And the wealthy are forbidden, just as the poor, from sleeping under bridges.
Factually incorrect.
“It’s not against the law to be poor in America. But it might as well be.”
- Will Rogers
It’s obvious. Yes.
Republicans’ priority is the interests of the rich. That much is general knowledge. I don’t understand why people are still wondering about it.
You know, even if we accept that “X is class warfare,” it does not automatically follow that “X is undesirable.”
Class warfare is only undesirable when the proles start fighting back.
What percentage of the “poor” make a majority of their income from capital gains?
Do you like pancakes?
Subjects of every state ought to contribute to the support of the state in proportion to their respective abilities to do so.
That is in proportion to the revenue they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.
Adam Smith.
Socialist!
This is class warfare:
[QUOTE=Matthew Vadum]
Registering them (the poor) to vote is like handing out burglary tools to criminals. It is profoundly antisocial and un-American to empower the nonproductive segments of the population to destroy the country – which is precisely why Barack Obama zealously supports registering welfare recipients to vote.
[/quote]
This is class warfare:
[QUOTE=Rep. Steve King (R-IA)]
The 80 million Americans that are of working age but are simply not in the workforce need to be put to work. We can’t have a nation of slackers and then have me have to sit in the Judiciary Committee listening to them argue that there’s work that Americans won’t do, so we have to import people to do the work that Americans won’t do, and borrow money to pay the welfare of people that won’t work. That is a foolish thing for a nation to do. We’ve gotta get this country back to work and get those people out of the slacker rolls and onto the employed rolls.
[/quote]
This is class warfare:
[QUOTE=Heritage Foundation]
The typical American defined as “poor” by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family’s essential needs. While this individual’s life is not opulent, it is equally far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, liberal activists, and politicians.
[/quote]
This is class warfare:
[QUOTE=NY Times]
Some people like to camouflage this (the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, aka food stamps) by calling it a nutrition program, but it’s really not different from cash welfare,” said Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation, whose views have a following among conservatives on Capitol Hill. “Food stamps is quasi money.”
Arguing that aid discourages work and marriage, Mr. Rector said food stamps should contain work requirements as strict as those placed on cash assistance. “The food stamp program is a fossil that repeats all the errors of the war on poverty,” he said.
[/quote]
Cargill loves the SNAP program. So does Archer Daniels Midland, and General Foods. Your family farmers, people who farm your families.
Which doesn’t happen very often, for some reason.
Because most tyrants don’t begrudge them their bread and circuses. Today, that’s a Fox News headline: “Welfare Queen Spotted At Circus!!”
A classic Reagan moment.
Good times.
And then did he get into a cadillac? Tell me he was spotted hopping into a shiny new Cadillac paid for with his welfare money!
Reagan pushed a fake image to make people to think they are getting fleeced by cheaters. The New York Times put reporters on the case for 6 months and could not find an example of the “welfare Queens” that Reagan talked about. But it persists in the thoughts of those who actually do not want to help the poor and disadvantaged. It gives then an excuse .
Actually, according to the right-wing, class warfare is undesirable because, in the 21st century, class does not exist. Talk about apparent differences in income and power among the classes is inherently Marxist and all Marxist theory and philosophy was thoroughly repudiated sometime between the time the Berlin Wall came down and the Soviet Union collapsed. Thus, arguments about class are considered the equivalent someone in devoutly Christian medieval Europe heretically citing Arianism or Gnosticism in matters of theology and should be treated in the same way. (Although most conservatives, to their credit, would probably draw the line at burning at the stake people who invoke “class warfare.”)
Of course, that doesn’t prevent the right-wing from using class warfare terminology to attack the elitist, godless, anti-American, gay-marriage-supporting, Prius-driving, NPR-listening, New York Times-reading, Chablis-sipping, latte`drinking, Blue-State-living, liberals in the media, Hollywood, and educational establishment as the people who are destroying the country. Such language is acceptable as so long as discussion is about culture or national security and doesn’t turn to economic issues. It’s also noteworthy to mention that this vitriol is targeted at people who are mostly upper middle class professionals and not at those in the upper 1% of the income bracket who actually weld significant economic and political power (George Soros and Warren Buffett are excepted from this criticism but that’s only because they have dare suggested that wealth in the U.S. might be becoming too concentrated in one small group of people.)
Well, seems like they’re starting. 
…