I've heard this ridiculous assertion several times here and want to see someone try and defend it.
In what way do Republicans ever give a "hand up"? By filling all top positions and jobs with family and friends, irregardless of qualifications and experience? By preserving education for those who live in the right district? By doing WHAT? Leaving $50 more in your pocket so you can buy another tank of gas? While loaning you $1000 behind your back in way of deficit spending -- that you don't get to spend, by the way.
Democrats support advancement to those who have earned it, through qualifications and proven success and not by inheritance. Democrats believe that everyone should be entitled to a quality education so that they will have the tools to compete. Democrats provide financial assistance to enable thousands of people to attend college.
Why do so many of you consider that a Republican policy of "do nothing" is a "hand up"?
2006-10-27 04:53:43 · 6 answers · asked by thehiddenangle 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Ok, so the entire philosophy of a republican "hand up" is that by giving someone without a job no money, I am helping them! Never mind that they don't have any education or job skills. Never mind that the minimum wage is far below the poverty line because it hasn't been raised in 10 years, and it probably costs more to have a job than NOT have a job. Never mind that the total $$$ doled out in welfare is 1% of the fed budget and hardly qualifies as worthy of an hour of debate in Congress on the basis of financial cost to society.
That's your whole plan? What about the tens of millions OTHER people who want to work their way up to the top of big corporations, or heck, even have a middle class job?
Republican "hand up" means do nothing, because we don't WANT competition for excellance in the US. We want status quo.
Everything you guys say you are "for" is such a total lie, completely unsubstantiated by reality.
2006-10-27 05:19:28 · update #1
ROFLMAO This is the best question I've seen in a long time! There is no hand up from the Republicans. They think if you're poor, it's your own fault. You're just too lazy to work harder. That's how they justify what you described. Education is available for anyone who wants to work hard enough to achieve it, but if you dont have the right test scores you dont get into the best schools. The wealthier suburbs have COACHES for high school kids taking the SATs so they can get higher test scores. What inner city kid has that option? Republicans justify that by blaming them for where they were born...as if they had a choice.
Instead of blaming and having delusions of grandeur about their rather ordinary, mundane,self centered little lives, they should look to see how they could give back. As far as I'm concerned, if you have a roof over your head, you should be giving back in some way. Republicans are nothing special, just because they have a little more money than others.
Of course, I am sure all of the cons on here will get all twisted up with this question and blame liberals like they always do, because liberals supposedly run on emotions and feelings. What's wrong with that? I would rather have emotions and feelings for another human being. If Republicans did that, maybe things would change. Beats having sex just to procreate.
2006-10-27 05:05:34 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
nicely....human beings would particularly have their own toddlers than undertake, not all yet maximum do, in basic terms kinda the way it quite works, human beings will SAY that that they had want to undertake a baby yet communicate is lower priced till they quite do it :). besides if not maximum instantly everyone is adopting toddlers then why not enable gay couples undertake and raise toddlers? I recommend i'm christian and that i do not inevitably trust homosexuality yet i'm not some pyscho christian who'll in basic terms condemn all of them to hell and not in any respect contact my toddlers because their uncleansed souls will assimilate them. in my opinion they might want to do it, someone has to furnish those negative toddlers a good abode, and that i'm quite damn particular they'll in basic terms attempt this. And in basic terms because they are gay does not recommend the youngster is gonna be gay....it in basic terms skill the youngster is gonna undertake to the famous american existence-type....the NOW era...and so as which skill the youngster has more effective thoughts on his/her sexuality, and how he sees existence.....yet he/she will nonetheless develop right into an ethical citizen of loose decision us of a :).
2016-12-05 07:09:24 · answer #2 · answered by kobayashi 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm a fiscal conservative and I agree with you Republicans have lost their way of how to make people work by themselves and not be a burden on society. Where is Barry Goldwater when you need him?
2006-10-27 09:28:57 · answer #3 · answered by cynical 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Your examples are broad and generalized lies. It serves no purpose to hand-out welfare. When this is done, the recipient has no incentive to find a way to make this money. A cycle of dependency has started. Making some one dependent on government is not helping them.
2006-10-27 05:00:47 · answer #4 · answered by only p 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
You have to be kidding. kepping someone on welfare is NOT giving them a hand up. Throwing money a our lacking educational system will NOT support future success stories.
Playing Robin Hood and throwing money at problems is not the way to fix things.
2006-10-27 05:00:01 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
They "left no child behind", but forgot the funding part.
2006-10-27 05:00:14 · answer #6 · answered by notme 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋