People who are hurt are more willing to work for poverty wages and/or join the military to protect our oil companies.
Because Conservatism believes every policy is zero-sum: if someone else benefits, it's because you're being fleeced.
Because Conservatism is about the "proper" order of societal hierarchy: if a person lower on the ladder is benefiting, it's at the cost of their betters.
Because Conservatism in the US is now a fully fascist movement: they believe that the government should enforce restrictions upon minorities and leftists, and they delight in the double-standard; it's a power move to deny rights to others that they themselves enjoy.
Because the GOP is the modern know-nothing party: they don't have any policy goals other than those stated above; intellectualism is seen as weakness. They take their orders exclusively from the strongman leader, and the fact that there's little consistency is seen as a flex.
But mostly because Conservatives are awful people who love it when the people they hate suffer.
Good answer. I know this, of course— my question was rhetorical. but you’re right, of course.
because 'everyone' might (and does) include people they've been programmed to hate.
Not everyone. They're never going to touch oil and farm subsidies.
Capital and land owners
"Here in South Dakota, we value hard work. For those who are able-bodied, we want to incentivize work, not government entitlement," said South Dakota Senate Majority Leader Casey Crabtree, a Republican. "We want to be in a position, should there be a change [in the White House] — and hopefully there’s change — that we can implement that."
It always baffles me that it seems like Republicans never actually look at anything outside the US unless it has to do with the military.
I guess that means that no European ever works. No Australian or New Zealander works. No Canadian works. They just sit in their fancy couches sipping government entitlements and universal healthcare all day.
The GOP logic doesn't compute. Do they think that all the working poor are just going to stop working if they could actually go to a Dr. and perhaps get healthier? Do they suddenly have no bills? The unemployment rate is also 3.7% right now, how many people do they possibly think they could "force" to work for health coverage that don't work currently because they have to pay bills they can barely cover? I would love to see them just try and produce some kind of statistics behind of this that shows anything other than just "we need to punish the poor", because apparently being poor has always been something we need to punish.
I have quite a few Republican family members who are wildly opposed to "socialist government healthcare" while being on...yes...Medicare. Go figure.
That’s why Bernie branded his universal healthcare proposal as Medicare for All — medicare is wildly popular.
It's like the people that are strongly against unemployment, you pay into the damn thing so you have it when you need it. Nobody is giving you a hand out, you are just getting back money you allowed the government to make interest/investments with. And having healthier people just seems like a net win for society, but I think some of these people just don't want "those people" to have it, so it's easier and less racist looking to take it away from everyone.
It helps when you acknowledge that the 3.7% tells us nothing.
The government changed the way unemployment is calculated in 1994, so it doesn't count full time seeking people out of work for more than 3 months - the 'chronically' dispossessed. They put the onus on the individual, absolving their system of any defect. "Clearly" they aren't applying enough or trying hard enough, otherwise they wouldn't be unemployed
Do you ever get the feeling that these definitions are written by people whove never experienced what they're defining? Some admins child/nephew/hush money babysitter dropped into a government stipend, by right of birth, or access to those with capital.
Unfortunately when the data gets crunched the old fashioned way, real unemployment is hovering around 24.6%
Which is much more likely, imo, as inflation has made large swathes of lower pay work unteneble for anyone not hyperlocal. Pair this with the pandemic training on financial subsistence living, of those who are sidestepping the system.
We live in an era of income inequality greater than at any other known in modern western history. It was easier to buy a house during the great depression. One set of facts seems in line with that, and one doesn't. I wonder why that would be..
“And if you don’t work you don’t deserve to be able bodied”
Also I love the able bodied part because being on disability is a profound and mandatory poverty. Like you can’t even get married and keep your benefits
Republicans doing the exact opposite of the right thing, as usual.
Curtailing Life Saving Medication for Kids and Adults alike is called being PRO LIFE LIBTARDS!
I have not looked but curious to know what percentage of Medicaid is kids.
Medicaid covers 41% of all births in the United States and nearly half of children with special health care needs
why does the GOP just want to hurt everyone?
edit: the question was rhetorical, but I got some great responses! for more info, check these videos:
The Alt-Right Playbook: Endnote 3: The Origins of Conservatism
link to full playlist The Alt-Right Playbook by Innuendo Studios
People who are hurt are more willing to work for poverty wages and/or join the military to protect our oil companies.
Because Conservatism believes every policy is zero-sum: if someone else benefits, it's because you're being fleeced.
Because Conservatism is about the "proper" order of societal hierarchy: if a person lower on the ladder is benefiting, it's at the cost of their betters.
Because Conservatism in the US is now a fully fascist movement: they believe that the government should enforce restrictions upon minorities and leftists, and they delight in the double-standard; it's a power move to deny rights to others that they themselves enjoy.
Because the GOP is the modern know-nothing party: they don't have any policy goals other than those stated above; intellectualism is seen as weakness. They take their orders exclusively from the strongman leader, and the fact that there's little consistency is seen as a flex.
But mostly because Conservatives are awful people who love it when the people they hate suffer.
Good answer. I know this, of course— my question was rhetorical. but you’re right, of course.
to wit: a really great video on the subject:
The Alt-Right Playbook: Endnote 3: The Origins of Conservatism
edit: link to full playlist The Alt-Right Playbook by Innuendo Studios
They are evil.
Sometimes its just that simple.
because 'everyone' might (and does) include people they've been programmed to hate.
Not everyone. They're never going to touch oil and farm subsidies.
Capital and land owners
It always baffles me that it seems like Republicans never actually look at anything outside the US unless it has to do with the military.
I guess that means that no European ever works. No Australian or New Zealander works. No Canadian works. They just sit in their fancy couches sipping government entitlements and universal healthcare all day.
The GOP logic doesn't compute. Do they think that all the working poor are just going to stop working if they could actually go to a Dr. and perhaps get healthier? Do they suddenly have no bills? The unemployment rate is also 3.7% right now, how many people do they possibly think they could "force" to work for health coverage that don't work currently because they have to pay bills they can barely cover? I would love to see them just try and produce some kind of statistics behind of this that shows anything other than just "we need to punish the poor", because apparently being poor has always been something we need to punish.
I have quite a few Republican family members who are wildly opposed to "socialist government healthcare" while being on...yes...Medicare. Go figure.
That’s why Bernie branded his universal healthcare proposal as Medicare for All — medicare is wildly popular.
It's like the people that are strongly against unemployment, you pay into the damn thing so you have it when you need it. Nobody is giving you a hand out, you are just getting back money you allowed the government to make interest/investments with. And having healthier people just seems like a net win for society, but I think some of these people just don't want "those people" to have it, so it's easier and less racist looking to take it away from everyone.
It helps when you acknowledge that the 3.7% tells us nothing.
The government changed the way unemployment is calculated in 1994, so it doesn't count full time seeking people out of work for more than 3 months - the 'chronically' dispossessed. They put the onus on the individual, absolving their system of any defect. "Clearly" they aren't applying enough or trying hard enough, otherwise they wouldn't be unemployed
Do you ever get the feeling that these definitions are written by people whove never experienced what they're defining? Some admins child/nephew/hush money babysitter dropped into a government stipend, by right of birth, or access to those with capital.
Unfortunately when the data gets crunched the old fashioned way, real unemployment is hovering around 24.6%
Which is much more likely, imo, as inflation has made large swathes of lower pay work unteneble for anyone not hyperlocal. Pair this with the pandemic training on financial subsistence living, of those who are sidestepping the system.
We live in an era of income inequality greater than at any other known in modern western history. It was easier to buy a house during the great depression. One set of facts seems in line with that, and one doesn't. I wonder why that would be..
“And if you don’t work you don’t deserve to be able bodied”
Also I love the able bodied part because being on disability is a profound and mandatory poverty. Like you can’t even get married and keep your benefits
Republicans doing the exact opposite of the right thing, as usual.
Curtailing Life Saving Medication for Kids and Adults alike is called being PRO LIFE LIBTARDS!
I have not looked but curious to know what percentage of Medicaid is kids.
https://www.kff.org/mental-health/issue-brief/10-things-to-know-about-medicaid/
Pro life party strikes again.