dinar_stud Posted January 7, 2014 Report Share Posted January 7, 2014 How to explain the right’s every move: Their unwillingness to help poor peopleFor any given way of aiding others, conservatives are opposed because there's a better way that never materializes In my morning article, I posited that one subtext beneath the red-baiting response to a progressive inequality agenda is the right’s urgent need to keep the debate over social welfare anchored around cutting and devolving government services. I think the views of other conservatives vindicate my argument. Once you blow past all the histrionics, and survey conservatives who don’t see terms like “Sovereign Wealth Fund” and “Universal Basic Income” and scream “Stalin!”, you find that this really comes down to a bedrock disagreement over whether actually helping the poor is a worthy priority. Among other things, the article that ignited this debate posits swapping out income, payroll and other taxes for a progressive, but conservative-friendly land value tax, and replacing (or partially replacing) the existing social safety net with a basic income — less bureaucracy, more cash transfers. In a very clever post, Wonkblog’s Dylan Matthews demonstrated that all of these ideas can be framed as conservative reforms just as easily as they can appeal to#FULLCOMMUNISTS. Obviously when you’re talking about overhauling something as complex as most of the federal budget, relatively minor details can ultimately mean the difference between agreement and no agreement. But we’re never going to get that far. It turns out the most important detail is conservatives’ overriding concern that whatever form the federal safety net ultimately takes, it should be no more generous than it is right now, and preferably less so. Brian Beutler ✔ @brianbeutler @reihan @dylanmatt just curious about the implication you drew. Megan McArdle ✔ @asymmetricinfo Follow @brianbeutler @reihan @dylanmatt Liberals do not envision using UBI to replace things like Medicaid. For them, huge new net transfer. 11:37 AM - 7 Jan 2014 Brian Beutler ✔ @brianbeutler @janegalt @asymmetricinfo @reihan @dylanmatt again, depends. Is there an insurance guarantee? Exchanges? One payer? Megan McArdle ✔ @asymmetricinfo Follow @brianbeutler @janegalt @reihan @dylanmatt Cost would not be affordable to many folks on any reasonable UBI. Again, details matter. Would liberals support zeroing out U.S. health spending and replacing it with cash transfers? That depends! Is there an insurance guarantee? Exchanges? A single payer all Americans can buy into? An overriding question for liberals would be whether the tradeoff maintains or increases the general welfare. But the point is it would be possible to get there on paper if conservatives were serious about making sure the poor ended up better off, or were at least held harmless. If everyone agrees inequality is the problem, it’s odd to write off the possibility of significant new net cash transfers. But conservatives — even reform conservatives — are oddly indignant about the suggestion that they would support doing something that actually helps the poor. As always, for any given way of helping people, conservatives are against it because there’s some other better way. But they never actually favor helping. 2 10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caz1104 Posted January 7, 2014 Report Share Posted January 7, 2014 LMAO!!! The right don't want to help the poor...................lord DinarNutJob do you write these insane articles yourself under a pen name? 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kimjackie Posted January 7, 2014 Report Share Posted January 7, 2014 WOW !!!!! You are way off base here and you need to get the facts straight before you say those things..... According to the Huffington Post, a liberal online commentary news blog Arthur Brooks wrote a book in 2007 (which you definitly need to read since you know nothing) about charitable giving titled “Who Really Cares.” He too was shocked to discover homes headed by conservatives gave 30% more than those headed by liberals. Conservatives even gave blood more frequently, as they still do today 6 years later, . As stated in the New York Times , it quotes Brooks as saying, “If liberals and moderates gave blood as often as conservatives, the American blood supply would increase by 45 percent.” He went on to admit this was not what he thought would be true: “When I started doing research on charity,” Mr. Brooks wrote, “I expected to find that political liberals — who, I believed, genuinely cared more about others than conservatives did — would turn out to be the most privately charitable people. So when my early findings led me to the opposite conclusion, I assumed I had made some sort of technical error. I re-ran analysis. I got new data. Nothing worked. In the end, I had no option but to change my views and I will admit conservatives are much more generous to the poor than the liberals are". So, the next time you hear a liberal talking about “social justice” and “caring for the poor,” maybe you can tell him that the good thoughts in his head don’t put clothes on anyone’s back, food in anyone’s mouth, nor can thoughts alone mentor a troubled kid who just needs a friend. Of course, not all liberals are stingy and not all conservatives are generous but the overall differences between the two communities are so stark that perhaps the media needs to rethink its stereotypes. Conservatives give more and care more about the poor then do liberals. Liberals need the poor for their votes and their political gains and thats the main reason they dole out huge chunks of money which in turn do not help the poor, it keeps them stuck in a never ending role of being beholden to the government. When citizens are beholden to the gov't they continue to vote liberal as its in their interest to continue to receive freebies. If the liberals really cared about the poor they would help them get jobs, offer educational programs and not continue to subsidize them. They should be weened off government assistant as soon as possible because giving the poor money doesnt get rid of poverty. A person needs to feel proud and be proud of themselves and what they do. OR BETTER YET: Maybe lefties need to put down their lattes, pick up a hammer and go help a neighbor. And when they do, they’ll get an unexpected bonus: They’ll meet some friendly conservatives who were there long before the liberals. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bunk Posted January 7, 2014 Report Share Posted January 7, 2014 Liberals Are All For Helping People As Long As It Does Not Effect THEM.... Just More Blatant Scare Tactics From A Party Of Hypocrites,Fear Mongerers,Blame Artists And Liars..... 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandstorm Posted January 7, 2014 Report Share Posted January 7, 2014 (edited) its real easy. liberals stop america from mining our wealth. liberals then tax businesses to a point they have to lay people off and shut down businesses and work opportunities. liberals keep the poor, poor. then offer up extended unemployment as some retirement plan. they promise the poor something, in turn for their vote. if liberals were not bankrupting this country and attacking success, no one would be poor, by choice. liberal policies are choking this country. more people on food stamps, more on welfare, is the liberals guide to reelection. if businesses were hiring, and everyone who wanted to work, were working, we could give every poor person, a two story house, two cars, a college education, and an opportunity. yet liberals attack success and play class warfare. your government is stealing tax money from businesses, that would be used to hire you and offer you benefits. instead your inefficient government takes the money, and bankrupts every program they create for the poor get real, common sense Edited January 7, 2014 by sandstorm 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Hayduke Posted January 7, 2014 Report Share Posted January 7, 2014 "How to explain the right’s every move: Their unwillingness to help poor people.For any given way of aiding others, conservatives are opposed because there's a better way that never materializes" What a tool - I guess that explains why we sent the US Navy with food supplies and medical aid to help Haiti, Japan, Indonesia and the Philippines during their natural disasters. Only a coward would make such claims from behind a keyboard... GH 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thaiexpat Posted January 7, 2014 Report Share Posted January 7, 2014 Help the poor? Leave them alone. In fact, leave everyone alone. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AmericaInc Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 (edited) All right Stud! You are doing a GREAT job prodding and poking the right on DV! Thanks for taking up the slack...I was getting tired of it. You know, whenever you poke, and you hit the truth, you're going to get a lot of anger directed at you...believe me. If you showed a right winger Bible thumper killing a baby on LIVE television, and FOX said it was a liberal lie... They'd say it was a liberal lie. Or Phil Robertson saying blacks weren't that unhappy in the 50's. Or Pat Robertson saying natural disasters are because of the gays Or Ted Cruz helping out big Pharma to keep health care from the people... Or using banned white phosphorus in Fallujah... Or depleted uranium in Anbar... Or Bush discussing with Blair how to fool the American people on reasons for Iraq war on Downing Street... But good luck to ya. "How to explain the right’s every move: Their unwillingness to help poor people. For any given way of aiding others, conservatives are opposed because there's a better way that never materializes" What a tool - I guess that explains why we sent the US Navy with food supplies and medical aid to help Haiti, Japan, Indonesia and the Philippines during their natural disasters. Only a coward would make such claims from behind a keyboard... GH History anyone? You mean AFTER we invaded Haiti and then supported their brutal dictator papa Doc Duvalier? After we invaded the Phillipines and killed thousands? After we dropped the atomic bomb on Japan? (as they were surrendering) Not sure about cowards behind the keyboard...we are all behind the keyboard. But I know ignorance when it rears its head. Edited January 8, 2014 by AmericaInc 1 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maggie123 Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 OR BETTER YET: Maybe lefties need to put down their lattes, pick up a hammer and go help a neighbor. And when they do, they’ll get an unexpected bonus: They’ll meet some friendly conservatives who were there long before the liberals. Good post Kimjackie Not that I consider myself a liberal... I am not a tea party person either. My experience has been that while you are out working hard to help in a cause... there is no time to talk about ones political leanings. Everyone is too busy with the tasks at hand. NICE 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Hayduke Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 All right Stud! You are doing a GREAT job prodding and poking the right on DV! Thanks for taking up the slack...I was getting tired of it. You know, whenever you poke, and you hit the truth, you're going to get a lot of anger directed at you...believe me. If you showed a right winger Bible thumper killing a baby on LIVE television, and FOX said it was a liberal lie... They'd say it was a liberal lie. Or Phil Robertson saying blacks weren't that unhappy in the 50's. Or Pat Robertson saying natural disasters are because of the gays Or Ted Cruz helping out big Pharma to keep health care from the people... Or using banned white phosphorus in Fallujah... Or depleted uranium in Anbar... Or Bush discussing with Blair how to fool the American people on reasons for Iraq war on Downing Street... But good luck to ya. History anyone? You mean AFTER we invaded Haiti and then supported their brutal dictator papa Doc Duvalier? After we invaded the Phillipines and killed thousands? After we dropped the atomic bomb on Japan? (as they were surrendering) Not sure about cowards behind the keyboard...we are all behind the keyboard. But I know ignorance when it rears its head. I can't address all of your idiocy because you can't substantiate them. I can, though, address one of your misrepresentations, you know, where you wrote, "Or Phil Robertson saying blacks weren't that unhappy in the 50's." Ok, great purveyor of truth and guardian of all that is right on the left and what is wrong on the right. Show us the quote... Waiting... Still waiting... oh great sage of liberal histrionics... Can't quite find it bubba? We'll give you a little more time - don't want to back you into a corner or anything. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maggie123 Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 I can't address all of your idiocy because you can't substantiate them. I can, though, address one of your misrepresentations, you know, where you wrote, "Or Phil Robertson saying blacks weren't that unhappy in the 50's." Ok, great purveyor of truth and guardian of all that is right on the left and what is wrong on the right. Show us the quote... Waiting... Still waiting... oh great sage of liberal histrionics... Can't quite find it bubba? We'll give you a little more time - don't want to back you into a corner or anything. Wow... Really George??? Oh My!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yota691 Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 Liberals..i think it call Communism..here the Definition com·mu·nism (kmy-nzm) n.1. A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members. 2. Communisma. A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people. b. The Marxist-Leninist version of Communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Hayduke Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 Wow... Really George??? Oh My!!! Absolutely - put Phil Robertsons quote out there. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maggie123 Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 Absolutely - put Phil Robertsons quote out there. It has been put out there so many times George... heck... why would I waste my time... He said... paraphrasing... he was out dancing in the fields with the black workers in the 50's. Very Sad Times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasGranny Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 It has been put out there so many times George... heck... why would I waste my time... He said... paraphrasing... he was out dancing in the fields with the black workers in the 50's. Very Sad Times. They were not "very sad times" on my Grandmother's cotton farm in MS when I picked cotton alongside the black families that were thrilled to have someone to work for so they could make a living. My Grandmother paid them a fair wage - same thing she paid any "white" pickers. They usually received a full dinner meal and if they wanted fresh vegetables or fruit to take home, she gave them freely. Most of them sang black gospel songs while working - I do not remember any racism or hate - they brought their babies and we played together while the sacks were weighed. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maggie123 Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 Lovely Times have changed Granny. Truth is... They wanted something different for their children and had to put up a very good fight for that. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasGranny Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 Lovely Times have changed Granny. True - no one picks cotton anymore but that was not the point of my post. It was in response to the bashing of Phil Robertson for his statement which was regarding his youth (a different time and place from today). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Hayduke Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 It has been put out there so many times George... heck... why would I waste my time... He said... paraphrasing... he was out dancing in the fields with the black workers in the 50's. Very Sad Times. Sad indeed Maggie... why waste your time? To keep the topic on point and in context might be worthy of your consideration. You wasted your time mis-paraphrasing Robertson's quote to present the ludicrous idea he was dancing in the fields with black workers. He never said such a thing. Here is the quote, “I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I’m with the blacks, because we’re white trash. We’re going across the field.... They’re singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, ‘I tell you what: These doggone white people’—not a word!... Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.” Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/phil-robertson-on-racism-in-gq-article-2013-12#ixzz2plfw8xtA Nothing about dancing in the fields is there? What you have is a first persons account admitting to being white trash working alongside African Americans employed by a farmer to hoe a field. He recounts they sang and were happy and, that they did not express any animus toward white people. How that first person account can be misconstrued to represent a racist mindset can only come from those with a prejudicial agenda to begin with. It's a simple down right lie perpetuated by those that, dare I say it, hate white trash. "They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues." I think that is a beautiful picture; employed persons of different races working together to make the best of the opportunity before them. Until someone comes along to contradict Robertson's recollection, I'm going to take him at his word. GH 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DiveDeepSix Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 (edited) Lovely Times have changed Granny. Truth is... They wanted something different for their children and had to put up a very good fight for that. When I must have missed it? Yep times have changed!! Now many have become ................ok let's keep it politically correct.................unlicensed pharmacists instead! I agree with Granny and the others including Phil, most were much happier back then. Life was much simpler for all of us actually. Edited January 8, 2014 by DiveDeepSix 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayzur Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 I could have misread.... entirely possible these days, and I thought AmericaInc was writing and almost done with a book.... and therein I give him/her credit for knowing format, or maybe better said attending to format more than perhaps most might... Didn't see any quote annotation in his comments and figured he was euphemizing, or at the least, synopsising with his list? In any event, it would appear that a synopsis stating: "Phil Robertson saying blacks weren't that unhappy in the 50's".... Is not at all altogether inaccurate as a synopsis in noting Mr. Robertson's comment: .... They’re singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, ‘I tell you what: These doggone white people’—not a word!... Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.” It seems a fairly sound observation of the pre entitlement and welfare time, [and relative to Mr. Robertson's age], that the 1950s would be a reasonable time-frame? Noting Blacks were not unhappy, seems to be a fairly sound progression as opposite of the claim they were happy. I got the impression it was meant to be a generalized representation and not a scientific assertion? And with that, I'm done talking about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin... Guess all these years of interpreting Iraqi news articles has us all in an analytical mode.... what is that person really saying.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dog53 Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 What phil was saying that even in strife one can be happy with in a family unit and with god. Thats all the mans about family and god. He meant nothing derogatory in his statement. I knew poor black folk in the 50`s. They didnt walk around hanging their heads down saying "oh poor me" They partied their ass`s off every chance they got. Got together with family and whooped it up. Wow that must make me a bigot like phil. Professor you and miss studly make this forum fun. Yes sir you two are absolutely hilarious. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pattyangel Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 Wow!!! DinarStud, your motive is clearly noted. If one fines that the interest level of your audience is in decline, then one would think to move on and try another topic. But if you feel you are producing a healthy debate then more power to you. This is what I will say to this topic. I was reading a book and I won't give the title, not knowing if I am breaking the rules. Here is a quotes from it. "The democratic leaders have found out that the poorer the community, the more its members are dependent on the Democrats for services and the more they will vote for them. You will never find a poor, economically ravaged community voting for Republicans. It is in the best interest of Democrats to have as many poor and dependent people as possible. Every program they want will always isolate the poor from the rich and provide services for the poor, but never provide services to get you un-poor." Our leadership is preventing the poor from succeeding, from fulfilling their ambitions, from taking pride in themselves, from becoming rich. This nation is dividing itself. I ask you this...why contribute? 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maggie123 Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 What phil was saying that even in strife one can be happy with in a family unit and with god. Thats all the mans about family and god. He meant nothing derogatory in his statement. I knew poor black folk in the 50`s. They didnt walk around hanging their heads down saying "oh poor me" They partied their ass`s off every chance they got. Got together with family and whooped it up. Wow that must make me a bigot like phil. Professor you and miss studly make this forum fun. Yes sir you two are absolutely hilarious. Dog Of course what you say is true. I take exception with your story about how it was all good because... families stayed together and celebrated their dignity. They had that and more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maggie123 Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 Should have said... "they had "all" that and more". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dog53 Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 Should have said... "they had "all" that and more". Never once did I or phil roberson say life was perfect for the black man back then maggie. Your standing in the wrong line mag you need to stand in the white line kiddo. You do not have a clue dear as to how it feels to be a second class citizen. In 1969 while canoeing on the swani river in florida with my brother -in law we stop to grab a beer at this back woods little store. They had a walk up for the blacks to buy beer. They were not allowed in the store. I went in and immediately was told to get out. My brother in law told them that I was a indian. The man behind the counter said "same damm thing as a N&g**r get him the hell out of my store". When I told him to kiss my red indian a$$ he put a gun against my head and told me he would blow my head off if I didnt leave now. I left. hahahaha Quickly I might add. Anyway look yes things sucked back then. But all phil is saying is that even with that people were happy in those days. the family unit was solid and their faith solid. Now a days the family unit is gone. We have 2 or 3 baby daddys to one women. Men do not stick around to raise there children. They go off and have 3 more by 3 different women. black, indian , and white alike has become a godless people. No I agree with phil in a lot of instances they were happier back then. Not all but alot. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts