General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsKrugman gets it : it's "A War on the Poor"
A War on the Poor
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Republican hostility toward the poor and unfortunate has now reached such a fever pitch that the party doesnt really stand for anything else and only willfully blind observers can fail to see that reality.
The big question is why. But, first, lets talk a bit more about whats eating the right.
I still sometimes see pundits claiming that the Tea Party movement is basically driven by concerns about budget deficits. Thats delusional. Read the founding rant by Rick Santelli of CNBC: Theres nary a mention of deficits. Instead, its a tirade against the possibility that the government might help losers avoid foreclosure. Or read transcripts from Rush Limbaugh or other right-wing talk radio hosts. Theres not much about fiscal responsibility, but theres a lot about how the government is rewarding the lazy and undeserving.
Republicans in leadership positions try to modulate their language a bit, but its a matter more of tone than substance. Theyre still clearly passionate about making sure that the poor and unlucky get as little help as possible, that as Representative Paul Ryan, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, put it the safety net is becoming a hammock that lulls able-bodied people to lives of dependency and complacency. And Mr. Ryans budget proposals involve savage cuts in safety-net programs such as food stamps and Medicaid.
...............
In a much-cited recent memo, Democracy Corps, a Democratic-leaning public opinion research organization, reported on the results of focus groups held with members of various Republican factions. They found the Republican base very conscious of being white in a country that is increasingly minority and seeing the social safety net both as something that helps Those People, not people like themselves, and binds the rising nonwhite population to the Democratic Party. And, yes, the Medicaid expansion many states are rejecting would disproportionately have helped poor blacks.
MORE:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/01/opinion/krugman-a-war-on-the-poor.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20131101&_r=1&
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/11/01/1252248/-Krugman-gets-it-it-s-A-War-on-the-Poor
reddread
(6,896 posts)Not much interest in it.
definitely none from Republicans.
seveneyes
(4,631 posts)Nothing will resolve the problem or end the war for survival.
mountain grammy
(26,619 posts)from living like a queen on their money because that $130/month that she's "given" and refuses to "work" for (because, dammit, 2 jobs are never enough) because, you know, freedom.
ctsnowman
(1,903 posts)Berlum
(7,044 posts)brer cat
(24,559 posts)plays very well with the ignorant (not low-information...just plain ignorant) voters the right depends on. My daughter's ex complains constantly about how much more he has to work to pay "extra" taxes so illegal immigrants will get benefits. The fact that he pays NO income taxes, in fact receives earned income credit of several thousand each year, simply doesn't penetrate his feeble brain. He lives to be the victim, he cherishes his role as the poor down-trodden worker who is forced to work long hours so that an undeserving able-bodied but lazy individual can have some of his money. If you took away his victimhood there would be nothing left to give him a sense of being superior in some way. "They" keep him from achieving financial success, not his lack of education and training or his unwillingness to sacrifice today for a better future. The GOP loves these voters and feeds them exactly what they want to hear.
PasadenaTrudy
(3,998 posts)he's now the "ex"
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Yea ...lets talk about what we hate to pay for. Sounds like this guy would have no problem paying for the military over paying for the poor.
brer cat
(24,559 posts)He would also cut off his nose to spite his face since he is a taker and not a payer, but he would never admit that.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)Marr
(20,317 posts)Obama could certainly not be called a liberal, but the right's response to his presidency has been as though he were Mao Zedong. The Tea Party is largely built on racist fears and paranoia.
Hey,
Totally agree with you here. The racism is so blatant and in the open now it is very disheartening to realize so many ignorant idiots are out there. That is why when I see cheerleaders on here celebrating the demise of the Republican part I am on the sidelines feeling that is far from the case and am pessimistic.
Peace
MissMillie
(38,549 posts)no kidding
So many liberals moved to the middle to avoid being seen as "radical." Once that happened the right had to go further right to distance themselves from the "uber-liberal, socialist, radical left."
The Romney health care plan (and hence the ACA) was born from an idea from George H.W. Bush. Cap and Trade was an idea that was born out of the Reagan administration. But the right-wing spin machine would have the world believe that these are radical left ideas.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)but economically speaking, no way in hell can he be considered remotely liberal.
JEB
(4,748 posts)maddiemom
(5,106 posts)country and in more recent years by outsourcing many of the few fallback jobs (such as call centers), those left out of luck are suddenly lazy moochers. Meanwhile the "job creators" dodge taxes and hoard their riches. The current unemployment situation and the many hopefuls that line up for almost ANY job speak for themselves. The right wing's (deliberate) cognitive dissonance really burns! And they're long past the point of showing any shame.
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)The only way to turn the US's economy around is for people to start voting in their own interests (usually the same as our country's interests).
As seems to be the case, many of the growing minority population are far less inclined to vote against their own interests. Even though immigrants do drive down wages, they also vote for politicians that could turn our country around.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)It was part of a long term plan devised in one of these government subsidized "think tanks".
DirtyDawg
(802 posts)...whether to call it 'they've come full circle' or 'they've never really changed', but this compulsion of the 'right' to refer to anybody 'less well off' than they as losers, or moochers, or takers, seems to me to be a pure example of Galbraith's definition of 'Conservative' as the search for a better excuse for selfishness...I mean no matter how much or how little they may have, the paranoid TeaPartiers will always worry that somebody out there wants to take it away from em or to get something they don't 'deserve' - their definition of 'deserving' of course.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)handmade34
(22,756 posts)Fifteen Sounds of the War on the Poor...
https://ia600706.us.archive.org/9/items/Fifteen_Sounds_of_the_War_on_the_Poor_vol1-6289/Jack_Tactic_-_07_-_Do_You_Love_What_You_Feel_Jacks_Psychological_Warfare_Mix.mp3
Stuart G
(38,416 posts)hfojvt
(37,573 posts)They may talk about it a lot, except Bush did not. His supposed "compassionate conservatism" was supposed to be about helping the needy. In his first inaugural address, he announced "when we see the wounded traveller on the road to Jericho, my administration will not pass them by." (paraphrased)
They TALK against the poor quite a bit, perhaps, but budget concerns, budget cuts, are mainly a platform for tax cuts. What they DO, what Bush DID, what the Republican House DID, was CUT TAXES.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)help those in need. The Republicans try to be Santa by cutting taxes.
TBF
(32,047 posts)in a way I think you are right. I don't think they take it to the next step and realize those cuts will result in folks suffering. They are busy thinking about themselves and their portfolios. That someone else might be adversely affected is not in their mind and frankly wouldn't be if it were pointed out to them.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)they'd rather lose an arm than lend (a black person) a hand.
DefenseLawyer
(11,101 posts)Last edited Sat Nov 2, 2013, 10:22 AM - Edit history (1)
That's where the profit margin has always been. Without a social safety net people will have to accept lower and lower wages and poor working conditions. The Gilded Age is their utopia.