Why do republicans seem to think being anti poor is really being pro poor?

Question

I've seen posts on here a lot saying that the poor are only that way because the dems give them handouts. That it would help the poor more by never giving anything. I don't understand this.. Is it really just a talking point to make it seem dems are anti poor?

Ok, I understand the point.. I don't get why they actually believe it. Yes it would work for some but there will always be poor people. If you simply cut them off, more will die and be in even worse situations. I don't believe for one second that poor people want to be poor, these people do try to get out. They are just unsuccessfull at it..

Answer 1

Republicans are pro-poor because they understand the problems of poor people. You see, the problem with poor people is that they have too much money. They also have too much health care and too much housing for their own good. So the Republicans believe in helping poor people by trying to cut back on the amount of health care and housing that they get, and making sure they pay their fair share of taxes.

Republicans also understand the problems of rich people much better than Democrats. You see, the problem with rich people is that they do not have enough money. So it's important to cut their taxes so they can have more.

And what are all these hand-outs people are talking about? Farm price supports? That is a big one, but probably not one that Republicans are complaining about. Medicare? Social Security? Aid to Families with Dependent Children? probably that one, but of course Clinton abolished it. Maybe prescription drugs for Medicare recipients? That's a hand-out for the pharmaceutical industry as far as I understand it. Reduction of the estate tax? That's definitely a hand-out for people who did not work to earn their money - the undeserving children of wealthy parents. Oh yeah, but Republicans support that. Maybe no-bid contracts for Haliburton? That's a hand-out too.

Answer 2

I'm part of a low income family who also happens to be republican. I choose to forgo having all the "things" society tells us are important so that I can provide a loving home for my family. I am not without choice. If I want more than the basic necessities I could get a job. If my husband didn't have a job he would take ANY work he could to get by. When people are handed the money and aid necessary to survive they have no incentive to work or better themselves. Why do you think that areas with high rates of government subsidized housing and welfare recipients are the same areas where crime is rampant? It is because without the urgency to provide for THEMSELVES people use idle time unwisely. Reducing government aid could not only reduce the cost of taxation directly but potentially reduce the crime rates in many areas as well. Giving handouts as the government does lessens the likelyhood that recipients will ever work their way out of their situations.

Answer 3

Hand wringing liberal anti-war nuts are whining. "We are the good guys, we don't attack without provocation!" What was 9/11, an invitation to a dance party? "The President has not made a strong enough case against Iraq!" What, 10 years of duplicity, deceit and the funding of Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda and any other terrorist bent on hurting Israel or the U.S. weren't enough? Scott Ritter says Saddam couldn't have done any new development in his NBC arsenal. What? After inspection teams left in December of 1998 when Saddam refused any further cooperation, Ritter was quoted as saying in six months Saddam would have reconstituted his NBC programs including nuclear weapons. This December it will have been four years! Even if Ritter was wrong by 300% then Saddam has had plenty of time. The Manhattan project only took a few years and that included the basic research that Saddam has already conducted. Saddam has produced enough VX nerve gas to kill every American alive today. Or more likely every living being in Israel.

Answer 4

It's the old 'give the man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach the man how to fish and he can do so for life'. So if you simply give the poor money and stuff...they stay poor and sit there. If you help them become not poor, they are far better off.

A great example is most goverment aid is equal or more then the starting wage at a job. So why get a job if they can sit home and get free stuff from the goverment.....

Answer 5

... well... many of them talk about how all poor people are just "lazy" and therefore don't deserve anything... funny how we have around 30 million in poverty... that's a lot of lazy people..

and the old "teach a man to fish" routine... where is any republican teaching anyone to do anything? I haven't seen any Republican educational programs for the poor being promoted... have you?

the republicans are "pro-poor" in the sense that they love poor people because they are cheap labor, which means more profits, which means higher stock values, which means more money... but they love the poor so much, they want there to be many more poor people...

Answer 6

Well, the Republican believe if you give people a hand out they will no longer want to work. They'll want to stay home and do nothing for money. No Republican is against unemployment benefits for example, because it's a temporary hand up. I think you'll see some signs that it is an honest fear in Europe where they're trying to save their economy while many (certainly not all) march the streets for the status quo (extremely long unemployment benefits in Germany or guaranteed employment terms for young people in France).

Answer 7

Talking point: no.

It simply is part of the conservative idea that you are supposed to help yourself, not rely on the government to provide for you. Thus, giving less welfare would provide incentive to start providing for yourself and in turn would lower the burden on the government to continue supporting these people.

Is this really that complicated for you to understand?

Have you ever heard "Why buy the cow when the milk is free."?

Conservatives just want to stop giving out free milk to those who are capable of buying their own cow (through getting a job).

Answer 8

WHAT !!! SORRY, I could not hear you. I was firing my weapon.

TELL YOU WHAT !!!
I, a solid republican..,right-wing, will put this simple statement up.
I am willing to help any AMERICAN CITIZEN with a hand-up
BUT I WILL BE DAMNED if I will give a hand out!!!
[WE] the greatest country on this planet are taking our limited resources , OUR OWN CITIZENS, and devaluing their self worth by ALLOWING hand-outs to go on.
AND,I will not even venture into the subject matter of DEVALUING ALL of labor by the HUGE influx of immigrants!!!

Have a great day!

Answer 9

Think of it this way: if you ALWAYS got everything you wanted simply by asking, would you want to spend the time and money to educate yourself, get a good paying job and work a 40 hour week?

Don't get me wrong. I think our society should help those who CAN'T work, not those who WON'T. The hard part is determining which is which.

Answer 10

Give a man a fish and feed him for a day, Teach a man to fish and feel him foe a life time! Sound familiar?