Republicans and Neo-Nazis, White Supremacists and Racists

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Oh, because spending money like we do in CT, has helped these people?
I've asked before - we just had 8 years of a Dem gov. and 8 prior of Repub govern. - whose budget went up a higher %? and what did the Repub (who got arrested for being a crook) do in terms of the emp. benefits/pensions?
Spending more money is only beneficial, if it's spent on things that actually help people. like food stamps? Making more of them choose single parenthood, hasn't been an overly productive use of public money from their perspective. Crippling them, by making them addicted to welfare,I guess you thing all people on any assistance are addicted to welfare - does that include the mentally/physically challenged? I know Rep. separate people into 2 group - makers and takers. Are those the takers? hasn't been an overly productive use of money. Getting more of them to be self sufficient, giving them skills (not cash) they can use to get ahead, makes sense to me. I'll help pay for it. I'll happily pay for free day care so teenage parents can learn a trade or go back to school. I'm less thrilled about sending them cash for the rest of their lives so they can sit around.

"The poor (of which minorites have a bigger % poor) live in the inner cities bc they are closer to social services and buses, etc"

And because they don't have the skills they need to acquire the wealth necessary to live in a suburb.

If huge numbers of poor people got off welfare and became self sufficient, they'd be less likely to vote democrat. You're telling me, that doesn't factor into democrat policy? That democrats don't have a self serving reason to keep them poor?I don't think so.

Democrats offer more freebies to poor people than republicans, I would never deny that. I see it as a good thing for the GOP.

Your last statement confirms what I think a lot of Rep. feel - that social services are just freebies. I view the Dems. policies as a good thing and why I very infrequently vote Rep any more.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

social services are just freebies.

if they are are services that you don't pay for...then they are freebies...no?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Your last statement confirms what I think a lot of Rep. feel - that social services are just freebies. I view the Dems. policies as a good thing and why I very infrequently vote Rep any more.

"I've asked before - we just had 8 years of a Dem gov. and 8 prior of Repub govern. "

And I've responded before with this...the Republican governors were liberal, and had liberal legislatures to work with. Are you aware who crafts budgets and writes laws? It's not the governor, it's the legislature. I'll ask again, please point to any conservative economic principles tat were implemented under te Republican governors? You can't, because there weren't any. Our economic landscape is pure, unchecked liberalism, and the results speak for themselves.



"like food stamps"

to a point. Not given to people who are capable of working. And not to be used for anything other than food, staples. When I worked at a supermarket a million years ago, the same cheats were always trying to use food stamps to buy makeup, perfume, alcohol, cigarettes. I don't even think they should be able to be used for soda or candy. Healthy food only, if you don't like it, tough nuggets.

"I guess you thing all people on any assistance are addicted to welfare "

Never said anything close to that. But some get addicted to it, obviously it robs some people of the urge to be self sufficient, and that's only good for one group...democrats. It's not good for the person who is ruined, it's not good for the public who know has another dependent to care for.

Again, I point to Bill Clinton. He kicked MILLIONS off welfare, and they didn't all starve to death. If a Republican tried to do that today, you'd say they hate poor people. Clinton gave them a needed kick in the rear end.

"does that include the mentally/physically challenged?"

Come on, talk sense. I want to offer a better safety net for those people, because those are people who can't care for themselves.

Summer of 2017 in CT, democrat governor, democrat legislature. They shut down 26 non profits which relied on state funding, vital agencies who serve the people you talked about. But the families who depend on those non profits, unfortunately, aren't unionized, so Malloy and the legislature happily threw them under the bus.

"I don't think so (that democrats benefit when poor people remain poor).

Well, obviously, I think you're wrong.

"I view the Dems. policies as a good thing "

In Hartford and Bridgeport?

Paul, CT is one of the wealthiest states in the nation, and it's dying. The other states as bad off, are IL and NJ. Do you see any similarities there? Any commonalities among the political persuasion of those states?

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"I've asked before - we just had 8 years of a Dem gov. and 8 prior of Repub govern. "

And I've responded before with this...the Republican governors were liberal, and had liberal legislatures to work with. Are you aware who crafts budgets and writes laws? It's not the governor, it's the legislature. I'll ask again, please point to any conservative economic principles tat were implemented under te Republican governors? You can't, because there weren't any. Our economic landscape is pure, unchecked liberalism, and the results speak for themselves.

In Conn. the governor submits the proposed budget to the state legislature in February and then The legislature adopts a budget in early summer.

We as a state have decided that we want a certainly level of a saftey net and do not want be like those conserv. utopia states like KS, KY, etc. Utah voters overwhelmingly passed a law to expand medicaid and then the legislature rolled back the scope and impact of the expansion. I think the Maine Rebup. govenor did the same thing even though the feds pays the vast majority. It is bc they viewed those people on medicare as takers and we know how Repub. hate takers.

Those poor (unfortunate) folks hurt by the tornados in Alabama prob. hate the govern and complain constantly about taxes but will have tears of joy when the FEMA trucks start pulling up.

I'll stick w/the liberal states and you can go to the conserv. states. I like that we believe in good education for all, culture, science and the willingness to take care of the less fortunate.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

In Conn. the governor submits the proposed budget to the state legislature in February and then The legislature adopts a budget in early summer.

We as a state have decided that we want a certainly level of a saftey net and do not want be like those conserv. utopia states like KS, KY, etc. Utah voters overwhelmingly passed a law to expand medicaid and then the legislature rolled back the scope and impact of the expansion. I think the Maine Rebup. govenor did the same thing even though the feds pays the vast majority. It is bc they viewed those people on medicare as takers and we know how Repub. hate takers.

I'll stick w/the liberal states and you can go to the conserv. states. I like that we believe in good education for all, culture, science and the willingness to take care of the less fortunate.

"then The legislature adopts a budget in early summer."

And the budget adopted by the legislature, is voted up or down, by the governor. His budget may serve as a starting point, I guess. But "the" budget that is passed, goes from the legislature to the governor, right??

In any event, as I said, being a Republican, especially in this state, doesn't make you a conservative.. They didn't do anything conservative, either because they chose not to, or because the legislature blocked them. But in any event, no one can say that in CT, conservatism has been tried and it failed. It has never been tried, not even close, not by any stretch.

"We as a state have decided that we want a certainly level of a saftey net and do not want be like those conserv. utopia states like KS, KY, etc"

yeah, that's some effective safety net we have in our cities. What we have decided, is that the legislature will give a blank check to labor unions, which is the only way you have a retired UCONN professor who no one has ever heard of, with a 300k-a-year pension, while vital social services (the safety net you alluded to), get cut. Everyone I know who works for true social services in this state, says at their budgets are cut every year, despite massive tax hike sand increased spending. Because the spending isn't, in fact, funding safety nets for those who need it, the spending is on fat pensions and cheap healthcare for labor unions.

I also never heard anyone say we should emulate KS or KY. Of course, when discussing conservative economies, you run to the flops. How about NH, NC, SC, GA, TX, FL? There are places within those states that are (1) very low tax, and (2) offer a high quality of life. CT has precisely zero places like that.

" like that we believe in good education for all"

Yeah, the education in the cities is great.

"the willingness to take care of the less fortunate labor unions.".


Fixed it.