Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There is an overwhelming support for Democrats among people who receive food stamps, unemployment compensation, government disability, public housing, medicaid and welfare/public assistance.
Public Housing: 81% Dem vs 12% Rep
Medicaid: 74% Dem vs 16% Rep
Food Stamps: 67% Dem vs 20% Rep
Unemployment Comp: 66% Dem vs 21% Rep
Disability: 64% Dem vs 25% Rep
Welfare/Public Assistance: 63% Dem vs 22% Rep
This begs to question...
1) Do Democrats really want to get people off government programs?
2) Would it hurt them as a party if we saw 50% less people relying on these government programs?
3) Do Democrats want to create new programs to potentially expand and lock-in their base?
I view it similar to how Apple retains its customers, such as iTunes. You start buying your music from iTunes and it's only compatible with Apple products. If you were to change to say Samsung, you would have to go through a lot of work converting your songs and lose quality as a result from converting these files. I myself at one point was considering trying out Samsung, but decided against it because I was already so engraved into Apple. The more programs Democrats create, the more people who will end up relying on these programs, thus making them more likely to vote for the party who created and supports these programs. This is just my thinking anyways.
--------
DISCLAIMER: I've voted for Obama both elections and haven't regretted my choices. I even have a "I am a proud Obama voter" sticker on my fridge (it was sent to me for free, but I still put it up nonetheless). However, I am perfectly fine with being critical about the party I voted for. I consider myself someone who is near the center because I like ideas from both parties and also hate ideas from both parties. I tend to annoy a lot of hardcore Democrats and hardcore Republicans, but most people around the middle seem to agree with me or at least are fine with me when discussing politics. When it comes to social issues such as abortion, same-sex marriage, stem cells etc I side with liberals, when it comes fiscal issues such as tax policy, spending, government programs etc I side with conservatives. And then there are some issues where I'm mixed such as the second amendment. I support having universal background checks, but I also support being able to conceal carry for those who qualify. I support funding the military, but I don't want to preemptively police the world. Anyways, that's enough disclaimer lol. My point I'm trying to get across is I'm not attacking Democrats here, this is just a real concern I have about the party.
The question is do republicans want to get people off of welfare?
R. Reagan had full control of congress, but did Reagan fix our welfare system? No.
GW Bush had full control of congress, but did Bush fix our welfare system? No.
Republicans talk about how messed up our welfare system is but they don't fix it. And republicans regularly complain about welfare, but they never bring forth ideas on how to fix the welfare system.
Republicans talk about how messed up our welfare system is but they don't fix it. And republicans regularly complain about welfare, but they never bring forth ideas on how to fix the welfare system.
The biggest class of welfare recipients in this country are the people that own and work for the Military Contractors. We spend billions for those people to foment the never ending war so they can continue to sell overpriced weapons that do not work while using some of the money to bribe Congress to keep the money flowing.
The biggest class of welfare recipients are the richest 1% of Americans and America's large corporations.
What would happen to working poor single white mothers living in apartments who get food stamps?
And I guess since republicans like Reagan and Bush will never fix our welfare system their supporters have changed their welfare views to "lets abolish welfare." But is any republican going to abolish welfare? No.
The corporate republicans only (talk) about welfare to rally welfare hater votes, but these corporate republicans have no real desire to fix welfare. The only thing the corporate republican politicians are worried about is getting CEO and corporate tax cuts like the ones posted in my post above.
Reagan could have fixed the welfare system if he wanted too, but he was too busy lowering rich peoples tax rates, passing corporate deregulation, and dismantling Carters environmental laws.
The question is do republicans want to get people off of welfare?
R. Reagan had full control of congress, but did Reagan fix our welfare system? No.
GW Bush had full control of congress, but did Bush fix our welfare system? No.
Republicans talk about how messed up our welfare system is but they don't fix it. And republicans regularly complain about welfare, but they never bring forth ideas on how to fix the welfare system.
I agree most politicians on either side do jack s*** when elected because they are owned by some donor, special interest group, union, corporation etc. That is why Trump is so refreshing. He doesn't need other people's money to run his campaign.
I agree most politicians on either side do jack s*** when elected because they are owned by some donor, special interest group, union, corporation etc. That is why Trump is so refreshing. He doesn't need other people's money to run his campaign.
Trump's latest tax plan "would likely sharply increase the national debt and make the U.S. tax system substantially more regressive by both cutting taxes for the rich and creating a massive new tax that would disproportionately hurt lower-income Americans."
I'm a conservative and do not want to end welfare at least not unless all affirmative action is completely ended first. The reasoning in part is you do not want these useless people being affirmative actioned and unfairly competing for jobs where they will cost more than welfare does. The government largely acts like a welfare employer as do corporations to an extent for 'minorities' and women at often over 12x the cost per head and these bureaucrat employees do more damage than good.
Short of completely ending affirmative action, (un)Equal Employment Opportunity (Outcome) Commission etc, I would make welfare pay the same whether the recipients have zero children or several. I'm not sure how to get around the marriage loophole that encourages welfare recipients to be single.
And I'd certainly end all this immigration especially 'refugees' who go straight on welfare. Immigration is the biggest problem.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
