Trump: The First Year

Welfare for poor people bad. Welfare for rich people good. The President never released his tax returns now why is that? Because a billionaire is gaming the system. Republicans flip out because someone who isn’t dirt poor is on food stamps but a billionaire not paying taxes is just smart. After all he’s just doing what everyone else would do if they had the money to do it. Except the single mother doesn’t lobby to create the loopholes.

Of course Republicans fight tooth and nail against those because it is important for them to have the poorest have skin in the game right? Er wait something like that

And they have no history of giving free stuff. None at all. Sending checks to people isn’t giving away free stuff it’s economic stimulus.

Just remember taking tax money to help dirt poor people in Republican State Alabama is bad. Spending tons of money to hop around foreign countries is good. Why distribute any tax money to the poor mom who didn’t get that abortion because the GOP told her it was horrible? We need more spending on the military because Lockheed Martin’s profits are under 3 billion again. That’s not an entitlement though it’s just something we do every single year and always need to spend more on.

Medicare Part D was all Republicans. I remember Republicans 100% in lockstep to make sure the 2008 bailout didn’t happen. Democrats
giving free stuff away again!

Both parties give away free stuff, they just do it in different ways. Quit pretending as if lobbyists only hang around Democrats because they are the ones who will give special treatment and tax advantages.

I wish it was as easy as big government being a one party problem. Get back to me when the biggest federal money sucking states aren’t all Republican strongholds.

4 Likes

Thank you for agreeing that the welfare state is the Democrats’ idea. Nothing like buying votes.

Don’t pretend both parties don’t give money to their favorite corporate cronies.

Both parties also support “free/sucker” trade where the US is the only one that holds their end of the bargain which nukes states where production is a big driver.

We are in a uniparty anymore. Not a dime’s bit of difference between the two.

[quote]="Basement_Gainz, post:4600, topic22the Democrats’ idea. Nothing like buying votes.
[/quote]

Again if they are buying votes it isn’t working. Why can’t they carry the states with the most federal “takers?” Because that’s Republican ground. Republicans aren’t buying votes? So when Trump says he is going to have Mexico pay for a massive wall, won’t touch social security, Medicare, or anything else and will have health insurance that covers all what exactly is that? It’s just I’m not gonna touch the things Americans care about and I’m also going to give you all this stuff. He even said he would default on the debt.

I guess you think I’m going to drastically increase military spending isn’t buying votes but “we’re going to increase access to education is.”

I can agree with this pretty much spot on. You must not actually think this since you keep bringing up that the Democrats are the party of free stuff. You want to separate the two by acting as if the Republicans aren’t 100% in love with the same thing.

How is any of that free?

The welfare state in America was actually the idea of a Whig, Lester Ward.

It isn’t free. It’s only free to people who spend generations on assistance never contributing. Who implimented the welfare state, Whigs or Dems? Mostly the Democrats. My cynical point was that it was perhaps 10% concern for the poor, 90% buying votes.

@H_factor has a good point that neither party is less corrupt or innocent in all this. I was making the point that Dems did at least started the welfare programs. That doesn’t obsolve Reps of abusing them.

Yeah my issue to is the people who flip out over some anecdote about standing behind a guy with food stamps buying 20 dollars worth of steak instead of just rice and ramen or whatever.

They foam at the mouth over this (and I’m not arguing that fraud in those programs doesn’t exist or isn’t worth working to limit) but don’t blink an eye when Trump says he is increasing troops in Afghanistan. That small transaction creates fury but they don’t scrutinize that decision which costs billions because you don’t question the military or something lest you be called unsupportive of the troops. I guess I’m unsupportive if I think they should be kept home and safe when not needed instead of stuck for another year in a trillion dollar war.

2 Likes

The best thing that I can think of to explain this disparity is that peoples innate sense of fairness is challenged when they directly see a welfare recipient “misspending”, but not with military spending and action.

No one looks at a returning soldier that is missing a limb and has PTSD or at a flag draped casket and says “Hey! He’s been getting paid at E-5 plus hazard, and we have nothing to show for it. I want what he’s been getting!”.

1 Like

I actually get more pissed about cronyism, companies buying tax breaks or subsidy money by buying politicians. The tax code and the administrative state are crooked AF. Anywhere the private sector and government touch there you will find graft.

At least the SSI/WIC/Welfare fraudster is just working a system he had nothing to do with creating. Most of the guys that work for my dad list addresses at their mom’s place and live at a separate address with their unemployed baby mama. So the baby mama and kids get housing, healthcare, WIC etc… and the cash the guy brings home is fun money. That’s heinous, but nothing like what corporations and legislators do.

Also agree that wars should be short and violent with a firm definition of what success actually is. Fuck rebuilding our enemies countries and occupying them for decades. Get in, kill whoever needs killed, leave.

On a side note, I remember reading a paper a while back how being poor (especially through multiple generations) messes with your decision making process in terms of risk aversion, capacity for future planning and willingness to adapt to new circumstances.

Interestingly, the father of Russian socialism and Lenin’s idol Nikolay Chernyshevsky in the 19th century marveled at the “latent idiocy of the Russian peasant” and his “irrational decisions regarding matters of money”. Some of his charges are almost exactly the same as those leveled against the AA community in the US in popular culture.

His explanation was that centuries of harsh feudal rule are responsible for this, and that by lavish spending on alcohol “the oppressed serf buys the temporary illusion of freedom from feudal bondage”.

Upon his visit to Ireland he compared the patterns of behavior of the Russian peasant to the “stupid and lazy Irishmen under British yoke” and surprisingly concluded (somewhat misleadingly for the 1870s?) that “only in one country in the world, the United States is the Irishmen able to elevate himself through hard work to the industrious caste of peoples”.

So now we know who’s responsible for communism…

2 Likes

They “foam at the mouth” because they lack the capacity to understand that that person is just as much a victim as they are, maybe more. Ahhhh, the benefits of being on welfare. You get to live rent free in a terrible and dangerous neighborhood where, if your kids stay in school, they will receive a great education that will leave them semi-literate and virtually unemployable but it’s OK because they can always get just enough help from the government to be sure that their kids will turn out just as great as they did and, most importantly, have just as much need for government assistance as their parents and grandparents.

Oh, I forgot the best part, this will also create a population which will provide a steady supply of criminals for the justice system to house. It’s not that bad however since it costs more to house a prisoner than it does to provide welfare. We don’t want to get too crazy and think of ways to save money.

Coming late to the last few days of the thread here, but I don’t think people really view it as a personal failing–I believe that’s more partisan or political polarization talking, not what the average person on the street believes.

I think it has more to do with not wanting to be told what to do and not wanting to give away ones hard earned cash…but you have a good point

I’m days behind in this thread but wanted to post this.

Long but remarkable read. Fascinating article.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/10/29/john-boehner-trump-house-republican-party-retirement-profile-feature-215741

EDIT: not sure why this posted as a response to you instead of a reply to the thread.

2 Likes
1 Like

That was really good. Boehner isn’t my favorite guy, but I respect him. Boehner gets it - both sides have their bozos who can’t do politics above screaming at their television, but the system is designed to elect people who, while partisan, can go above that and know how to get work done. But since at least 2010, the Republicans have elected incompetents who are cut from the cloth of television screaming in lieu of dealmakers.

Somehow, though, it worked well enough to command a legislative majority, not because it was a great idea and that’s where America’s heart lies, but because Democrats blew it. And blew it galactically.

But the GOP needs more guys like Boehner, imperfect as they are.

2 Likes

I’m not so sure it’s that simple. The anti establishment sentiment was hella strong in 2016 on both sides. This country really failed to set reasonable expectations for its citizens. Namely the working and middle class.

For a very brief period post WW2 you could have a HS education and go work your ass off at manual labor or a trade and have a house, wife at home, two cars and 2.5 kids and get free healthcare from work and a full pension after 35 years with the same company. Not rich, but stable. That was unsustainable and it’s the standard we measure against when the pols crow about the middle class and good jobs.

Everyone’s looking at the boomers’ ride being over and the “dream” has patina. Then they pick a bad guy for destroying it (govt, corps, China). We have to get off the myth that success and security are easy and guaranteed. That’s never been true for humans since they left the trees.

5 Likes

I don’t disagree with what you wrote, I think you’re dead on - but I think that’s precisely where the Democrats screwed up. As the pains and angst you talked about mounted, and culminated in the Great Recession, the Democrats - in control of the WH and both Houses of Congress, and traditionally the party of “the regular guy” who benefited from the era you described - decided to

  1. Culturally go Full Gentry Liberal with the party, allying themselves closer with the “elites” of the coasts and their narrow agenda, and said to Hell with the wrench turners of the heartland and

  2. In the wake of the Great Recession, instead of addressing the real issues causing the pain and angst, they put all their chips in on the vanity project of the Affordable Care Act, when the real need was to address (lack of) economic security (that you describe), stagnant wages, etc.

Democrats - again, party of the people and all that - had control and had every opportunity to read the times correctly and do something populist flavored. They blew it. Under Obama, the big banks that got bailed out grew even bigger, and income gains went to the One Percent during his eight years, all the while Democrats sent the message to heartland voters they were no longer welcome in the party because of cultural issues.

Only thing I’d take issue with is this - it wasn’t unsustainable in its face. We made policy choices that negatively impacted this, we accelerated it’s demise through certain decisions.

6 Likes

Well it is a very multifaceted issue. My take is that after WW2 the entire world was smoking ruin except the US. We were the only manufacturers left with all our strength. We could support full pensions, healthcare, union wages and all the other goodies. Who was going to compete with us? As the 70’s hit and the rest of the world was rebuilt… now there’s competition again.

We convinced most of the middle class that home ownership was an excellent idea, which didn’t help.

1 Like

In my view, Kelly’s status as one of Trump’s guardrails has taken a hit:

2 Likes

Ugh, Civil War arguments, Hitler or Nazi type stuff is annoying from politicians on both sides. Only so many ways you can keep beating up the same topics. Leave that to historians imo.