General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums"Why do Republicans ALWAYS have money for war - BUT - not for those in need?"
I ask this ? every day.
kairos12
(12,896 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)"Entitlement" became the perfect term to confuse the issue.
Hydra
(14,459 posts)They deal in death and suffering, and reap gold out of it. The mistake most people make is thinking they only do it to brown people.
They do it to everyone. Even each other.
Hamlette
(15,412 posts)It's a chicken and the egg question. Do they start wars so they don't have enough money to pay for our safety net?
Fear is a great motivator. Get the country so afraid they don't ask any questions while you funnel all the money to your friends. When the bill comes, cut out all those "give away" programs that go to the poor. Remember, the GOP referred to FDR as "that man in the white house" they hated him so much they would not say his name. And they fought tooth and nail to prevent Social Security becoming law. They hate the thought of any of "their" money going to the poor. They don't care if they help finance other rich people. Even the middle class don't mind paying to make the rich richer because they think they too will someday be rich and reap the rewards. Magical thinking.
Think WWII. It was only our entry into the war that finally ended the depression. We had to get money into the economy and wars do that. And theft was so rampant by the companies that build war stuff for us Truman set up a commission to find them and punish them (mostly through no more contracts). I wish to god we would have had a like commission for the last three big wars we've fought (Vietnam included). The rip off of the government in Iraq alone is staggering and we probably on see a bit of it.
Ask yourself how much money Haliburton made off of Cheney's wars. It is permission to steal from the government. I had a tea party boss who wanted to "help"employers by paying them to hire the unemployed. It was the most fraud filled program we have ever done. Employers completely ripped us off. The tea party boss could not believe than any employer would be dishonest. She truly believed the only dishonest thieves were the poor people we serve. She actually said: "Why would the employers try to "steal from us". And she was a smart lady, but such an ideologue she would not see any facts that did not fit her agenda: give to the rich, hold the poor "accountable" for their bad decisions. But no reason to hold employers accountable because they are good, honest, hard working (nee republican) people and do no wrong.
RancidCrabtree
(24 posts)"Cold and misty morning,
I heard a warning borne in the air.
About an age of power
where no one had an hour to spare.
Where the seeds have withered
silent children shivered in the cold.
Now their faces captured in the lenses of the jackals for gold."
Karn Evil 9 1st Impression, Part 1
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)Most of the saying is true but I take exception to one part. The Republicans never have money for wars, they steal it from the hungry, the weak, the poor, the middle class, anyone and everyone without the power to fight back, and of course they steal it from the future.
If they did have the money for wars they still wouldn't use their own money, even they don't love wars that much.
I won't go into the human costs they don't mind spending as long as it isn't theirs.
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)Puke War Mongers will find "money"...that's the point...he doesn't mean they are paying out of their personal wallets.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)The Neocons dangled oil money in front of their own caucus and made the claim that an invasion of Iraq would not only pay for itself but would make a profit.
The mass murdering for money part wasn't even a consideration with the Republicans. We were on a noble mission to free our oil from under their sand.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)Just kidding, well not completely, but you're right and I remember them saying the war would pay for itself.
Now, we don't want to get into a discussion about their trying to outdo each other on how short the war would be and what color flowers they would shower our troops with. Or do we?
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)He wasn't. He also wasn't talking to the Democrats.
He was selling the Neocon's war to the Republicans.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
jalan48
(13,909 posts)KansDem
(28,498 posts)As Sen. Sanders observes correctly, all that geld was added to the national debt. But that's okay for the Richie Riches of the world. Now they want to cut Social Security and Medicare because "we don't have the money"
I don't understand it myself, but then, I didn't understand the bank bailouts either...
alfredo
(60,082 posts)hated minority, then impose their "fix."
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,454 posts)what they're REALLY saying is "we don't want spend money on (fill in the blank)."
The poor don't have power. The MIC does. Power always respects and rewards power.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)valerief
(53,235 posts)Augiedog
(2,549 posts)More than any other factor war and the attendant ideological idiosyncrasies accompanying war define the Republican Party. It is the party of death. War by its very nature allows the republicans to delude a significant segment of the populace into following them through the ruse of false patriotism. Through the fog of war the republicans benefactors rob the nation blind and steal the lives of its citizens in useless conflicts. As long as public servants like dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld and George bush walk the streets of America as free and respected men we will be lost as nation our founders would have been proud to claim membership to.
alfredo
(60,082 posts)Takket
(21,702 posts)forest444
(5,902 posts)What infuriates them is seeing compassion and good will.
This is usually because they were given just the opposite as children, which is also why they encourage brutality in parenting. There are, of course, many exceptions; but this is the overarching motivation for today's Republicans as a whole. Dangerous, and above all, sad.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)there was a danger that the people might be able to keep some of the money they created
Stockman openly admitted trickle-down had nothing to do with improving the economy, it was just to enrich the already-rich (who happened to have propelled Reagan into office)
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1981/12/the-education-of-david-stockman/305760/
Reagan's "Sagebrush Revolution" was a think tank-concocted astroturf campaign pimped by the Hunt family (the original Ewings) and he literally said the richer you were the more votes you should get
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/11/rich-people-more-votes-hunt-alpaca
http://www.texasreader.com/the-billionaire-s-weird-utopia.html
http://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/stories/2000/09/25/editorial3.html
forest444
(5,902 posts)And what a history! This post is definitely a bookmark.
Their goals look just like feudalism - and as we all know, many of their intended victims are cheering them on!
MisterP
(23,730 posts)(though generally that meant getting under a new landlord)
it's closer to indentureship (or maybe Latin American peonage)
forest444
(5,902 posts)*Race-baiting and snob appeal - check.
*Furious opposition to labor rights - check.
*Religious fundamentalism and need to shackle women - check.
*Support for deregulated banking and money laundering - check.
*Using the drug problem (whose kingpins they often aid and abet) as a pretext for a Dirty War - check.
*Intimidating certain voting blocks (usually dark-skinned) and even calling for coups to invalidate election results - check.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)difference between most of their candidates, they make big empty promises, they rant and scream about the other party but forge a strict clientelistic duopoly, their campaigning is mostly on things 80 or 40 years old, and their "rallies" are the leaders of yellow unions pulling up in Beemers and SUVs to "protest"; people vote because they get a little beef and a cup of guaro and then go and choose the party that their ancestors voted for since the 1880s
no wonder Clinton backed the Honduran coup--the non-LIBRE parties are a great petri dish
forest444
(5,902 posts)The art of the possible.
treestar
(82,383 posts)And want control over the rest of the world. As far as they are concerned, the poor should join the military.
SummerSnow
(12,608 posts)They also think they are G.I. Joe
reformist2
(9,841 posts)I'm glad Bernie is pointing out this glaring and disgraceful hypocrisy.