posted November 01, 2013 05:19 PM            

John Kasich, the Republican governor of Ohio, has done some surprising things lately. First, he did an end run around his state’s Legislature — controlled by his own party — to proceed with the federally funded expansion of Medicaid that is an important piece of Obamacare. Then, defending his action, he let loose on his political allies, declaring, “I’m concerned about the fact there seems to be a war on the poor. That, if you’re poor, somehow you’re shiftless and lazy.”

Obviously Mr. Kasich isn’t the first to make this observation. But the fact that it’s coming from a Republican in good standing (although maybe not anymore), indeed someone who used to be known as a conservative firebrand, is telling. Republican hostility toward the poor and unfortunate has now reached such a fever pitch that the party doesn’t really stand for anything else — and only willfully blind observers can fail to see that reality.

The big question is why. But, first, let’s talk a bit more about what’s eating the right.

I still sometimes see pundits claiming that the Tea Party movement is basically driven by concerns about budget deficits. That’s delusional. Read the founding rant by Rick Santelli of CNBC: There’s nary a mention of deficits. Instead, it’s a tirade against the possibility that the government might help “losers” avoid foreclosure. Or read transcripts from Rush Limbaugh or other right-wing talk radio hosts. There’s not much about fiscal responsibility, but there’s a lot about how the government is rewarding the lazy and undeserving.

Republicans in leadership positions try to modulate their language a bit, but it’s a matter more of tone than substance. They’re still clearly passionate about making sure that the poor and unlucky get as little help as possible, that — as Representative Paul Ryan, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, put it — the safety net is becoming “a hammock that lulls able-bodied people to lives of dependency and complacency.” And Mr. Ryan’s budget proposals involve savage cuts in safety-net programs such as food stamps and Medicaid.

All of this hostility to the poor has culminated in the truly astonishing refusal of many states to participate in the Medicaid expansion. Bear in mind that the federal government would pay for this expansion, and that the money thus spent would benefit hospitals and the local economy as well as the direct recipients. But a majority of Republican-controlled state governments are, it turns out, willing to pay a large economic and fiscal price in order to ensure that aid doesn’t reach the poor.

The thing is, it wasn’t always this way. Go back for a moment to 1936, when Alf Landon received the Republican nomination for president. In many ways, Landon’s acceptance speech previewed themes taken up by modern conservatives. He lamented the incompleteness of economic recovery and the persistence of high unemployment, and he attributed the economy’s lingering weakness to excessive government intervention and the uncertainty he claimed it created.

But he also said this: “Out of this Depression has come, not only the problem of recovery but also the equally grave problem of caring for the unemployed until recovery is attained. Their relief at all times is a matter of plain duty. We of our Party pledge that this obligation will never be neglected.”

Can you imagine a modern Republican nominee saying such a thing? Not in a party committed to the view that unemployed workers have it too easy, that they’re so coddled by unemployment insurance and food stamps that they have no incentive to go out there and get a job.

So what’s this all about? One reason, the sociologist Daniel Little suggested in a recent essay, is market ideology: If the market is always right, then people who end up poor must deserve to be poor. I’d add that some leading Republicans are, in their minds, acting out adolescent libertarian fantasies. “It’s as if we’re living in an Ayn Rand novel right now,” declared Paul Ryan in 2009.

But there’s also, as Mr. Little says, the stain that won’t go away: race.

In a much-cited recent memo, Democracy Corps, a Democratic-leaning public opinion research organization, reported on the results of focus groups held with members of various Republican factions. They found the Republican base “very conscious of being white in a country that is increasingly minority” — and seeing the social safety net both as something that helps Those People, not people like themselves, and binds the rising nonwhite population to the Democratic Party. And, yes, the Medicaid expansion many states are rejecting would disproportionately have helped poor blacks.

So there is indeed a war on the poor, coinciding with and deepening the pain from a troubled economy. And that war is now the central, defining issue of American politics. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/01/opinion/krugman-a-war-on-the-poor.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20131101&_r=2&

posted November 01, 2013 05:53 PM            

Is Kasich the lead horse in a turn around?
Has low polling figs for Repubs shaken the tree?

Doubt it.

This is pretty amazing even for Taurus Kasich.

quote:

---

He was a commentator on Fox News Channel, hosting Heartland with John Kasich (2001-2007); he also worked as an investment banker, as managing director of Lehman Brother's Columbus, Ohio office (until the firm collapsed in 2008).

---

This is a good time to post this article, as today-- if I'm not mistaken, is the day when Food - or SNAP assistance cuts go into effect.

posted November 02, 2013 12:58 AM            

Well, you're no math whiz and that's for sure. Not well versed in how welfare programs...like Medicaid are funded either.

posted November 02, 2013 01:36 PM            

The government would have indeed paid for those expansions. I don't know why you'd single out that well-known fact.

quote:

---

Feds..through forfeiture of hard earned citizens pay will fund Medicaid 100% and then 97%. Just who in the hell do you...and your idiot idol Krugman think is going to pay for this. You think it's all free? Idiotic!

---

You know what's idiotic?: Thinking that by posting that it will be a taxpayer expense that ACA will somehow cost the taxpayer MORE money, when everyone knows ACA saves the Federal government [and therefore the taxpayer] money overall. It was passed under reconciliation, which means it reduces governmental expense, and that is still true to this day. Repealing it would actually cost the government [and therefore the taxpayer] more money.

posted November 02, 2013 02:21 PM            

Hint acoustic, it's not about you. You flatter yourself. But...

you post the most absurd, ridiculous tripe on this forum, written by some of the biggest idiots in leftist-land and you have been doing so for a very long time.

posted November 02, 2013 02:33 PM            

OMG

This is hilarious

------------------
Want To Ask Any Question About Bible Prophecy? Go For it. It is Free, of course.

posted November 02, 2013 03:21 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
"Ridiculous tripe" is your purview, dear Jwhop. Your posts here are a perfect example of what to say if you have [b]nothing to say in rebuttal.[/B]

---

I didn't have to get a Masters degree in counseling with a perfect 4.0 to realize this is projection

------------------
Want To Ask Any Question About Bible Prophecy? Go For it. It is Free, of course.

posted November 02, 2013 04:13 PM            

Why don't you role model it for me, from now on, so I can see a pro in action

------------------
Want To Ask Any Question About Bible Prophecy? Go For it. It is Free, of course.

posted November 02, 2013 04:20 PM            

------------------
Want To Ask Any Question About Bible Prophecy? Go For it. It is Free, of course.

posted November 02, 2013 06:02 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Catalina:
Do you inderstand the difference between"stick it" and "that is ridiculous"?

---

Unless you had a radical Come to Jesus Moment( can I say that on here ) you are one of the nastiest people on LL, so it seems odd that you are schooling someone in the fine points of etiquette.

------------------
Want To Ask Any Question About Bible Prophecy? Go For it. It is Free, of course.

posted November 03, 2013 12:08 PM            

I am mean here...with cause. Namely, ridiculousness. If you or Jwhop are going to consciously be ridiculous, and post nonsense in response to well-thought-out posts, you may get shamed. If either of you are found incapable of having coherent discussion, there's no reason why you should receive any dignity for your lame discourse. I'm all for being nice to people that don't deserve it, but when you're attempting to attack intelligence with stupidity I feel less charitable. You're not attempting to say that you bring an intellectually valid point of view to this forum, are you? I've literally NEVER seen a coherent argument from you as to why any of your perspectives could potentially be right. Jwhop's got that superiority over you. He, at times, does have a point, and at other times can at least point out why he thinks he has a point. You can't even do that.

posted November 03, 2013 01:12 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ami Anne:

Unless you had a radical Come to Jesus Moment( can I say that on here ) you are one of the nastiest people on LL, so it seems odd that you are schooling someone in the fine points of etiquette.

---

posted November 03, 2013 02:02 PM            

and,

this statement/opinion by the aminatrix is so untrue as to be laughable.

posted November 03, 2013 02:15 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by juniperb:

---

I'll quote myself

Anyhoo, moving right along. What is in the news today?
------------------
Want To Ask Any Question About Bible Prophecy? Go For it. It is Free, of course.