Oklahoma GOP compares children, the disabled, and the elderly to animals in the wild:
"...roughly 45% of those who benefit from food stamps are children. Another 20% are disabled and 17% are elderly. Maybe if we cut them off those kids, disabled and elderly folks will be able to head out into the wild and feed themselves."
6 comments:
I'm quite sure the statement was not meant in the way the left has been portraying it.
If the Republican party were a centipede, it would still be running out of feet to shoot itself in. What's gotten into them lately? Are they all contending in some "biggest gaffe" contest that the rest of us haven't been told about?
Whether the Oklahoma GOP "meant" the comparison is beside the point. The fact is the GOP compared children, the disabled, and the elderly who receive food stamps to the feeding and the dependence of that feeding to wild animals. It's right there for everyone to read.
Children, the disabled, and the elderly who need help should not be degraded and compared to wild animals. But certain groups in the GOP do it all the time. You see it every day on TGOP blogs and news sites: calling less fortunate Americans "moochers," "takers," and people who want "free stuff."
It's the TGOP mantra: Crap on the poors. But don't say anything about the 1%ers who hide their billions off-shore to avoid paying taxes, which, of course, you and I have to make up for. But rich moochers and cheats seem not to bother those type of people.
All through history in every country--even this supposed "exceptional" one, the poor are denigrated, reviled, and resented for the help they receive.
From Booman Tribune:
"Isn't it ironic that the federal government distributes food stamps to 46 million people while at the same time discourages national park visitors from feeding the animals?
No?
Well, don't tell that to the Oklahoma Republican Party because they think this is the height of irony. After all, as they helpfully explain, the National Park Service doesn't want you to feed the animals because they "will grow dependent on handouts and will not learn to take care of themselves."
Let's set aside for a moment that there's a suggestion here that human nature and animal nature have something in common, which isn't the case obviously since God created not Adam and Steve, but Adam and Eve. I know for certain that the Oklahoma GOP doesn't want to suggest that there is any merit to the theory of evolution.
Here's what I'd like to talk about. If we have 46 million people in need of some level of food assistance, maybe there might be a bit of a problem with the worldview that people will be able to fend for themselves if only liberals don't give them handouts.
I'm just saying."
Well Shaw Ido believe emotions run away with themselves all too often in liberal land.
Setting the elderly, disabled, and children aside for the moment.
It is true that humans are mammals (animals) and like other mammals (animals) if they become dependent on the hand of government for long enough they will lose their desire for self reliance and self sufficiency. Our concern as a nation to to not foster such dependency in healthy able bodied men and women. For me (and I believe most rational fiscal conservatives)that is the concern. I have witnessed first hand too many instances where able bodied intelligence individuals have allowed themselves to become depend on government and then continued to scam the system. To deny this is as foolish as the phrasing by the Oklahoma folks. And it was a dumb all sweeping statement I agree.
Perhaps my view is incorrect, but I don't believe so.
"OKLAHOMA CITY - You may be surprised to know just how much Oklahoma farmers get in farm subsidies each year from the federal government. The term "farm subsidy" encompasses a broad range of federal programs to help farmers, from wheat subsidies to disaster payments to crop insurance.
According to the USDA, since 1995, Oklahoma farmers have received more than $6 billion in these various farms subsidies, that's 18th most in the nation.
Texas received the most, with $27 billion. In Oklahoma, by almost a three to one margin, wheat subsidies were the top subsidy over that 17-year period, at $2.8 billion.
Next is disaster payments, at $1 billion. Then, Conservation Reserve Program, Cotton subsidies, and Cattle subsidies, each around half a billion dollars.
What's interesting is that over that time again, according to the USDA, 69 percent of Oklahoma farms collected no subsidies at all. While, on the other hand, ten percent of Oklahoma farms collected 73 percent of all the subsidies.
Another note of interest, commodity subsidies, has generally brought in the most money, but that appears to be changing for the last two years. Subsidies for commodities have been eclipsed by subsidies for crop insurance premiums.
Oklahoma farmers received a total of $382 million in subsidies last year. The most received for any year was $554 million in 1999."
Have these government subsidies made Oklahoma farmers into lazy mooching animals?
Post a Comment