In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
North Carolina House Speaker Thom Tillis (R-NC), the frontrunner in the North Carolina GOP Senate primary, told a crowd two and half years ago that we must "divide and conquer" people on government assistance. Tillis proposed pitting those who are legitimately in need against those who made bad choices.
Tillis made the comments in October 2011 in Asheville, North Carolina. They were reported by local press at the time and are being circulated now by the campaign of Sen. Kay Hagan (D-NC) whom Tillis is vying to unseat. They were highlighted on MSNBC"s Hardball Monday.
"What we have to do is find a way to divide and conquer the people who are on assistance," Tillis said. "We have to show respect for that woman who has cerebral palsy and had no choice, in her condition, that needs help and that we should help. And we need to get those folks to look down at these people who choose to get into a condition that makes them dependent on the government and say at some point, ‘You’re on your own. We may end up taking care of those babies, but we’re not going to take care of you.’ And we’ve got to start having that serious discussion."
Tillis went on to say that discussion wouldn't happen until at least 2013.
"It won’t happen next year. Wrong time, ‘cause it’s going to be politically charged," Tillis said. "One of the reasons why I may never run for another elected office is that some of these things may just get me railroaded out of town. But in 2013, I honestly believe that we have to do that."
Tillis's comments were clipped by the North Carolina Justice Center's Health Access Coalition.
Do any conservatives/republicans want to say this is anything but a bad idea to think let alone say out loud?
I'm so dumbstruck (well, sort of) by this I don't even know where to start.
I can't even touch the nature of his argument itself but I have to say, even if he was 100% right as hunts seems to believe, it was at minimum the kind of statement that makes national Republicans (Presidential Candidates) cringe...?
I'm not sure if he meant/understood what he said... Perhaps Intro or someone would like to try to interpret what he meant, or should I just take him literally?
@ hunts, well programs like medic-aid need to just die out already and replaced with something better, but some people just run into bad circumstances in all those areas, abortion, drugs, listening to rap, but 90% of them can be helped.
The big problem with his argument is that he mixes Cerebral palsy (you are on disability - Federal) with just making babies (Medicaid - state).
Since he's a state pol, he shouldn't be doing that.
It's an entire industry out there now.. states are paying to help have people declared disabled to get them off state assistance and onto federal disability.
On May 07 2014 10:48 Roswell wrote: @ hunts, well programs like medic-aid need to just die out already and replaced with something better, but some people just run into bad circumstances in all those areas, abortion, drugs, listening to rap, but 90% of them can be helped.
yeah, yeah, wait what the f? 'Listening to rap'!? That's a huge genre.... You might want to at least put a modifier on that (though I doubt that would be sufficient).
I just hope that was only a bad joke in poor taste and nothing more.
I never understood why a fair amount of conservatives want poor people to stop having babies. People who are born into poverty will likely be impoverished themselves and work minimum wage jobs. Isn't it a good thing for conservatives to have constant and continuous access to 1) an overabundance of labor in the economy as a whole 2) labor that is willing to work cheaply? Maybe the problem right now for some conservatives is people can command too high of a wage or too good of working conditions since they won't likely starve to death due to SNAP.
On May 07 2014 10:48 Roswell wrote: @ hunts, well programs like medic-aid need to just die out already and replaced with something better, but some people just run into bad circumstances in all those areas, abortion, drugs, listening to rap, but 90% of them can be helped.
yeah, yeah, wait what the f? 'Listening to rap'!? That's a huge genre.... You might want to at least put a modifier on that (though I doubt that would be sufficient).
I just hope that was only a bad joke in poor taste and nothing more.
On May 07 2014 10:55 Livelovedie wrote: I never understood why a fair amount of conservatives want poor people to stop having babies. People who are born into poverty will likely be impoverished themselves and work minimum wage jobs. Isn't it a good thing for conservatives to have constant and continuous access to 1) an overabundance of labor in the economy as a whole 2) labor that is willing to work cheaply? Maybe the problem right now for some conservatives is people can command too high of a wage or too good of working conditions since they won't likely starve to death due to SNAP.
woah woah you got that backwards, in general past elections poorer income families vote higher for liberals than edit: conservatives
On May 07 2014 09:29 hunts wrote: I know most of the people in this thread will call this guy the evil spawn of satan, but does he not have a good point? Should the woman (outside of proven rape, as that is out of their control) who chooses to have unprotected sex, who then chooses not to take a morning after pill, chooses not to get an abortion, and chooses not to put the child up for adoption, who has that kid knowing full well she can't afford to support it, deserve to get free money from the government for that illogical and not smart choice? Should the people be forced to have their tax money go to pay for those who have kids knowing they can't take care of them?
Or what about drug addicts? Is anyone forced into drug addiction? I don't believe that with the information that is available now anyone is forced into using the addictive drugs until they become addicted. Should the people be forced to have their tax money go to supporting people's drug habbits? There is a very big difference between someone who needs assistance because of a medical condition they can't control, and someone who needs assistance because they chose to do drugs, or chose to have unprotected sex, or chose to make blatantly bad life choices.
I completely believe there should be a government safety net for those who legitimately screw up and try their best to crawl their way up into a better situation. But there as many who screw up knowingly, make stupid decisions knowingly, and then sit on that government help without trying to get out. Those I fully believe need to be cut off, and this guy makes a good point in that regard, even if I will agree the way it's said he is being umm what's the word, mischievous? A dick? About it?
You were born. If you were born to a mother without money would you be ok with being left on a mountain to die? Would you prefer adoption because your mother is a high school drop out with no money or do you feel like maybe the woman who gave birth to you should raise you? Are you for forced adoptions?
I would much rather be put up for adoption or hell, I would've rather been aborted if my mother was a high school drop out with no money. If my mother was a high school drop out with no money and I was forced to live that poor life because of her stupidity, I would be extremely mad at HER, for HER choices. I have friends in that same situation who felt the same way, they were not mad at the state for not giving their deadbeat parents more free money, they were mad at their deadbeat parents for having a kid they knew they could not afford. That is how it should be. Having a kid is a CHOICE, and there are plenty of ways to avoid having a kid, while still having sex. Why should the people have to pay for a kid that was had purely by choice, when the parent had plenty of opportunities to not have the kid, when all along they knew they can't afford it? Why should tax money have to be spent on people who willingly make stupid life decision knowing they will be bailed out? It leaves less for those who genuinely need government assistance due to no fault of their own, and it leaves less for the people actually earning money.
On May 07 2014 09:29 hunts wrote: I know most of the people in this thread will call this guy the evil spawn of satan, but does he not have a good point? Should the woman (outside of proven rape, as that is out of their control) who chooses to have unprotected sex, who then chooses not to take a morning after pill, chooses not to get an abortion, and chooses not to put the child up for adoption, who has that kid knowing full well she can't afford to support it, deserve to get free money from the government for that illogical and not smart choice? Should the people be forced to have their tax money go to pay for those who have kids knowing they can't take care of them?
Or what about drug addicts? Is anyone forced into drug addiction? I don't believe that with the information that is available now anyone is forced into using the addictive drugs until they become addicted. Should the people be forced to have their tax money go to supporting people's drug habbits? There is a very big difference between someone who needs assistance because of a medical condition they can't control, and someone who needs assistance because they chose to do drugs, or chose to have unprotected sex, or chose to make blatantly bad life choices.
I completely believe there should be a government safety net for those who legitimately screw up and try their best to crawl their way up into a better situation. But there as many who screw up knowingly, make stupid decisions knowingly, and then sit on that government help without trying to get out. Those I fully believe need to be cut off, and this guy makes a good point in that regard, even if I will agree the way it's said he is being umm what's the word, mischievous? A dick? About it?
You were born. If you were born to a mother without money would you be ok with being left on a mountain to die? Would you prefer adoption because your mother is a high school drop out with no money or do you feel like maybe the woman who gave birth to you should raise you? Are you for forced adoptions?
I would much rather be put up for adoption or hell, I would've rather been aborted if my mother was a high school drop out with no money. If my mother was a high school drop out with no money and I was forced to live that poor life because of her stupidity, I would be extremely mad at HER, for HER choices. I have friends in that same situation who felt the same way, they were not mad at the state for not giving their deadbeat parents more free money, they were mad at their deadbeat parents for having a kid they knew they could not afford. That is how it should be. Having a kid is a CHOICE, and there are plenty of ways to avoid having a kid, while still having sex. Why should the people have to pay for a kid that was had purely by choice, when the parent had plenty of opportunities to not have the kid, when all along they knew they can't afford it? Why should tax money have to be spent on people who willingly make stupid life decision knowing they will be bailed out? It leaves less for those who genuinely need government assistance due to no fault of their own, and it leaves less for the people actually earning money.
So people who are born to deadbeat parents don't genuinely need government assistance? Being a kid is not a choice. If you were in charge would you require forced abortions for anyone you deem unable to pay for a kid?
On May 07 2014 09:29 hunts wrote: I know most of the people in this thread will call this guy the evil spawn of satan, but does he not have a good point? Should the woman (outside of proven rape, as that is out of their control) who chooses to have unprotected sex, who then chooses not to take a morning after pill, chooses not to get an abortion, and chooses not to put the child up for adoption, who has that kid knowing full well she can't afford to support it, deserve to get free money from the government for that illogical and not smart choice? Should the people be forced to have their tax money go to pay for those who have kids knowing they can't take care of them?
Or what about drug addicts? Is anyone forced into drug addiction? I don't believe that with the information that is available now anyone is forced into using the addictive drugs until they become addicted. Should the people be forced to have their tax money go to supporting people's drug habbits? There is a very big difference between someone who needs assistance because of a medical condition they can't control, and someone who needs assistance because they chose to do drugs, or chose to have unprotected sex, or chose to make blatantly bad life choices.
I completely believe there should be a government safety net for those who legitimately screw up and try their best to crawl their way up into a better situation. But there as many who screw up knowingly, make stupid decisions knowingly, and then sit on that government help without trying to get out. Those I fully believe need to be cut off, and this guy makes a good point in that regard, even if I will agree the way it's said he is being umm what's the word, mischievous? A dick? About it?
You were born. If you were born to a mother without money would you be ok with being left on a mountain to die? Would you prefer adoption because your mother is a high school drop out with no money or do you feel like maybe the woman who gave birth to you should raise you? Are you for forced adoptions?
I would much rather be put up for adoption or hell, I would've rather been aborted if my mother was a high school drop out with no money. If my mother was a high school drop out with no money and I was forced to live that poor life because of her stupidity, I would be extremely mad at HER, for HER choices. I have friends in that same situation who felt the same way, they were not mad at the state for not giving their deadbeat parents more free money, they were mad at their deadbeat parents for having a kid they knew they could not afford. That is how it should be. Having a kid is a CHOICE, and there are plenty of ways to avoid having a kid, while still having sex. Why should the people have to pay for a kid that was had purely by choice, when the parent had plenty of opportunities to not have the kid, when all along they knew they can't afford it? Why should tax money have to be spent on people who willingly make stupid life decision knowing they will be bailed out? It leaves less for those who genuinely need government assistance due to no fault of their own, and it leaves less for the people actually earning money.
So people who are born to deadbeat parents don't genuinely need government assistance? Being a kid is not a choice. If you were in charge would you require forced abortions for anyone you deem unable to pay for a kid?
No, that is a personal choice that no one is allowed to take away from a person. However I would not give them any more money than what they are entitled to without the kid, because they knowingly had the kid without the money to support it, and would most likely have tighter child service laws that would take kids away from poor deadbeat parents and put them in foster homes, because they would probably be better off there.
On May 07 2014 09:29 hunts wrote: I know most of the people in this thread will call this guy the evil spawn of satan, but does he not have a good point? Should the woman (outside of proven rape, as that is out of their control) who chooses to have unprotected sex, who then chooses not to take a morning after pill, chooses not to get an abortion, and chooses not to put the child up for adoption, who has that kid knowing full well she can't afford to support it, deserve to get free money from the government for that illogical and not smart choice? Should the people be forced to have their tax money go to pay for those who have kids knowing they can't take care of them?
Or what about drug addicts? Is anyone forced into drug addiction? I don't believe that with the information that is available now anyone is forced into using the addictive drugs until they become addicted. Should the people be forced to have their tax money go to supporting people's drug habbits? There is a very big difference between someone who needs assistance because of a medical condition they can't control, and someone who needs assistance because they chose to do drugs, or chose to have unprotected sex, or chose to make blatantly bad life choices.
I completely believe there should be a government safety net for those who legitimately screw up and try their best to crawl their way up into a better situation. But there as many who screw up knowingly, make stupid decisions knowingly, and then sit on that government help without trying to get out. Those I fully believe need to be cut off, and this guy makes a good point in that regard, even if I will agree the way it's said he is being umm what's the word, mischievous? A dick? About it?
You were born. If you were born to a mother without money would you be ok with being left on a mountain to die? Would you prefer adoption because your mother is a high school drop out with no money or do you feel like maybe the woman who gave birth to you should raise you? Are you for forced adoptions?
I would much rather be put up for adoption or hell, I would've rather been aborted if my mother was a high school drop out with no money. If my mother was a high school drop out with no money and I was forced to live that poor life because of her stupidity, I would be extremely mad at HER, for HER choices. I have friends in that same situation who felt the same way, they were not mad at the state for not giving their deadbeat parents more free money, they were mad at their deadbeat parents for having a kid they knew they could not afford. That is how it should be. Having a kid is a CHOICE, and there are plenty of ways to avoid having a kid, while still having sex. Why should the people have to pay for a kid that was had purely by choice, when the parent had plenty of opportunities to not have the kid, when all along they knew they can't afford it? Why should tax money have to be spent on people who willingly make stupid life decision knowing they will be bailed out? It leaves less for those who genuinely need government assistance due to no fault of their own, and it leaves less for the people actually earning money.
So people who are born to deadbeat parents don't genuinely need government assistance? Being a kid is not a choice. If you were in charge would you require forced abortions for anyone you deem unable to pay for a kid?
No, that is a personal choice that no one is allowed to take away from a person. However I would not give them any more money than what they are entitled to without the kid, because they knowingly had the kid without the money to support it, and would most likely have tighter child service laws that would take kids away from poor deadbeat parents and put them in foster homes, because they would probably be better off there.
So you either A) want to punish kids who were born, through no fault of their own, to deadbeat parents or B) want to set up state-run orphanages where tons of kids who have deadbeat parents are taken away to be raised en masse by a few state employees?
On May 07 2014 10:55 Livelovedie wrote: I never understood why a fair amount of conservatives want poor people to stop having babies. People who are born into poverty will likely be impoverished themselves and work minimum wage jobs. Isn't it a good thing for conservatives to have constant and continuous access to 1) an overabundance of labor in the economy as a whole 2) labor that is willing to work cheaply? Maybe the problem right now for some conservatives is people can command too high of a wage or too good of working conditions since they won't likely starve to death due to medicaid.
Ok I don't agree with Live's description but I did have fun with expanding that idea into a super rudimentary model where it makes sense. It's not polite so I spoiled it and warned you.
I don't agree with you, but I suppose in that model they don't want poor people to stop having babies, (Restricting sexual education, family planning, abortions, birth control, etc..) they just don't want to feed/cloth/shelter their parents.
Presumably the weakest parents (no more aid) and children would be screened out during maturation in however they determined which ones got adopted/fostered/private orphanaged/left with a ~homeless/food-less/clothes parent (dependent on charity) and still survived. Once they reached working age (looks like about 14 is when politicians think children can choose to do farm work without parental permission it's any age with it) they would enter a flooded cheap low skill intensive-labor market. Source
Since it would be mostly the ones who ended up in the less desirable situations for children orphan/fostered that filled these ranks they would only have until they reached 18 (or whenever they want to cut people off) to amass enough money to get an education to get better paying work.
This means most of the poor children either perpetuate the cycle (have children they can't 'afford' who then grow up in the same circumstances) or don't breed.
You then use the success stories from kids adopted by millionaires to distract from the private work-camps orphanages and whenever an orphanage finds itself at the center of a news cycle, you just use a totally circumstantial 'bootstrap' story to show how they teach children to have a good work ethic.
Of course you could always offer high-interest high-collateral nondischargable loans to people right on the edge, to trap them into a lifetime of debt. This would essentially give you a n entire class of 'new-age sharecroppers' to tide you over until you can just stop the social programs for the children too and let robots do the work and if you have capital you survive if not you find a country without robots.
On May 07 2014 09:29 hunts wrote: I know most of the people in this thread will call this guy the evil spawn of satan, but does he not have a good point? Should the woman (outside of proven rape, as that is out of their control) who chooses to have unprotected sex, who then chooses not to take a morning after pill, chooses not to get an abortion, and chooses not to put the child up for adoption, who has that kid knowing full well she can't afford to support it, deserve to get free money from the government for that illogical and not smart choice? Should the people be forced to have their tax money go to pay for those who have kids knowing they can't take care of them?
Or what about drug addicts? Is anyone forced into drug addiction? I don't believe that with the information that is available now anyone is forced into using the addictive drugs until they become addicted. Should the people be forced to have their tax money go to supporting people's drug habbits? There is a very big difference between someone who needs assistance because of a medical condition they can't control, and someone who needs assistance because they chose to do drugs, or chose to have unprotected sex, or chose to make blatantly bad life choices.
I completely believe there should be a government safety net for those who legitimately screw up and try their best to crawl their way up into a better situation. But there as many who screw up knowingly, make stupid decisions knowingly, and then sit on that government help without trying to get out. Those I fully believe need to be cut off, and this guy makes a good point in that regard, even if I will agree the way it's said he is being umm what's the word, mischievous? A dick? About it?
You were born. If you were born to a mother without money would you be ok with being left on a mountain to die? Would you prefer adoption because your mother is a high school drop out with no money or do you feel like maybe the woman who gave birth to you should raise you? Are you for forced adoptions?
I would much rather be put up for adoption or hell, I would've rather been aborted if my mother was a high school drop out with no money. If my mother was a high school drop out with no money and I was forced to live that poor life because of her stupidity, I would be extremely mad at HER, for HER choices. I have friends in that same situation who felt the same way, they were not mad at the state for not giving their deadbeat parents more free money, they were mad at their deadbeat parents for having a kid they knew they could not afford. That is how it should be. Having a kid is a CHOICE, and there are plenty of ways to avoid having a kid, while still having sex. Why should the people have to pay for a kid that was had purely by choice, when the parent had plenty of opportunities to not have the kid, when all along they knew they can't afford it? Why should tax money have to be spent on people who willingly make stupid life decision knowing they will be bailed out? It leaves less for those who genuinely need government assistance due to no fault of their own, and it leaves less for the people actually earning money.
So people who are born to deadbeat parents don't genuinely need government assistance? Being a kid is not a choice. If you were in charge would you require forced abortions for anyone you deem unable to pay for a kid?
No, that is a personal choice that no one is allowed to take away from a person. However I would not give them any more money than what they are entitled to without the kid, because they knowingly had the kid without the money to support it, and would most likely have tighter child service laws that would take kids away from poor deadbeat parents and put them in foster homes, because they would probably be better off there.
So you either A) want to punish kids who were born, through no fault of their own, to deadbeat parents or B) want to set up state-run orphanages where tons of kids who have deadbeat parents are taken away to be raised en masse by a few state employees?
Why have state run orphanages when there are already plenty? And honestly they would be better off in an orphanage in many cases. They would have shelter, food, clothes, education, and wouldn't be around bad influences such as their deadbeat parents who are often times alcoholics and/or drug abusers. And the tax payers wouldn't have to support said deadbeat parents for their choice to have a kid they can't afford. Now how about you tell me why everybody should be forced to pay money out of their pocket so somebody who is a high school dropout with no money as you put it, who has a kid while choosing not to use birth control (which planned parenthood gives for free AFAIK) who chooses not to take a morning after pill, who chooses not to have an abortion, and chooses not to put the kid up for adoption, knowing they can't afford to take care of the kid, and knowing they can't be a good role model for the kid, can have their kid and force that kid to live in the terrible conditions that they themselves chose to live in? The kid would suffer much more living in the conditions that those kinds of people would force them to live in than they would in a foster home.
You don't have much experience with orphanages do you? Or much experience with single mothers on WIC?
Of course there are plenty of orphanages already. There aren't that many deadbeat parents with kids who you don't want to be receiving federal assistance as it is . . . so the existing orphanages will pick up the tiny bit of slack?
On May 07 2014 09:29 hunts wrote: I know most of the people in this thread will call this guy the evil spawn of satan, but does he not have a good point? Should the woman (outside of proven rape, as that is out of their control) who chooses to have unprotected sex, who then chooses not to take a morning after pill, chooses not to get an abortion, and chooses not to put the child up for adoption, who has that kid knowing full well she can't afford to support it, deserve to get free money from the government for that illogical and not smart choice? Should the people be forced to have their tax money go to pay for those who have kids knowing they can't take care of them?
Or what about drug addicts? Is anyone forced into drug addiction? I don't believe that with the information that is available now anyone is forced into using the addictive drugs until they become addicted. Should the people be forced to have their tax money go to supporting people's drug habbits? There is a very big difference between someone who needs assistance because of a medical condition they can't control, and someone who needs assistance because they chose to do drugs, or chose to have unprotected sex, or chose to make blatantly bad life choices.
I completely believe there should be a government safety net for those who legitimately screw up and try their best to crawl their way up into a better situation. But there as many who screw up knowingly, make stupid decisions knowingly, and then sit on that government help without trying to get out. Those I fully believe need to be cut off, and this guy makes a good point in that regard, even if I will agree the way it's said he is being umm what's the word, mischievous? A dick? About it?
You were born. If you were born to a mother without money would you be ok with being left on a mountain to die? Would you prefer adoption because your mother is a high school drop out with no money or do you feel like maybe the woman who gave birth to you should raise you? Are you for forced adoptions?
I would much rather be put up for adoption or hell, I would've rather been aborted if my mother was a high school drop out with no money. If my mother was a high school drop out with no money and I was forced to live that poor life because of her stupidity, I would be extremely mad at HER, for HER choices. I have friends in that same situation who felt the same way, they were not mad at the state for not giving their deadbeat parents more free money, they were mad at their deadbeat parents for having a kid they knew they could not afford. That is how it should be. Having a kid is a CHOICE, and there are plenty of ways to avoid having a kid, while still having sex. Why should the people have to pay for a kid that was had purely by choice, when the parent had plenty of opportunities to not have the kid, when all along they knew they can't afford it? Why should tax money have to be spent on people who willingly make stupid life decision knowing they will be bailed out? It leaves less for those who genuinely need government assistance due to no fault of their own, and it leaves less for the people actually earning money.
So people who are born to deadbeat parents don't genuinely need government assistance? Being a kid is not a choice. If you were in charge would you require forced abortions for anyone you deem unable to pay for a kid?
No, that is a personal choice that no one is allowed to take away from a person. However I would not give them any more money than what they are entitled to without the kid, because they knowingly had the kid without the money to support it, and would most likely have tighter child service laws that would take kids away from poor deadbeat parents and put them in foster homes, because they would probably be better off there.
So you either A) want to punish kids who were born, through no fault of their own, to deadbeat parents or B) want to set up state-run orphanages where tons of kids who have deadbeat parents are taken away to be raised en masse by a few state employees?
Why have state run orphanages when there are already plenty? And honestly they would be better off in an orphanage in many cases. They would have shelter, food, clothes, education, and wouldn't be around bad influences such as their deadbeat parents who are often times alcoholics and/or drug abusers. And the tax payers wouldn't have to support said deadbeat parents for their choice to have a kid they can't afford. Now how about you tell me why everybody should be forced to pay money out of their pocket so somebody who is a high school dropout with no money as you put it, who has a kid while choosing not to use birth control (which planned parenthood gives for free AFAIK) who chooses not to take a morning after pill, who chooses not to have an abortion, and chooses not to put the kid up for adoption, knowing they can't afford to take care of the kid, and knowing they can't be a good role model for the kid, can have their kid and force that kid to live in the terrible conditions that they themselves chose to live in? The kid would suffer much more living in the conditions that those kinds of people would force them to live in than they would in a foster home.
There is so much ignorance in there I am not going to try to unpack it.
I am curious though, where do women who were married/engaged when they had children then their husbands left them and/or turned into deadbeats fall in your world of choosing to be on government aid?
North Carolina House Speaker Thom Tillis (R-NC), the frontrunner in the North Carolina GOP Senate primary, told a crowd two and half years ago that we must "divide and conquer" people on government assistance. Tillis proposed pitting those who are legitimately in need against those who made bad choices.
Tillis made the comments in October 2011 in Asheville, North Carolina. They were reported by local press at the time and are being circulated now by the campaign of Sen. Kay Hagan (D-NC) whom Tillis is vying to unseat. They were highlighted on MSNBC"s Hardball Monday.
"What we have to do is find a way to divide and conquer the people who are on assistance," Tillis said. "We have to show respect for that woman who has cerebral palsy and had no choice, in her condition, that needs help and that we should help. And we need to get those folks to look down at these people who choose to get into a condition that makes them dependent on the government and say at some point, ‘You’re on your own. We may end up taking care of those babies, but we’re not going to take care of you.’ And we’ve got to start having that serious discussion."
Tillis went on to say that discussion wouldn't happen until at least 2013.
"It won’t happen next year. Wrong time, ‘cause it’s going to be politically charged," Tillis said. "One of the reasons why I may never run for another elected office is that some of these things may just get me railroaded out of town. But in 2013, I honestly believe that we have to do that."
Tillis's comments were clipped by the North Carolina Justice Center's Health Access Coalition.
Do any conservatives/republicans want to say this is anything but a bad idea to think let alone say out loud?
I'm so dumbstruck (well, sort of) by this I don't even know where to start.
I can't even touch the nature of his argument itself but I have to say, even if he was 100% right as hunts seems to believe, it was at minimum the kind of statement that makes national Republicans (Presidential Candidates) cringe...?
I'm not sure if he meant/understood what he said... Perhaps Intro or someone would like to try to interpret what he meant, or should I just take him literally?
I'm not sure what the context of the video was, but the idea that public assistance has limits (i.e. you need to demonstrate genuine need) is pretty mainstream.
North Carolina House Speaker Thom Tillis (R-NC), the frontrunner in the North Carolina GOP Senate primary, told a crowd two and half years ago that we must "divide and conquer" people on government assistance. Tillis proposed pitting those who are legitimately in need against those who made bad choices.
Tillis made the comments in October 2011 in Asheville, North Carolina. They were reported by local press at the time and are being circulated now by the campaign of Sen. Kay Hagan (D-NC) whom Tillis is vying to unseat. They were highlighted on MSNBC"s Hardball Monday.
"What we have to do is find a way to divide and conquer the people who are on assistance," Tillis said. "We have to show respect for that woman who has cerebral palsy and had no choice, in her condition, that needs help and that we should help. And we need to get those folks to look down at these people who choose to get into a condition that makes them dependent on the government and say at some point, ‘You’re on your own. We may end up taking care of those babies, but we’re not going to take care of you.’ And we’ve got to start having that serious discussion."
Tillis went on to say that discussion wouldn't happen until at least 2013.
"It won’t happen next year. Wrong time, ‘cause it’s going to be politically charged," Tillis said. "One of the reasons why I may never run for another elected office is that some of these things may just get me railroaded out of town. But in 2013, I honestly believe that we have to do that."
Tillis's comments were clipped by the North Carolina Justice Center's Health Access Coalition.
Do any conservatives/republicans want to say this is anything but a bad idea to think let alone say out loud?
I'm so dumbstruck (well, sort of) by this I don't even know where to start.
I can't even touch the nature of his argument itself but I have to say, even if he was 100% right as hunts seems to believe, it was at minimum the kind of statement that makes national Republicans (Presidential Candidates) cringe...?
I'm not sure if he meant/understood what he said... Perhaps Intro or someone would like to try to interpret what he meant, or should I just take him literally?
I'm not sure what the context of the video was, but the idea that public assistance has limits (i.e. you need to demonstrate genuine need) is pretty mainstream.
Are you suggesting that's what he was trying to say, or just stating that people have long agreed public assistance isn't unlimited?
Either way I'm not really sure how that was something that was in contention or in need of a plan to 'divide and conquer' (someone else pointed out how dumb that word choice was)?
North Carolina House Speaker Thom Tillis (R-NC), the frontrunner in the North Carolina GOP Senate primary, told a crowd two and half years ago that we must "divide and conquer" people on government assistance. Tillis proposed pitting those who are legitimately in need against those who made bad choices.
Tillis made the comments in October 2011 in Asheville, North Carolina. They were reported by local press at the time and are being circulated now by the campaign of Sen. Kay Hagan (D-NC) whom Tillis is vying to unseat. They were highlighted on MSNBC"s Hardball Monday.
"What we have to do is find a way to divide and conquer the people who are on assistance," Tillis said. "We have to show respect for that woman who has cerebral palsy and had no choice, in her condition, that needs help and that we should help. And we need to get those folks to look down at these people who choose to get into a condition that makes them dependent on the government and say at some point, ‘You’re on your own. We may end up taking care of those babies, but we’re not going to take care of you.’ And we’ve got to start having that serious discussion."
Tillis went on to say that discussion wouldn't happen until at least 2013.
"It won’t happen next year. Wrong time, ‘cause it’s going to be politically charged," Tillis said. "One of the reasons why I may never run for another elected office is that some of these things may just get me railroaded out of town. But in 2013, I honestly believe that we have to do that."
Tillis's comments were clipped by the North Carolina Justice Center's Health Access Coalition.
Do any conservatives/republicans want to say this is anything but a bad idea to think let alone say out loud?
I'm so dumbstruck (well, sort of) by this I don't even know where to start.
I can't even touch the nature of his argument itself but I have to say, even if he was 100% right as hunts seems to believe, it was at minimum the kind of statement that makes national Republicans (Presidential Candidates) cringe...?
I'm not sure if he meant/understood what he said... Perhaps Intro or someone would like to try to interpret what he meant, or should I just take him literally?
I'm not sure what the context of the video was, but the idea that public assistance has limits (i.e. you need to demonstrate genuine need) is pretty mainstream.
Are you suggesting that's what he was trying to say, or just stating that people have long agreed public assistance isn't unlimited?
Either way I'm not really sure how that was something that was in contention or in need of a plan to 'divide and conquer' (someone else pointed out how dumb that word choice was)?
It sounded like he was trying to draw a distinction between those who deserve help (definition tbd) and those who do not. He also suggested to ally with the deserving against the undeserving.
It's not a novel political alliance either. iirc WhiteDog has previously pointed out that people on the low income scale are often resentful towards those on public assistance, a fact that mirrors my own real world observations.
As an example, if I were to take his advice I might do the following. Campaign in a low income district on the platform that I would reform social security disability. That system is rife with abuse and reform would free up resources for those who are honest and truly hard working.
I don't know for sure if that's the sort of thing he was getting at, but that's what I figure from the clip.
On May 07 2014 12:44 oneofthem wrote: the state courts are absolutely not consistent and you'll get these clusters of absurd approval rate for stuff. it's not limited to disability.
Well that's a bummer. Hopefully we could still make some improvement.
EPT
