Why is it they need to cut food stamps citing "ending the culture of dependency" for poor people, but they never talk about cutting subsidies for big agriculture, or defense contractors, or telecoms, or any of the other big businesses who, for years, use subsidies, and other tax loopholes. Isn't THAT a "culture of dependency" too? There's one important difference. People that use food stamps are, well first off 2/3rd are kids, but the rest are not campaign donors. So the tough talk the tea party simpletons put out there about budgets, and "dependency" is just a collection of platitudes that gets their benefactors to open the checkbook.
It's the same thing in a different vein when it comes to the circle jerk in the House with the 42nd vote to repeal the ACA, or to de-fund it in the looming debt limit. Why are House Republicans passing a bill that will not pass a Senate controlled by the Democrats, or surely get the VETO if it gets to the White House? Principle? A principled politician - that's really sweet of you. It's to show the check writers they're deserving of a little something something for the PAC. Those check writers don't want the ACA.
Here's my question: if the ACA is so bad, and will be so much suckitude in application why don't those who oppose it just let it suck, ride the suckage to election wins - since it'll suck so much right - and the repeal it?
Answer: It won't suck, and there goes the "culture of dependency" that those check writers will have to live without.
It's important to remember that when these things because they're never mentioned in the "red team/blue team" bullshit narrative that mainstream media thinks is "balanced" coverage.
No comments:
Post a Comment