Have Democrats Become the Party of the Rich?

Factoring in criteria a policy deems relevant to an application, where irrelevant things are not factored in, those that are not factored in does not equal 'hiding', they are simply not being factored in because they are not part of the criteria for qualification.

You are imagining things which have nothing to do, morally or substantively, with the polices regarding qualifications for medicare/gov assistance, etc.

DITTO: You are imagining things which have nothing to do, morally or substantively, with medicare and government assistance in general.

Your fanciful suppositions are just that, it's fanciful anecdote, and the gov doesn't arrive at a policy on one person's supposition, nor is there a moral reason for excluding persons whose permanently disadvantaged condition was their fault. If you want to exclude those who capable of caring for themselves, who are merely unemployed, who, after receiving assistance, do nothing to improve their situation, and exclude them, that policy already exists for unemployment insurance. But, here I'm referring only to the permanently disadvantaged, those who are unable to work or care for themselves, and whatever the reason that caused their situation, whether it was their fault or not, is irrelevant. You are saying it is relevant and if it is their fault your policy would be to deny them care, and that is cruel.

What is unbelievable is that it has to be explained to you, but apparently, it does.

 

1) When you REMOVE the consequences of actions (by masking their effect), you are 100% interferring in the natural learning arc that all mammals must complete, in order to be fully functional 'pack members'. What you need to ask yourself, is WHY a Govt would be invested in denying citizens that learning curve? Why would a Govt want you to reach adulthood, with such a huge obstacle to full agency and empowerment?

2) Exactly. The things that matter most, are suspiciously absent from the plan. That's how we know there is something underhanded going on. To allow such a departure from moral justice and empowering of the people, can only be for sinister reasons.

3) All it takes is forewarning to be entirely just and morally right. When we all know the parameters well ahead of adulthood, any choices we make will thus be fully informed. People will be entirely free to choose for themselves, without interference. Those who want to be able to access public assistance if they ever need it, will live accordingly. Those who aren't sufficiently interested in securing that access, won't live accordingly. It's a SELF POLICING system, and therefore absolutely democratic and sound.

 

Again, these are your anecdotal suppositions of what you think reality is.

Such things, lifestyle choices, are irrelevant not how medicaid, and related policies, are achieved.

And the reason is simple; if yours was the case, then who would be the arbiter of what correct lifestyles are?

You see? You can't run a liberal program that way.

 

I suppose you can look at that way. Donation wise, Wall Street, finance, insurance, real estate firms donated 253 million to Biden, 103 million to Trump. Lobbyist and lawyers 62 million to Biden, 8 million to Trump

https://www.opensecrets.org/2020-presidential-race/sector-totals?sector=K

Then there's those who make more than 100,000, 40% view the Democratic Party favorably, 53% unfavorably vs. 31% of those who make more than 100,000 viewing the Republican Party favorably, 64% unfavorably.

https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/j46zs8picp/econTabReport.pdf

I would say the rich do favor the Democratic Party. Then when you take into consideration that the Democrats spend 6.9 billion to the Republicans 3.8 billion on the 2020 presidential race, perhaps you're right. 41.5% of that came from large individual donors.

https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2020/10/cost-of-2020-election-14billion-update/

 

1) There is only one reality - and it's the reality of cause and effect. Actions have consequences, etc.

2) No idea what that means, sorry. Try saying it again in English.

3) Who is the arbiter of mortgage applications? Anyone with half a brain can put together a plan. But if you want to know what the actual criteria would look like .. you only have to look at mortgage criteria to get a general idea. They (mortgage lenders) want to see a solid history of financial responsibility. They certainly don't want to see that you've immediately spent every cent that ever made it to your hands, with no demonstrable effort made to put aside even a few dollars a week over a sustained period of time. After all, even the poorest American is wasting dollars on things like fast food and beer, so it's not as though people can claim they had no choice! And it's not about being 'correct', it's about demonstrating that you're a good investment.

 

You are asserting that your suppositions, fanciful musings about reality, equal 'cause and effect'.

Nah, not really, still the same suppositions, anecdotal reasoning, fancifuls musing about what you think is reality.

Again, and I repeat, entitlement policy cannot be based on such things.

 

Trump and the GOP gave the corporations a PERMANENT tax cut, while giving the middle class a TEMPORARY tax cut.

 

Are you literally denying that cause/effect exist? Physics, etc?

Wow.

 

Not at all, But you are making assumptions and suppositions on what the causes/effects are.

The debate is on what the cause and effects are. That is where you are wrong.