Why do conservatives argue for policies to increase the number of homeless?

Question

-Tax cuts handouts for the rich
-attacking programs that enable the poor to do better
-describing the lower class as lazy when they do labor that takes away energy for anything else and too little food to give ambition to accomplish anything.
-wanting to increase taxes to punish the poor as if that would solve anything. This is called the "flat tax"

Are you guys that hateful or that uneducated as to the problems they face?

Adam I have a college degree and I have studied the subject of why the poor are poor.

The most interesting project I've ever seen is: Try restricting your food to a hundred dollars worth a month and see how your life changes. The changes are dramatic. You don't have enough energy to finish your homework or work at a job. Your body will make you sleep all day to conserve for the times you can be awake for eating and other must do things.

Why are people homeless. I got to read an essay on the subject about a teacher who was raped. A true story. She went into medical care. While in medical care all of her stuff was sold off to pay bills. When her medical care was finished, she didn't have anything. No one to help her. No place to clean up for an interview, or cloths to wear to one. No one would direct her to help programs. So she moved to a warm place and slept on the streets and had been for ten years when a student interviewed her for the essay.

Answer 1

it's more than that.

cons will whine about the breakdown about the american family unit - things like both parents working and an increase in single parent households - but at the same time just shrug off the idea that all american jobs are moving overseas and say things like ' the american worker is going to have to get used to a lower standard of living.'

cons will whine endlessly about how great everything was in the 1950's, but casually ignore the fact that a big part of that prosperity was the fact that regular guys could get high paying factory jobs that allowed a parent to stay home, buy two cars and send their kids to college.

cons want to return to the past - except for the prosperity part.

they allow bills like the bankruptcy bill to pass congress, that won't let american taxpayers escape their debts by declaring bankruptcy (40% of which is usually caused by medical bills) but in case anyone has noticed, just as many corporations escape their debts by going chapter 7 or 11.

and then there's welfare - nearly 40% of those on welfare are CHILDREN!

it's just disgraceful! they pick on the literally least powerful element of society in order to give the appearance that they are trying to get something done.

Answer 2

I don't like the tax cuts for the rich - I'll agree with you on that. But there are many people who do abuse the programs for the poor. Ever see some of the stuff people use food stamps for? See all of the frivilant excesses money was spent on after Katrina - money meant to help people was spent on face-lifts and everything else. Some of the crackdowns aren't meant to hurt the people who really need it, they're meant to get rid of the abuses to the system. There ARE some people who find it easier to collect than go out and earn. Not all, there are some people who truly need help - and I'm all for helping them, but there are some that take advantage of things.

Answer 3

i'm no longer that lots of a macro-economist, yet why ought to the spending velocity be maintained by the interior maximum sector? the government is an unbelievable funds-recycler, it could direct funds at technologies, products or communities that the regular public famous substantial. in simple terms having earnings the interior maximum sector isn't adequate, this funds could rather bleed off to different countries, the place return on investment is bigger. Or the money could in simple terms stay placed, (V->0) as is the case with a superb form of the bailed out banks on the instant. it continuously strikes me that conservatives a) locate the government too massive, and b) vote for an obscenely bloated protection funds that should feed the detrimental, save the worldwide ecosystem and convey us to mars thrice over. i think there is the money velocity. the parable of a minimalistic government, in spite of the undeniable fact that of course fake, does greater healthful with the cons theory of freedom. No or little taxes. i'm getting to p.c. what my funds is spent on, and for this reason what's produced by whom. the form of equipment could be particularly instable, inefficient and assymetric in means. that's no thank you to run a rustic, no longer to point a rustic with the desire to be the dominant financial and protection tension tension of the globe, yet its a powerful thank you to entice electorate. to maintain up appearances you privatize a superb form of the government centers, which does no longer truly decrease government length in financial words, yet in simple terms shifts the objective of spending. difficulty with severe spending on protection, is that it truly is basically valueless in producing wealth. It does no longer develop the fee of output (Q), except you desire to bully a superb form of alternative economies.

Answer 4

- stimulate the economy, give money to those that spend money, gets cash to the working poor
- you mean like socialistic programs such as welfare, that support lazyness
- many of them are, ther are a few that are not, they are responsible for their own destiney


might I recomend you graduate from highschool before you call the rest of us uneducated.

Answer 5

I am a conservative but you won't catch me defending conservative politicians. I personally believe the politicians of both major parties will sell our country to the highest bidder (right now it's China) to mkae their alread fat wallets fatter.

Both parties have signed off on laws and policies that make it nearly impossible for the average american to survive. They have also made it painfully obvious they don't care.

Answer 6

Just one word POWER the more power they get the more they want.
Today it's the homeless and working class, tomorrow it's the middle class,after that who know's.
The unions stood against every policy you listed.
How did they get rid of the unions,they used fear, distrust, and greed.
Today it's the same shell game just a bit more subtle.

Answer 7

AGGGHHAGGH!!! Like the Great Society "War on Poverity" has worked so well. Typical liberal piss&moan and only see doom and gloom. Make *everything* state owned so that we can all be equally miserable...

Answer 8

They want to increase the number so high it will trigger support for their Soylant Green project. In political parlence, it's called the tipping point.

Answer 9

YOUR LONG DISSERTATION AFTER THE QUESTION OBVIOUSLY IS YOUR MINDSET. I'M NOT GONNA CHANGE IT. YOUR REASONING MAY BE DIFFERENT FROM MINE, BUT THE END RESULT IS THE SAME - YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT ABOUT THE CONS AND THEIR POLICIES.

Answer 10

They are greedy. They want to keep everyone below them, in terms of class and status, as far below them as possible. And these policies do just that. They want the distinction of being the elite.