Comments on: Compassionate Conservatism Is Dead…Or Is it?

By: sleipner

sleipner — Thu, 17 May 2007 18:02:41 +0000

Dos, I’m not exactly homeless or poor myself, and I pay my fair share of taxes, and have no problem with it being used for those who are less advantaged than myself, or for infrastructure, or for schools (even though I have no children and never will).

What is ridiculous is the people who make a million plus a year, use all sorts of arcane tax loopholes so they pay at most half the taxes that they should be paying, and then bitch about how the government takes all their money to pay for “those people”.

And my primary point stands – government charity spending (tax giveaways) on “you people” (the rich and corporations) far exceeds what is spent on “those people” (the poor). The only reason the rest of the country doesn’t see it and scream bloody murder is because it is virtual cash that never enters the government’s budget, and is a bit too complicated of an issue to explain in easily digested soundbytes.

By: DosPeros

DosPeros — Thu, 17 May 2007 14:54:31 +0000

It is easy to be “compassionate” with other people’s money, isn’t it sleipner. But when it comes to your own money, it would appear that conservatives have a truer understanding of the term and that the people who talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk and talk somemore about our their own compassion (with other people’s money) have a hard time walking the walk in comparison. http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730&page=1
Explain that oh, virtuous & compassionate one.

By: sleipner

sleipner — Thu, 17 May 2007 10:23:07 +0000

“Compassion” when spoken by Republicans usually means specifically for corporations and the wealthy. Far more is spent on tax and other giveaways to those two groups than is spent in total on all social programs combined, even if you add foreign aid to that total.

If you are poor, old, handicapped, or ill…too bad, you’re on your own. They compassionately provide you with the right to die of exposure in an alley after some other homeless person beat you up to take whatever possessions you have left.

By: Jim S

Jim S — Thu, 17 May 2007 04:34:49 +0000

The encouragement of economic growth as undertaken by Republicans like DosPeros does nothing for the poor. Not anymore. Has he ever admitted how badly the incomes of lower and middle class Americans have done even during the recovery from the last recession? I’ve never noticed anything that honest. Any honest economist knows that our economy will always have unemployment. Any honest Republican will admit that when they speak of the kinds of cuts that their policies would require would also severely hurt people who physically cannot work even as they claim that they only feel that those who can work shouldn’t receive help. It’s one reason why the governor of Missouri is frantically trying to recover a reputation by seeing a “reform” of Medicaid passed. Of course his reform won’t help the 90,000 people kicked out of the Medicaid program under his watch. They’re staying off of it even though the state’s financial situation is much better than when he claimed that financial necessity forced him to slash the program. Instead he and his fellow Republicans are giving out business welfare with the state funds.

By: DosPeros

DosPeros — Wed, 16 May 2007 20:05:26 +0000

I like how you equate “compassion” with “big government spending.” And correct me if I’m wrong there Justin, that is just what I took away from your post. Small government Republicans (if they exist & hopefully they do) are already on the side of economic compassion — the encouragement of economic growth. Big government spending might be referred to as “compassion-motivated funding”, because the results are often far from being compassionate. Small government on the other hand might be refered to as economically-viable compassion.