Do Democrats Hate Poor People?

All too often, the issues facing our country are discussed in purely political terms with partisan ideology at the center. This guarantees that opinions will be formed purely on emotion, and not the facts. If the issue is illegal immigration, Republicans hate Mexicans. If it’s education, Republicans hate children. If it’s welfare reform, Republicans hate poor people.

So on that note, let’s examine how Democrats fare under the same level of scrutiny, shall we?

 

Hating Mexicans

In America, we have immigration laws – like them or not. They are in place for a reason, mainly to ensure that we know who is coming here, and that we can accommodate the increase in local, state, and federal services their presence requires. Currently, we let roughly 1 million immigrants into America legally, almost 2,800 per day. Think about it: 2,800 people per day that need jobs, housing, food, education for themselves or their children, drivers licenses, social security cards, and many other necessities. Now add to that another 1 million who come in illegally, or overstay their visas. These are people we don’t know. They could be anyone from a hard-working farmer to an Al Qaeda terrorist – and anyone who tells you differently is wrong. If we don’t know who they are, then we don’t know how they aren’t. Now, while some people will say it’s racist to single out Mexicans in the illegal immigration discussion, let me explain why that is by showing you the country of origin of those living in the U.S. illegally, according to the Department of Homeland Security.

#1 – Mexico: 62%

#2 – El Salvador: 5%

#3 – Guatemala: 4%

#4 – Honduras: 3%

That’s quite a drop-off from #1 to #2, isn’t it? Also bear in mind that these 4 countries equate to 74% of our illegal immigration problem, and they all enter the U.S. through our border with Mexico. So it’s not racist to talk about our southern border, it’s REALITY.

So, don’t like the laws? Change them. But until then, the government’s job is to enforce them. And that’s what Republicans want. They want a secure border. They want legal immigration. They want those here illegally to be deported when caught, according to the law.

Now we can argue immigration reform all day, and I’m one Republican who thinks it is impossible to deport the 15-20 million people here illegally. However, until we actually pass immigration reform and discover a way to handle all of these issues, we have no choice but to enforce the laws.

But what about Democrats? Do they hate Mexicans too?

Many liberal Democrats argue against raiding businesses that hire illegals. Why? Because they will be deported, and working for $3 per hour in unsafe conditions is still better than Mexico.

Really?

If that’s the case, isn’t the problem Mexico? And if everyone with the motivation to work hard leaves Mexico, who will be left to fix it, other than the drug cartels?

So these liberals would rather have illegal immigrants working in unsafe conditions, unable to report accidents, earning slave wages – simply so they don’t have to return to their home country?

Appalling.

Slavery was wrong in the 19th century, and it’s wrong today. But you don’t hear anyone saying that liberals hate Mexicans, do you?

 

Hating Children

Education is a hot button issue that is frequently distorted into an ideological war of emotions, when in fact there is nothing emotional about it. Schools exist to educate. Period. And on that measure, they are failing.

Since 1970, our education system has flat-lined on achievement in reading and math. Despite that, we’ve increased funding exponentially with zero results. Zero. Absolutely no movement of the needle. So the answer is more money?

“Since 1971, educational spending in the United states has more than doubled, from $4,300 per student to more than $9,000 per student, adjusted for inflation.” – “Waiting for ‘Superman’”

So if money is the answer, why has money not been the answer? And does wanting the correct answer constitute hating children? Of course not. Does putting your own selfish agenda ahead of the success of our children, and our nation, constitute hating children? Judge for yourself.

Many of the obstacles to fixing our education system reside with those controlling it: Teachers’ unions.

Do not confuse teachers’ unions with other unions, or you will fall into the same trap of thinking with emotions. Unions were created to help workers negotiate for better pay and working conditions, against giants of industry who were profit-driven. Education is a non-profit endeavor, paid for by tax payers, and therefore there is no evil CEO to demonize.

There are many things that will help toward improving our education system, including the use of technology to lower the cost of educating our children as a whole, rewarding the best teachers while coaching or removing the underperformers, adequately preparing middle school children for high school, and high school children for college, and making school districts accountable to parents and tax payers.

Unfortunately, teachers’ unions do not want technology to lower the cost of education our children, because it will result in a need for less teachers – even though our school districts are wildly under-staffed as it is.

Teachers’ unions also do not want teachers to be treated differently, in any way. So rewarding great teachers, and firing bad ones, is completely off the table.

Furthermore, these unions resent standardized tests, as they do not believe the performance of students has any bearing on how qualified a teacher is. After all, they can’t make the kids learn.

In fact, according to “Waiting for ‘Superman’,” the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers (the two most organized unions) spent $55 million on federal campaigns over the past 20 years, and 90% of it went to Democrats. So, if teachers’ unions are in the way of improving education, and they donate almost entirely to Democrats, do Democrats hate children?

Let’s pretend you own your own business. Would you want to keep your good employees, and get rid of the bad ones? Would you want to reward your best people with incentives to perform well? Would you expect a return on your investment? Well none of that applies to education, mainly because of teachers’ unions.

Apparently, if you support school choice, merit pay for teachers, and accountability to parents and taxpayers, you hate children. But if you want to give those controlling our education system more money, after a 40-year track record of failure, well… you’re a kid’s best friend. (Read: nightmare)

 

Hating Poor People

Almost a full 50% of Americans pay no income tax. Now just to clarify, most do pay it in their paychecks, but they get it all back on their tax returns. And while they do contribute to Medicare and Social Security like all Americans do, this 50% of Americans are far more likely to need Medicare and Social Security than those who do pay income tax.

With that said, the answer to everything these days seems to be: “Tax the rich – or you hate poor people.” I guess it is perfectly okay to hate rich people. After all, rich people are the ones hiring the rest of us. But it’s not all rich people that are evil blood-sucking greed-mongers. What about actors? Hollywood is gluttonously wealthy, yet you don’t hear liberals screaming for them to hang, do you? Nobody blames the ills of society on Johnny Depp and Ben Stiller, do they? Yet from June 2009 – June 2010, they were the two highest paid actors in Hollywood, earning $75 million and $53 million respectively.

“But it’s different,” they’ll say, because people pay to go see Johnny Depp and Ben Stiller, which justifies their huge salaries. Of course that argument doesn’t seem to work for the rich guy who created Wal-Mart, an outlet in which millions of Americans pay to buy things – justifying his huge salary.

You see, it’s all about emotion. The guy who runs the business must be exploiting workers, while Johnny Depp makes people smile. Of course if Wal-Mart went out of business tomorrow, we’d see how many people would be smiling when all of their employees were out of a job, and the public could no longer buy a pair of jeans for $8 or an entertainment center for $69.

If you wanted to raise taxes on soda and bottled water, would that be good for poor people whose grocery bills would go up? Well, that’s what Democrats in New York and Nevada want to do.

Does it help or hurt poor people when gas is $4/gallon? Wouldn’t drilling for oil inside the U.S. help bring those prices down? Many Democrats are against drilling in America, even though they love beating up Republicans for going to war for oil in the Middle East. If we had more drilling here, Democrats would have one less thing to blame on Republicans – so obviously that’s out of the question.

 

Conclusion

There are many things to dislike in our country, and even some things to hate. There are a lot of things to love about American too, but most people take those for granted.

To think that Republicans hate Mexicans, children, and poor people, simply because of their political views is just plain ignorant.

I don’t think Democrats hate Mexicans, children, and poor people either. But they do hate Republicans – and that’s really what all their bitching is about.

Advertisements

5 thoughts on “Do Democrats Hate Poor People?

  1. Regarding education – when I took standardized tests I only made an effort if I felt like it. These tests were not going to keep me from graduating or enhance my chances at graduation. Why bother giving it a go? There is no reward and no penalty. It is unfair to hold a teacher accountable for the performance of students on standardized tests. If a child doesn’t want to do well on these exams then he or she won’t do well.

    As for illegal immigration, we don’t need to round up millions of illegals. Rather, take away the goodies this nation gives and they will all leave.

  2. “And that’s what Republicans want. They want a secure border.”

    I don’t think they do. They talk a good game, but Republicans love cheap labor. I think it’s why they’ve never introduced meaningful legislation to deal with the problem, only legislation seeking to punish people. Speaking of which, we don’t have an illegal immigrant problem in this country; we have an illegal employer problem. If employers would stop hiring undocumented workers, they’d stop coming here. It’s as simple as that. The proof is in the fact that there a million less immigrants in the country today than there were two years ago.

    “Many liberal Democrats argue against raiding businesses that hire illegals. Why? Because they will be deported, and working for $3 per hour in unsafe conditions is still better than Mexico.”

    When have you ever heard that argument made? Frankly, that sounds like something a Republican would say (and I should know; I know several who have said this almost verbatim). To me, doing things like that at this time is short sighted. You’re forcibly terminating people and taking all the money they made in the form of wages out of the economy. Is that supposed to have a positive effect?

    “If that’s the case, isn’t the problem Mexico?”

    It sure as hell is. The country is essentially an oligarchy, and they do nothing to protect their side of the border. If your option was to make next to nothing here in the US, or sneak into Canada where wages are higher, what would you do in desperation?

    “So these liberals would rather have illegal immigrants working in unsafe conditions, unable to report accidents, earning slave wages – simply so they don’t have to return to their home country?”

    Again with the strawman. Nobody’s made that argument. But since you mentioned it, are you saying that there are two separate work environments, one for citizens, and one for non citizens? Because we do have workplace safety standards in this country that presumably don’t erode when a person is working illegally.

    “But you don’t hear anyone saying that liberals hate Mexicans, do you?”

    You don’t. That may have something to do with the fact that that side of the aisle advocates for a path to citizenship, via amnesty, while the other blathers about them stealing our jobs, as if Americans are unwilling to do any job. And on that note, I would be remiss if I didn’t point out the hypocrisy of the right’s hero worship of Ronald Reagan, who granted amnesty to some three million illegal immigrants. It must be hard to reconcile those glaring conflicts. 

    “Despite that, we’ve increased funding exponentially with zero results.”

    If the failed endeavor of tax cuts for the wealthy have taught us anything, it’s that throwing money at something is not always the best answer, particularly if what you’re throwing it at is a problem. I’m curious to know how many people stop to realize that there are barely over three million teachers in this country, and there are 75 million children under the age of 17. Class sizes are only increasing, and bigger class sizes means less one on one interaction and decreased learning ability. Not to mention the dumbing down in general of students through the scrubbing of pertinent facts from textbooks (that come mostly from Texas – big surprise there).

    I get the sense that conservatives seem to think that teachers are nothing more than babysitters. And given that the average classroom size in the United States is pushing 30 while the average salary for a teacher is $46,000, they’re basically being paid less than two bucks an hour per kid that they “babysit”. And we honestly have people saying teachers are overpaid? Try to find a babysitter who will work for less than $2 per hour. I dare you.

    “Education is a non-profit endeavor, paid for by tax payers, and therefore there is no evil CEO to demonize.”

    No one needs to be demonized in order to facilitate decent working conditions, regardless of the field of work. Being paid by the state doesn’t negate the need for collective bargaining. But since we’re on the subject of demonizing, your side sees fit to call teachers, cops, and firefighters “thugs” and accuse them of causing millions of dollars in damages to the Wisconsin capitol building (which was a complete fabrication. $7.5 million to remove tape adhesive from the walls, really?).

    “Furthermore, these unions resent standardized tests”

    Anyone in their right mind resents standardized tests. Teaching to the test has had an incredibly negative effect on children, as I believe it is making them dumber. It strips away their ability to find alternative solutions. Apparently in this world, there are only right and wrong answers.

    “the two most organized unions spent $55 million on federal campaigns over the past 20 years, and 90% of it went to Democrats.”

    Ah, the crux of the matter. All of this posturing by the Republican Party about balancing budgets (how on earth that can be achieved by going after unions has yet to be explained) is merely political theater. We all knew as much. In Wisconsin in particular, they bitched and moaned that the state Assembly bill needed to be voted on to fix the budget (that Scott Walker himself destroyed), and that the Democrats who had fled the state were in dereliction of duty, blahdey blahdey blah. Since they couldn’t obtain the quorum needed to vote on the bill, they stripped out all the financial aspects of it, and all that was left was the removal of the right to collective bargaining, which was all they wanted to do in the first place. And what’s really sad and nauseating is the fact the right is celebrating this as some sort of victory, when in reality this pyrrhic “victory” is one more step towards the death of the middle class. Niemöller’s famous lines spring to mind…

    “So, if teachers’ unions are in the way of improving education, and they donate almost entirely to Democrats, do Democrats hate children?”

    This argument is a complete strawman. Saying that teachers are against improving education is like saying that NASA hates space exploration.

    “If it’s education, Republicans hate children.”

    I think there is an argument to be made that conservatives don’t care about children, but I don’t find it in this issue. I think the reason they’re constantly attacking education is because it is the great equalizer. Many of these Republicans aren’t as dumb as they seem. They know that the odds of a person voting Republican go down as education levels increase. Republicans aren’t interested in having an educated voting populace. They never have been. If they did, FOX News wouldn’t exist.

    “Almost a full 50% of Americans pay no income tax.”

    And what does that say that we live in country where so many people make so little money that they don’t even qualify to file income taxes?

    “I guess it is perfectly okay to hate rich people.”

    I suppose it’s more admirable than hating the poor. But I fail to see how asking the rich to pay their fair share is akin to hatred.

    “After all, rich people are the ones hiring the rest of us.”

    Another fallacy. My boss isn’t rich, is yours? I love this argument that rich people are untouchable because they hire people, therefore, we must scrape and bow and never offend them. If any rich person hires an employee, it’s not as some service to society, it’s because he knows that the cost of employing someone is less than the profit that person will make for him. It’s purely business, and this notion that we are to be forever grateful to the few rich people that do create jobs is inane to me. Most jobs in this country are the result of non rich, small business owners needing to meet a demand by supplying products and/or services and needing a warm body to make said products and administer said services. That’s all it is; supply and demand. This isn’t rocket science, and the rich aren’t God.

    “What about actors? Hollywood is gluttonously wealthy, yet you don’t hear liberals screaming for them to hang, do you?”

    Sure you do. You just pointed it out in your previous statement, which you’re now contradicting. Liberals hate the rich, remember? Not once has anyone suggested some exemption for actors. Seeing as how they’re rich, they would be taxed more according to liberal ideals.

    ““But it’s different,” they’ll say, because people pay to go see Johnny Depp and Ben Stiller, which justifies their huge salaries.”

    Who? Who says that? Who has ever said that? This is rule number one in shoddy journalism – hide your own opinion (or what you think other’s opinions are) with the cloak of “some say”.

    “The guy who runs the business must be exploiting workers, while Johnny Depp makes people smile”

    That’s half true. Most exceedingly wealthy people exploit people to gain that wealth, whether it be it by employing foreign (and often, child) labor for pennies, or by cheating people out of their overtime and scheduling them for 38.5 hours a week, so as to avoid providing health insurance.

    “Of course if Wal-Mart went out of business tomorrow, we’d see how many people would be smiling when all of their employees were out of a job, and the public could no longer buy a pair of jeans for $8 or an entertainment center for $69.”

    Yes, and let’s ignore the plethora of small businesses that Wal-Mart has taken out. If you’re careless enough to give your money to Wal-Mart (which I haven’t done in nearly seven years), you should know that those dollars don’t stay in the local economy like they would if you shopped at locally owned, non chain stores. As far as big box stores, there is a small benefit in that most of the wages earned will stay in the local economy, but I would be hard pressed to find anyone who wouldn’t like to see the profits and the wages stay in the local economy.

    “If you wanted to raise taxes on soda and bottled water, would that be good for poor people whose grocery bills would go up?”

    That’s a really good question to ask every single conservative who advocates for a “fair” tax. They love the idea because it means more money in the pockets of the rich. Conversely, it takes money out of the pockets of the poor. Extra perk!

    “Wouldn’t drilling for oil inside the U.S. help bring those prices down?”

    No. At least, not in a meaningful way. It would take prices down about ten cents, and I don’t think that would offset the costs of any environmental impacts.

    “Many Democrats are against drilling in America, even though they love beating up Republicans for going to war for oil in the Middle East.”

    So, we’re on the record that the Republicans went to war for oil? Interesting.

    “If we had more drilling here, Democrats would have one less thing to blame on Republicans – so obviously that’s out of the question.”

    See, unlike Republicans, Democrats don’t appear to have equal drive as far as doing things for political expedience. Weighing options doesn’t usually involve saying “you know, if we don’t drill here, we can just keep on blaming Republicans”.

    “To think that Republicans hate Mexicans, children, and poor people, simply because of their political views is just plain ignorant.”

    I would submit to you that thinking that is the polar opposite of ignorant. Perhaps just saying those things without providing an explanation why would be ignorant, but pointing out the GOP’s track record and drawing the conclusion that these things are likely is far from ignorant.

    “But they do hate Republicans – and that’s really what all their bitching is about.”

    Right, it’s got nothing to do with the Republican’s assault on unions, or the racist undertones that so many Republicans employ (i.e. Peter King’s prove-to-me-you’re-not-a-Muslim hearings), or the fact that their budget cut proposals involve eliminating housing vouchers for homeless vets (hey, it’s a twofer, they hate the poor and veterans!). Yeah, Democrats just hate Republicans with absolutely no reason. Wow.

  3. “I get the sense that conservatives seem to think that teachers are nothing more than babysitters. And given that the average classroom size in the United States is pushing 30 while the average salary for a teacher is $46,000, they’re basically being paid less than two bucks an hour per kid that they “babysit”.”

    That assertion is based on the premise that all 30 kids require the same amount of supervision.

    When I was in high school there was the 20-70-10 dynamic to nearly every required class. 20% of the students would ace through the course with minimal assitance. These students were the sorts teachers dreamed to have. The other 70% needed some assistance on a regular basis. But a C or better was the result with this group.

    The reminaing 10% were a lost cause. This cohort included the troublemakers, idiots, morons, lazy ones, druggies, slackers, and other borderline to full blown yet undiagnosed retarded kids. These were the students who made the teachers think about the other career trafficing coke, smack, and running weekly undergrond cock fights. That career path was initally rejected. But it looked better and better after dealing with Johnny the Stoner and Becky the Retard year after year after year.

    So, $46,000 per year to baby sit 6 kids for only 9 months out of the year is a great job.

  4. The democrats will do almost anything to gain another special interest group, they have become a party of no morals or values. I grew up poor, in a inter city and poor people don’t need more social programs to keep them poor, they need family and education. I think that by giving these lifetime entitlement programs, you are assuring that they will never be any more then poor! And that’s where the values come in, tell me why/how is a kid that is going school is going to amount to anything when they’re parents are being “babysat” by the government, payed to sit on they’re couch and watch jerry springer all day? They inturn teach they’re children to become the next generation of welfare receptions. Every great American success story starts with “my father & mother came he with $9 in they’re pockets, struggled to find work so he/she started they’re on business and that business is _________ what you see today. Well them stories of the greatest nation on earth are becoming less Likly to ever happen. Why? Because democrats are using class war fare to further they’re agenda’s, it is FACT that the 1% of Americans (the evil rich man) pays 40% of the federal income! And you see that you are paying a higher percentage then them, well that’s simply because by the time that money gets to that “evil man” it’s been taxed 3 times already threw the company being taxed. So if the democrats decide to tax the hell out of these evil men/women, suppose one day they say “I’m pretty rich, Iv done my share here and also this little country over in south America is very nice to us evil rich people, and suppose that 1% decide to leave the US and get some other citizenship somewhere else? Who’s gonna pay for that Obama phone then? Do you think it’s right that a Jamaican guy I know, moved here when he was 60yrs old, has never payed a US tax in his life, but yet he gets the same social security chech in the mail every month that my grandfather who has fought in ww2, Korea and not to mention worked everyday of his life leading up to retiring. So all I ask of people is to not find that 1 issue and let that become what defines you, if you don’t like that 1 issue that republicans are against, I’ll bet that the morals and values of the republicans is a lot more inline with you’re own then the democrats are. I became a republican (conservative) 4 yrs ago after listing to both parties convention, I thought “wow” the republicans really believe in family/values and the only thing the demoRATs believe in is giving out birth control and condoms.

  5. to robontiveros. You say that we don’t have an illegal immigration problem, we have an employer problem. Our problem is, on the whole, neither. Our problem is liberal politicians and their liberal policies that promote an ever-expanding indentured servitude class, modern slavery if you will, within our society for the sole purpose of creating and maintaining a voting block of dependents large enough and unwittingly loyal enough to keep said liberals in office. The evidence of this can be found almost everywhere within our society, but is particularly visible in the dense, urban populations of cities with easy access to border, industry and agriculture. What you find in these areas, my home town of San Antonio, for instance, is that despite being under liberal political control and policy for decades, the population of poor never seems to become any better off and only continues to grow in number. They are kept there, encouraged not to learn English or attempt to better themselves by liberal government agencies providing them barely adequate food, healthcare and housing and force-educating them and their children to believe it is conservatives to blame for their plight.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s