Turning The Ballot Box Against Republicans

It has everything to do with this discussion. You're just blind to the facts of how political parties influence our country.

Here; get some education on how political parties influence our lives.
https://phys.org/news/2012-09-political-parties.html

If House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) has anything to do with it, the next step for Congress will be cutting welfare programs that benefit low-income Americans — a move that is not particularly popular with the American public, including the congressman's own party.

The Washington Post's Jeff Stein reported earlier this month that congressional Republicans will aim next year to reduce spending on both federal health care and anti-poverty programs, citing the need to reduce the federal deficit.

“We're going to have to get back next year at entitlement reform, which is how you tackle the debt and the deficit,” Ryan said during an appearance on Ross Kaminsky's talk radio show. "... Frankly, it's the health-care entitlements that are the big drivers of our debt, so we spend more time on the health-care entitlements — because that's really where the problem lies, fiscally speaking.”

Ryan said on Fox News last week that House Republicans will attempt to trim the federal deficit by cutting spending on Medicare, Medicaid and welfare programs:

“We're going to get back at reforming these entitlements. And we're going to take on welfare reform, which is another big entitlement program, where we're basically paying people, able-bodied people, not to work and depriving them with all these disincentives from going to the workforce. This good economy we're going to get out of this, this faster-growing economy, is going to produce higher wages and more demand for good-paying jobs. And that's what's good — so ... it's the perfect time to do welfare reform to ease the path for people who wanted to work.”

But Ryan may face an obstacle with this, considering just how unpopular decreasing funding for programs helping low-income Americans may be.

Only 12 percent of American adults want to see President Trump and Congress decrease spending for Medicaid, according to a survey conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation. Four in 10 preferred to increase Medicaid spending. And nearly half — 47 percent — want funding levels to remain the same.

Perhaps Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) knows this, which is why he told Axios that he “would not expect to see” welfare reform on the agenda for 2018.

“I think Democrats are not going to be interested in entitlement reform, so I would not expect to see that on the agenda. What the Democrats are willing to do is important because in the Senate, with rare exceptions like the tax bill, we have to have Democratic involvement,” McConnell said.

But getting Democrats on board may be the least of Republican lawmakers' concerns, considering how little Republican voters support decreased funding for those programs.

According to data from the Pew Research Center, only 15 percent of Republicans support decreasing funding for Medicare, the federal health insurance program primarily for people 65 or older. And only 10 percent of Republicans support decreased funding for Social Security, an entitlement program primarily benefiting older Americans after retirement.

Given that the majority of Americans over 65 voted for Trump in the 2016 election, according to Washington Post exit polls, this may be something GOP leaders want to keep in mind.

And in general, fewer than 4 in 10 Republicans — 37 percent — support making cuts to America's “needy.” While Trump did not win working-class Americans as a whole, he did beat Democratic rival Hillary Clinton with white working-class voters by 39 percentage points, according to exit polls.

Congress is experiencing lower approval ratings than Trump, who has some of the worst ratings of any president at this time in history. Fewer than 20 percent of Americans approve of the job Congress is doing, according to Gallup. With the 2018 midterm elections approaching — and with some Republican National Committee officials already concerned about the party's relationship with voters — Ryan leading his party forward with entitlement reform could cause significant political harm.

Impressive, you found 2 people on the wealthiest persons list who didn't support her [Hillary]. The other top 10,

A few rich stars? How deep in the sand in your head, a majority of the hollywood elite are indeed left leaning wacko's

So who the hell is talking about the top 10 wealthiest individuals? Only you.

I've been talking about the top 1% of the wealth owners. Simplistic as you are, you somehow think you can shrink the top 1% of the entire country down to 10 people, see how those 10 people feel politically, and poof!

you know how the entire top 1% thinks and votes.

Look at this way-Trump just pushed and signed a tax law which vastly favors the top wealth owners

and ends healthcare for the working poor and lower middle class.

Now who do you think favored that bill?

Like the police say, when you investigate a crime, first figure out who benefitted from it the most, then work back. Try it sometime.

And the entire Hollywood elite are a tiny percentage of the top 1% wealth holders. Think, Baldimo, you have to learn to think. How many people do you know make their living by acting? Probably none. How many do you know are involved in the production of major feature films? Probably none. Yet you dwell on that industry as representing the top 1%. For all your attempts at portraying yourself as a political commentator, you're just like the housewives who spends their time watching all those "what's up with the celebs" shows that flood TV, looking to funnel a little bit of a glamorous industry into their lives. The only difference between them and you is the housewives know it's all fluff and fantasy, while you try to build political theories around Hollywood and post them here. Grow up already.

I mentioned the Koch Bros. only after you had multiply posted that the top 10 wealthiest individuals favored Democrats. Once again, you try to get people to ignore the fact that the wealthiest 1% of the country are taking a greater and greater share of the country's wealth for themselves-from 24% in 1980 to 43% in 2012. In response, you have posted multiple times about how many people are in the 1%, when the simple answer is one out of a hundred people. Now the latest dodge from you is the "Hollywood elite", a miniscule portion of the 1%. One need not be famous to be wealthy and powerful, so the "Hollywood Elite" nonsense you come up with in no way addresses the issue of how much more the wealthy take of the nation's wealth every year, year after year.

At this rate the top 1% is gobbling up the country's wealth from all other economic classes, they will own 99% of the country's wealth in forty years. And all you can post in response is boy we really should do something about those liberals in Hollywood.

The liberals in Hollywood aren't cutting taxes for the wealthiest like the new tax bill does, and it doesn't undermine the financial underpinnings of universal healthcare, the mandate, so the program collapses.

What comes next, are you going to cut out the mandate for Social Security and Medicare too, so that those programs collapse? I'm sure you are trying to, in fact the conservatives already tried to when Bush 43 was president with his attempt to allow Social Security payments to be diverted into personal savings accounts, which would bankrupt the system in a couple of years.

Conservatives are not going to satisfied until all protections for workers are gone and all the New Deal programs which brought prosperity to the great majority of Americans are repealed. You are tireless in that regard.

And you clearly don't care if 1% wealthiest of the country ends up with 99% of the wealth,

which is where we are headed by 2058 if somebody doesn't do something quick.