Continuing the GOP's war on the poor, Speaker Paul Ryan and House Republicans unveiled an ostensibly new "anti-poverty" plan on Tuesday, marked by cuts to critical safety-net programs and further austerity.
White bread Ryan's district is 91% white with a median income of $50K. He needs to be dragged by his shorts to see the less fortunate sans his little apron photo op. This POS is the face of the GOP. Ain't no amount of PX90 or whatever would keep someone real from kicking the crap out of him. May his Ayn Rand paper cuts fester in perpetuity.
Ryan is such a flaming hypocrite. He grew up in a wealthy family which owned a quite profitable construction business. After his father died while Ryan was still a teenager he accepted Social Security benefits which are paid to surviving children under 21 years of age. He hardly needed this anywhere near as much as many less fortunate than him. And, now, he wants to cut benefits to dirt poor people. Way to go Paul. Way to go, you heartless b******.
kentshaw (aka dkshaw aka dougshaw aka dkshaw)
These corrupt government officials merely represent the interests of corporate-fascists
which is always to attack the most vulnerable in our society to make themselves wealthier.
Our nation is being bankrupted and subjected to austerity programs which enrich the
Yeah the sickos continue their 'work' undaunted.
Small government, an absolute virtue in their belief system, remains perpetually unchecked by the reality of free markets which thrive on inequality and poverty. Small government=control by business.
We know the moral and social bankruptcy of the profit motive unbeholden to the well being of citizens.
Kick these thugs out of politics and build a strong wall around their business interests.
Despite the Afghanistan and Iraq occupations being labeled the longest wars, the WAR ON POOR has been raging for more than 35 years, ever since Ronnie Raygun started it when he moved in to the White House.
Ryan simply re-invents the war and re-spins the war by applying his "expert policy wonk" brand to it.
Paul Ryan stopped growing emotionally when his father died. Ayn Rand became the childish, fantasy guidance that brought him to adulthood. He has no comprehension of what a healthy society is. He and the two political parties don't understand that neoliberal and libertarian ideology are disintegrating.
Ryan was much better when he was Eddie Munster before he got into politics.
Kick and beat 'em while they're down and out, Paul. Now, dontcha feel like a real man? You power-hungry Ayn Rand sycophant...were Rand alive now, she would have you in her "stable" of young admirers, to be sure. Oh, and how about all the time you spent serving your country in any branch of the military...oh, you didn't? And you "saved" all the SSI benefits you received as the result of your father's demise and used that money for college (in a pig's eye)...somehow that does not ring true because every year you have to PROVE that the benefits were spent on your NEEDS and not funneled into savings accounts to earn interest.
You have to reach up to touch the bottom, Sir Ryan.
Paul Ryan proposing programs to help the poor is like Hitler proposing programs to help Jews.
My fear is that Hillary is not far from this opinion, history easily shows us that. In your heart you know I am right.
The war on the poor was launched in the 1980s, before Ryan first ran for office, and was brought to fruition in the 1990s, by the Clinton administration. I realize that those who produce media have been oblivious to the consequences, but we've remained deep in class war ever since. This war on the poor has taken a hell of a toll. On just one point, the overall life expectancy of the US poor has already fallen to age 60-63. Are we tough enough on them?
Think about this: We know that not everyone can work (health, etc.) and that there aren't jobs for all. The US shut down/shipped out a huge number of our jobs since the 1980s, ended actual welfare in the 1990s.The last I heard, there are 7 jobs for every 10 jobless people who still have the means to pursue one (home address, phone, etc.).
Seriously, what do you think happens to those who are left out?
Bill Clinton ended actual welfare, and took the first steps to similarly "reform" Social Security, targeting the disabled. He stuck us with NAFTA, and before launching her campaign, Hillary Clinton was working hard on getting the TPP through Congress.
The Clinton wing in Congress kicked off 2015 with agreeing to virtually end food stamps to the elderly poor and the disabled, cutting monthly allotments from roughly $115 down to $10.
Quit talking truth to power, why are you picking on the power-elite?
Well, for right now the goal of the TCC (Transnational Corporate Class) is the demise of the poor, elderly and disabled; the middle class become the servant economy (wage slaves). The more people read about it on independent news sources on the Internet, the more people are waking up all over the world. I believe we're seeing the disintegration of the neoliberal and libertarian ideology. At least I hope so 'cause we can't survive on this course.
Hey Speaker Ryan! If you're all that worried about money being wasted, why don't you take a good, hard, long look at the Pentagon before you get all lathered up about poor people actually getting to eat food once in a while? Much more fat to trim there.
Forgive me for posting an incorrect link above
Wasn't the war on the poor launched when wealthy powerful elites and their political minions crafted the systems that maintain their dominance and the submission of billions?
Americans didn't invent the brutality of modern economics - they're just perfecting it.
There is no war on the poor. There is Social Darwinism, proposed in the 19th century by Herbert Spencer (in Europe) and William Graham Sumner (in the US).
Spencer and Sumner misread Darwin and proposed that the rich are rich because they are more fit than the poor who are less fit because they are dependent on the government (Romney's 47%).
Government social welfare programs that tax the rich to help the poor are contradictory to nature where survival of the fittest (Spencer's term, not Darwin's) prevails. Taxing the rich harms the more fit and social welfare programs help the less fit.
This is all nonsense for two reasons: 1) Darwinian fitness refers to reproductive success, not economic success. Poor people with high birth rates are actually more fit than are wealthy people with low birth rates. 2) The logic is circular. If I am rich, then is because I am more fit and if I am more fit, then it is evident in the fact I am rich.
Republicans today are too dumb to recognize that Social Darwinism was rejected long ago.