The budget sent to Congress Tuesday for fiscal year 2018 puts the country’s schizophrenia over feeding hungry citizens back on the agenda—this time in the guise of defunding food programs for seniors, millions of whom are homebound, ill, and unable to cook or shop. In March, the Trump administration announced it was slashing federal funds for those programs, meaning that more seniors will go hungry, and waiting lists—already numbering in the thousands in some parts of the country—will get larger.
The republican party are all about money, and only money to further enrich the wealthy. They do not care who lives or dies, who is fed or starves, who has a home or who is on the street, who can get health care or who dies in horrible, preventable agony just so long as they can get their greedy little hands on a stream of revenue. That is not quite right now that I give it the briefest second thought. Republicans scorn those without money to such a degree that if millions of us die as a result of their policies, as long as they get their riches, so much the better. Our deaths and suffering is a large, though secondary, benefit to a republican. As for seniors, if we die, every one of our deaths is a mini-tax break for a republican. So sure, let's cut social security, food stamps, whatever, to herd us to our early graves and increase the flow of revenue to republican pockets. Death after all is only a state of mind.
The program, he said, was one of many that is “just not showing any results,”
So, Mulvaney is trying to get us to believe that Meals on Wheels wasn't actually feeding hungry elderly people? How does he twist the logic in his head to come to that flawed conclusion?
In republican-speak that means that republicans cannot squeeze money from the program. That Meals on Wheels helps keep people from starving is entirely irrelevant to a republican.
Depends on what the definition of "showing results" is. "Not showing results" seems to be the new Republican catch phrase excuse for cutting programs that benefit the ordinary citizen.
Instead of what was said before the French revolution, by the French aristocracy : "let them eat cake" Trump is saying: let them eat dog food or not at all.
Such as seniors not dying off quickly enough?
Mulvaney has perfected the art of the canard and mendacity: Note the old false argument of the 'tax payer' rolled out every time to hide the fact that the very wealthy either do not pay any taxes or much less than anyone who actually works so they offer them scapegoats. Framing his arguments as 'compassionate' he is referring to those suckers who are having to bear the brunt of paying taxes because the likes of him feel they are exempt from such 'trifles'.
I watched an interview a few years ago with Rockefeller. One of the points he made, toward the end of the interview was that our problems were basically population.
* He said something to the effect that there were too many people using up our resources. _We need to get rid of about six billion of them.
* Obviously, as long as there are profits to be made, they have no qualms about wars killing the innocent, or turning them into starving refugees. Ending food and assistance programs of any type will get rid of the old farts who eat our food. After all, the poor and the elderly will die off pretty quickly with no food, shelter, or medical care, and our bottom line will continue to soar. Maybe if we buy up all the water rights and market the water at prices too steep for the poor, they'll die off even faster.
* The values that pertained when I was a boy, Honesty, empathy, compassion, helpfulness, are now just considered flaws, weaknesses to be exploited for profit.
* Now, we seem to have transited into a fascist or Nazi mentality in which wealth and power are the only virtues and We the People have no value except possibly to save some of the younger workers, to be worked to death and replaced by other poor men who will perish the same way. And then, there is always the abattoir of the Wehrmacht to use them up.
* I remember a saying I heard years ago: "God must love the poor, He made so many of them." The rich would agree. "Nearly six billion throwaways we can work to death. There are always more to replace them."
I think Mulvaney's logic may go something like this: meals on wheels is irrelevant because it is not cost effective because most of these elderly people will be dying shortly anyway!
What is their endgame?
I just got word that another friend from the WAC' s (vietnam era vet) died of an od... her name was Mary..this is not what we joined up to protect. This is not our country.
The democrats have learned they need only be a fraction better than hideous to beat republicans. So they are. A fraction better than hideous is still hideous.
Nothing screams it louder than Obama's 8 years in office. For 3 or 4 of his 8 years in office there was no increase in monthly Social Security payments. Of the years there was an increase in monthly benefits the increase averaged about $2.00. TWO DOLLARS A MONTH. In Obama's 8 years in office seniors monthly Social Security payment increased a GRAND TOTAL (on average) of $8.
You're absolutely right.
Obama and the Democrats were useless to the Working Class and the Elderly, on the contrary, they were downright harmful.
Their unconscionable neglect of the Worker ( Minimum Wage ), the Elderly ( Social Security ), the Poor ( Diminished Services ), and the Young ( Undermining of Public Education )was Camouflaged by their over the top, Bad Cop ( to their Good Cop ) Duopoly counterparts.
It looks like the democrats feel they no longer need the voting bases you listed. The elderly are more conservative and tend to vote for republicans. The poor and disenfranchised may too (especially in rural areas), simply from the misguided feelings that someone is going to "get more than they will" if food stamps are increased, college is tuition-free, healthcare is socialized, etc. The "I got mine" now you need to "go work for yours" crowd is not just at the top of the economic ladder, it's at the bottom too. It's a learned behavior.
I was surprised when I saw that many people making just above the minimum wage were against raising the minimum wage, why? Because they were afraid it would place them closer to the bottom. I'm afraid if you kick a dog in the face day after day, a kick in the face is what it thinks it deserves.
Compare these people to conservatives in Canada or Europe that think it absurd to not provide healthcare, childcare, 6-8 weeks paid vacation, etc to all citizens. We lost our sense of fairness a long time ago in this country.
Meals on Wheels isn't just food. It is one or more nutritious meals for seniors, who may no longer be able to drive and shop, or may be unable to prepare a meal. And, more important, it is a daily welfare check on people who may have no other contacts. Anyone with a shred of humanity would realize that.
According to Pew Research as of last July, Americans aged 50, and up, were about equally divided between Hil and Trump when given an either/or choice.
If Bernie had been the Nominee, and had been given the National Mic for the duration of the election, to contrast the faux Populist with the real one, then those numbers would have undoubtedly been a Dem landslide.
Republicans only care about the rich. Who in their eyes shouldn't have to pay taxes to keep the poor alive.
Thank you Trudy Lieberman. I was caught by the first half of the intro line. The best possible description of the Umericun stance on the poor, the marginalized, the ignored. Thank God we are, as my Baptist old man says, "A Christian nation."
In Wednesday's Commondreams it was reported that Ben Carson during the interview with radio host Armstrong Williams said
"I think poverty to a large extent is also a state of mind. You take somebody that has the right mindset, you can take everything from them and put them on the street and I guarantee in a little while they'll be right back up there, and you take somebody with the wrong mindset, you can give them everything in the world, they'll work their way right back down to the bottom,"
Methinks there is wisdom in what Ben Carson is saying. I did not see it at first, but I will say that he is right when he says that with the mindset of some people we could give them everything in the world and they would lose and squander it. Obviously there are pragmatic limits to what can be given to people when they are in need, when we are being generous and supportive we must be mindful of this consideration. For the most part I doubt that our social supports are exceeding these limits and I agree with Trudy Lieberman that more support is needed. Before making cuts we need serious and honest discussion on whether we should be increasing or decreasing these social supports.
Then Carson says that you can take everything from people with the right mindset and in a little while they will work their way back up. Carson guarantees this, and once again I can appreciate Carson's wisdom. Maybe we should periodically do this, take the money from the people with the right mindset so that we can better support those who do need some support. As Carson says those with the right mindset will soon work their way back up again.
Before anyone agrees with me that we should take considerably more from the people with the right mindset to aid those who need some support please consider that the overwhelming majority of the people with the right mindset will be found among the 99%. Having a lot of money is not in itself proof of the right mindset, although in the sense in which Carson is speaking it appears that he considers it to be reasonable evidence of the right mindset. And it appears that he considers poverty to be reasonable evidence of the wrong mindset. And again I will somewhat agree with him on that.
Based on the above logic I conclude that we need to consider whether our social supports are adequate or not. If not then we need to take assets from those with the right mindset as they will best be able to recover from this. As wealth is reasonable evidence of having the right mindset we should take more from those who have greater wealth than we should take from those who have far less wealth. In other words, if more social supports are needed they should be supported by a fair progressive taxation of wealth and income.
Regardless of what one thinks of the comment, poverty means "a state of being poor" (as in no, or little of life's essentials--income, home, food, clothing). So it is not a state of mind, but certainly no empathy, no shame, no guilt are all classic symptoms of a sociopath--which is indeed a state of mind shared by many in office. He is playing, dog whistling if you will, on the Calvinistic culture of this country: if you are wealthy----it means "God" favored you; if you are poor, then "God" is punishing you, rightfully, so you are rightfully poor. And the guilty need no help from saints.
is not logic at all. His personal definition is exemplary of an informal logical fallacy, called false dilemma or the either/or logical fallacy. Psychologists call it black/white thinking or mindset.
The most obvious omission to his definition is the middle class. How do they behave? Sort of in the middle between the 2 extremes? Absurdity.