Trumponomics: The philosophy that it doesnt suck enough to be poor

[sheshe2]

https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=&w=14

For months, pundits and political advisers have tried to figure out what “Trumponomics” really stands for. Even President Trump himself struggled to characterize it, saying, “It really has to do with self-respect as a nation.”


Now that we have the president’s budget in hand, we have a more definitive answer: Trumponomics — like Ryanonomics — is based on the principle that living in poverty doesn’t suck quite enough. That is, more people would be motivated to become rich if only being poor weren’t so much fun.


Presidential budgets should be read as statements of political ideology, not determinations for what will ultimately become law. (Congress, after all, does the appropriating.) In this case, the political ideology is reflected in major cuts to anti-poverty programs and the social safety net, all in the name of not “discourag[ing] able-bodied adults from working.” And so, with the “compassionate” goal of making the poor a little less comfortable and a little more motivated, this budget savages nearly every anti-poverty program


“We’re no longer going to measure compassion by the number of programs or the number of people on those programs, but by the number of people we help get off of those programs,” said Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney, describing massive safety-net program cuts that would not “help” people “get off” safety net programs so much as eject them violently and immediately, regardless of where they land.you can imagine.




Read More: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/rampage/wp/2017/05/23/trumponomics-the-philosophy-that-it-doesnt-suck-enough-to-be-poor/?tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.3431292bf0d6

Compassionate Conservatives...not.

[guillaumeb]

1. The poor deserve to be poor.

The rich are being rewarded. Simple. So the rich need take no action because to help the poor would be enabling them to continue in their ways.

[Hortensis]

2. Agree. Nothing to do with the poor, only with "liberating"

ultrawealthy conservatives from taxes. Shocking that living big lives can totally fail to enlarge small, selfish minds. But so it is.

[brer cat]

4. Well said, Hortensis.

Why should the ultrawealthy be burdened by taxes when there are poor people available to carry that load for them?

[Hortensis]

5. Why should they contribute to roads they fly over?

To healthcare that's not for them? Or for people they don't need?

Ask them why they should be allowed to take income away from taxpayers and then not at least pay the taxes on it, and they won't understand the question.

"No one can grow if he does not accept his smallness." Pope Francis

[sheshe2]

3. May the Dump 1%ers...all be Raptured!

Then what they leave behind should automatically trickle down to the 98% just like they always promised.

[guillaumeb]

6. You might be on the something here. eom

[quaker bill]

7. well - yes, that pretty well nails it

They have no blinking idea who these people are. They do not care to find out either.

My experience of working along side the poor, and working at shelters to help them, indicates a good number are only modestly employable and then only when business is booming and options for new employees are limited. We have not built an economy that can hire these folks in the quantities necessary to cut off social support, and we are not about to start.

But we have elected a "let them eat cake" regime. That always works the way it always works. Duck.(my advice)