Does our government hate poor people?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Yes.  They're expensive and don't contribute much to the tax base. Just take a look at some of crazy municipal borders as they try to annex rich communities while avoiding poor ones.

[HillGoose]

No, but I do.

Well I don't hate all poor people. I don't hate poor kids and I don't hate poor people who accept that they're poor because they gave up and don't try.

Fyck off scum.

What's wrong with that?

If poor people are making an effort to improve themselves, or if they're just trapped in poverty because they're children with irresponsible parents, I don't hate them.

I hate poor people who think they're entitled to living off welfare forever because they're such a "victim"

You literally stated poor people are poor because they gave up.

If they've resigned themselves to playing victim forever, yes.

[Santander]

No, but I do.

Well I don't hate all poor people. I don't hate poor kids and I don't hate poor people who accept that they're poor because they gave up and don't try.

Fyck off scum.

What's wrong with that?

If poor people are making an effort to improve themselves, or if they're just trapped in poverty because they're children with irresponsible parents, I don't hate them.

I hate poor people who think they're entitled to living off welfare forever because they're such a "victim"

You literally stated poor people are poor because they gave up.

A lot of the time, this is true.

[Izzyeviel]

They hate the poor, but they love poverty. That's why they subsidize and encourage poverty.

Democrats like getting people out of poverty. Means more money going into the economy.

Republican love poverty because it means they can attack people for being poor, call them freeloaders, and tell idiots like you that the only way to help those people is to lower taxes for the rich so people in poverty will be motivated to become billionaires.*


*This has never worked anywhere

[Yellowhammer]

They hate the poor, but they love poverty. That's why they subsidize and encourage poverty.

Democrats like getting people out of poverty. Means more money going into the economy.

Republican love poverty because it means they can attack people for being poor, call them freeloaders, and tell idiots like you that the only way to help those people is to lower taxes for the rich so people in poverty will be motivated to become billionaires.*


*This has never worked anywhere

Democrats thrive off of poverty.
What better way to lock down voters than to buy their votes with perpetual entitlements? They use poverty to hold on to power, and they prey upon the poor by giving them perpetual access to the taxpayers' money. Unfortunately, many of the poor have no incentives to work to move up the socioeconomic ladder, as they are allowed to rely on the social safety net forever. This results in multigenerational poverty.
The poor are nothing but a tool of the Democratic Party.

Republicans aren't innocent either, as most are perfectly content to allow this economic parasitism to continue.
Allowing people to become hooked onto endless welfare and other benefits doesn't help them, it keeps them enslaved to their poverty.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

No, but I do.

Well I don't hate all poor people. I don't hate poor kids and I don't hate poor people who accept that they're poor because they gave up and don't try.

Fyck off scum.

What's wrong with that?

If poor people are making an effort to improve themselves, or if they're just trapped in poverty because they're children with irresponsible parents, I don't hate them.

I hate poor people who think they're entitled to living off welfare forever because they're such a "victim"

You literally stated poor people are poor because they gave up.

A lot of the time, this is true.

Though it's worth asking why they gave up.

[SWE]

Hate is a strong word, which is what makes it appropriate in this context. Yes.

[Izzyeviel]

They hate the poor, but they love poverty. That's why they subsidize and encourage poverty.

Democrats like getting people out of poverty. Means more money going into the economy.

Republican love poverty because it means they can attack people for being poor, call them freeloaders, and tell idiots like you that the only way to help those people is to lower taxes for the rich so people in poverty will be motivated to become billionaires.*


*This has never worked anywhere

Democrats thrive off of poverty.
What better way to lock down voters than to buy their votes with perpetual entitlements? They use poverty to hold on to power, and they prey upon the poor by giving them perpetual access to the taxpayers' money. Unfortunately, many of the poor have no incentives to work to move up the socioeconomic ladder, as they are allowed to rely on the social safety net forever. This results in multigenerational poverty.
The poor are nothing but a tool of the Democratic Party.

Republicans aren't innocent either, as most are perfectly content to allow this economic parasitism to continue.
Allowing people to become hooked onto endless welfare and other benefits doesn't help them, it keeps them enslaved to their poverty.

It's amazing how Democrats keep lifting people out of poverty, only for Republicans to send them back into poverty.

[MR DARK BRANDON]

No. People Only Say this because they give more Benefits to rich people. Well, Rich people are what hold our Economy together not the poor poverty class. If rich people did not have any benefits, then all of the North American conturys would be third world. Why did the Great Depression happen? Because CEO’s Stocks Had crashed. It’s because of rich people and wallstreet that we have all of what we have. They know that the wealth will drain down so instead of helping the poor Amoung us, they are trying to help all classes.

[PragmaticPopulist]

They don't hate, but they don't give monkeys.....

America hasn't had a truly caring patriotic government since the late 60s,
a government that cared about the poor and tackled inequality seriously,
 
whatever people think of LBJ and Vietnam, "the Great Society" helped a lot of low income families and the working poor.

Something are better done by the government, markets have failed miserable to tackle inequality, in fact the gap between the rich and poor kept rising even during Obama years....

Basically this. As much as I have a problem with LBJ sending poor boys off to Vietnam, the Great Society was a revolutionary accomplishment.

I think the government responds too much to the loudest voices and those with the most money, rather than the common man and woman.

[MR DARK BRANDON]

You Know what, If the poor actually made an effort to work hard, then Government would help them, but the problem is they don’t. It is rich people who are doing all the work, Rich people who are pushing our nation forward rich people who are the reason we have all our merchandise. The poor just cannot accept that they went wrong in life, so, what do they do? They beg for money, food, housing and expect that government just give it to them and no matter what they get, they are still ungreatful. Rich people, on the other hand realize that government is not totally Responsible for them so as a result they start working for themselves and look at were they are at, they are the developers of our economy. you were part of the government, which group would you like better.

And don’t complain about my education level, I have read about how our economy works, and have been able to form my own opinion.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

You Know what, If the poor actually made an effort to work hard, then Government would help them, but the problem is they don’t. It is rich people who are doing all the work, Rich people who are pushing our nation forward rich people who are the reason we have all our merchandise. The poor just cannot accept that they went wrong in life, so, what do they do? They beg for money, food, housing and expect that government just give it to them and no matter what they get, they are still ungreatful. Rich people, on the other hand realize that government is not totally Responsible for them so as a result they start working for themselves and look at were they are at, they are the developers of our economy. you were part of the government, which group would you like better.

And don’t complain about my education level, I have read about how our economy works, and have been able to form my own opinion.

Governments tend to favor the rich & corporations because they contribute tax revenue.  If they aren't there the government has to cut spending.  So the government ends up spending on projects for them in hopes to encourage them to stay and invest their money.  Has nothing to do with hard work or gratefulness.

[IceAgeComing]

You Know what, If the poor actually made an effort to work hard, then Government would help them, but the problem is they don’t. It is rich people who are doing all the work, Rich people who are pushing our nation forward rich people who are the reason we have all our merchandise. The poor just cannot accept that they went wrong in life, so, what do they do? They beg for money, food, housing and expect that government just give it to them and no matter what they get, they are still ungreatful. Rich people, on the other hand realize that government is not totally Responsible for them so as a result they start working for themselves and look at were they are at, they are the developers of our economy. you were part of the government, which group would you like better.

And don’t complain about my education level, I have read about how our economy works, and have been able to form my own opinion.

Normally I'm not quite this frank: but this is the sort of post that only an incredibly privileged person who's never had to want for anything in their life (and who's got an ego bigger than the world) would make.  Or perhaps also the view of an incredibly ignorant child who's never had to live in the real world.

To use as a counter example to this: I'll use the example of two folk in my class at uni.  One of them worked as hard as he possibly could; taking all of the work experience possible to ensure the best possible future prospects and who got a first class degree.  The other guy spent most of his time at uni drinking and having fun; and scraped to a 2.2.  Guess who right now is the one in a stable, well-paying job and who is the one bouncing around from internship to internship.

Correct; its the second person with the good job; because he grew up in a rich family and his father had contacts which basically ensured that provided he got a 2.2 he had a good job already available to start right away; while the other guy grew up in a working class family in Glasgow and didn't have access to anything like the contacts or financial backing who had to work a hell of a lot harder to get where he got to.  That's the thing that infuriates me about this awful, awful, awful take: it totally ignores the advantages that inherited wealth gives a young person in their early life: right from making it more likely that they have a stay-at-home parent since both don't need to work, through access to things like private education or private tutors to aid the kid and then later in life the ability to take un-paid internships and possibly also access to contacts in certain industry that make getting in the door much, much easier.

The idea that we live in a meritocracy is clearly wrong; and anyone who genuinely believes that is blind to the realities of this world.

[parochial boy]

The idea that we live in a meritocracy is clearly wrong; and anyone who genuinely believes that is blind to the realities of this world.

This is absolutely true, and correct, but... meritocracy isn't even something we should aspire to live in. Partly for the reasons you have already put forward, the whole concept is so self contradictory by its own nature; but also because we just shouldn't be reserving the well paying, secure jobs; and a decent standard of living, to people who meet the right criteria.

Everyone should have a good life, even if they aren't intelligen,or make bad choice, or fall behind or whatever. We shouldn't even just let people be condemned to poverty - and that is half of what makes the rhetoric around "meritocracy" so nasty. It's accepts that some people's lives should be so much worse than others, regardless of merit.

[IceAgeComing]

I agree with every word of that and I didn't want to imply that I thought that was the sort of society that we need - but clearly the person I was replying to does want that sort of society and think that it is that way already which clearly isn't the case.

[Ban my account ffs!]

You Know what, If the poor actually made an effort to work hard, then Government would help them, but the problem is they don’t. It is rich people who are doing all the work, Rich people who are pushing our nation forward rich people who are the reason we have all our merchandise. The poor just cannot accept that they went wrong in life, so, what do they do? They beg for money, food, housing and expect that government just give it to them and no matter what they get, they are still ungreatful. Rich people, on the other hand realize that government is not totally Responsible for them so as a result they start working for themselves and look at were they are at, they are the developers of our economy. you were part of the government, which group would you like better.

And don’t complain about my education level, I have read about how our economy works, and have been able to form my own opinion.

This is epic.  Very classic Republican.