Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS
Exactly right. Look at the policies of this (and many) Repub. admin. They hurt the poor. Lower taxes, where the majority of the reduction goes to the rich and then cut the safety net. Again and again we see the same playbook.
|
"Look at the policies of this (and many) Repub. admin. They hurt the poor"
Bill Clinton cut taxes and kicked millions of deadbeats off of welfare. He helped fuel the tech boom of the 1990s, which made God only knows how many people, very wealthy. How come he's a liberal hero? How come you'd never accuse him of hurting the poor?
Unemployment is way down, black unemployment has never been lower. Many more poor people now pay zero federal income tax (they doubled the standard deduction).
When the economy grows, that will always help the wealthy more than it helps the poor, because the wealthy have more disposable income to invest, which allows them to capitalize on the growth. That is not a Republican creation, it is elementary school arithmetic.
Now, we can debate whether or not the tax cuts should have done less for the wealthy, less for corporations, and more for the poor. We can debate that, and you would be able to make some very valid points that I might agree with. It didn't "hurt the" poor, maybe it didn't help them as much as it could have.
If liberalism is better for the poor, that would explain the liberal utopias of Hartford, Bridgeport, New Haven, etc. These are cities that have been controlled by liberals for a generation, in a fabulously wealthy state controlled by liberals for a generation, and the people in those cities are far worse off than they were 30 years ago. Any of that not true?
Why do so many poor people risk their lives to come here, even when conservatives are running the show?
In any event, way off topic. Watch what happens during the confirmation hearings, of whomever Hitler picks to be the next justice. Especially if it's a woman. Yet supposedly it's my side that has declared 'war on women'.
Hybrid Mode
