what was offered, and now they see no use in educating the next generation.

Some of these people think aid should be "local", through communities and religious organizations. That can't work simply because of the scale of the problem, and the "strings" that are often attached. They cannot fathom that someone might just need some temporary aid just to get above the line so they don't perish.

Want to try a Grand Experiment? Remove ALL government subsidies, tax breaks, spending...just get rid of it all.

I give the country about 15 minutes before it collapses. Roads, bridges, dams, energy, food, health care, communications, defense, education, transportation, agriculture...you name it, would fail and chaos would ensue.

People who call for stuff like this have a myopic view of society and life in general. They are doomed by their own ignorance to live a life of misery, not knowing that simple acts of kindness can alleviate many problems. They are greedy, mean and beyond hope.

If indeed, ignorance is bliss, people like this are dancing in the streets.

for the poor and even the middle class.

Unless you live in a cabin in Montana and are really self reliant, you benefit from a government program. Yes, all the rich CEOs benefit from whatever trade agreements and tariffs our government sign.

They benefit from quality control on our cars, and food, and medicine; they benefit from public education that allow them to hire skilled workers to increase the value of their corporations.

They even benefit from bankruptcy laws that allow them to walk away from their obligations while keeping their cars and mansions and tax sheltered income.

they complain a lot, they squawk about everything, but they could nopt live very well w/o the programs they depend on.

The Middle Class and the Poor are always blamed, yet it is the wealthy few that use more direct and indirect services and programs that many others. They want everything, but they just don't want to pay for it.


Some personal responsibility there...:eyes:

in theory. Problem is most won't do it. I can also understand the argument against government run assistance programs, because let's be honest, the government do a very good job and there is an awful lot of waste and mishandling of funds. There has to be a better way. I know a lot of ordinary people who are very socially conservative, and the vast majority are the first to help out when there is a need. If you look at the gulf coast, from what I understand private groups, including churches, have done a lot more in terms of rebuilding than has been accomplished by the local, state and national governments. I don't know what the solution to the social ills of this nation are, but I do know that none of the social programs of the government nor the kindness of the average citizen have solved them.

but, more importantly, how they are handled.

Once FEMA did come to the rescue, it just threw out money. So we have stories of molded housing and of corruption and all the other horrible stories.

What it means that you need really competent people who would look at the programs, see what works and what does not and be ready to throw out the bad and start with the new.

There were disaster during the Clinton administration - though not at the same scale as Katrina, of course. But the head of FEMA did a great work in helping the communities when the Red River flooded.

But when you just dole out these plum assignment to your cronies, and when you don't care about such programs to begin with, why should the people in the filed even bother?

This is true for all the programs. In too many instances you have bored employees who just want to shove papers from their desks and then you have the horror stories.

I have often thought that if we had a draft - for public service - if you had young college graduates in these offices interacting with the public really wanting to help, the face of the government bureaucracy may have been different.

But perhaps I delude myself.

just used it as an example. ALL social programs under the government, regardless of who is in the white house are not much above a farce. Welfare, social security, Medicaid, medicare, the VA, and the list goes on and on. All a plagued with a lack of accountability, not being results-driven, wasteful, unresponsive to real need and on and on. I believe government should be the option of last resort for dealing with social ills, not the first place we look. This opinion is based solely on the fact that the government has a terrible track record for screwing this kind of thing up. Common ordinary citizens should be the front line of social reform and assistance to those in need. Employers should also work to take care of their own and not treat people as just another commodity to be used for a profit. SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY on the part of you and I can make a difference.

Of course they don't care.

themselves. The Republican philosophy pretty much boils down to: "I've got mine. I'm not sharing. Screw you."