Looks like Paul Ryan has had a relapse back in to out of control rampant Randism running amok within him, nothing like the CPAC conference to bring out the best in people:
Ryan insisted that liberals were only offering people “a full stomach and an empty soul.”
He then told a story of a “young boy from a very poor family” who received free lunches at school “from a government program.”
“He didn’t want a free lunch,” Ryan insisted. “He wanted his own lunch, one in a brown paper bag, just like the other kids.”
“He wanted one, he said, because he knew a kid with a brown paper bag had someone who cared for him. This is what the left does not understand.”What era is this guy even talking about? "brown bags"????? Helllo! Ryan! Its 2014!
Schools today have cafeterias and hot lunches this guy doesn't even know what the heck is even going on in the country.
Story at Raw Story.
5 comments:
Sure, many poor people don't like the social stigma of public assistance, and would like to possess the things that instead signify that they are not poor. If Ryan has a plan to hire and employ all of those poor parents at honest jobs earning good wages, then lets hear it. Otherwise he should shut his bratty little face.
Not only does this story make him look like an ass, its not even true! WaPo reporting he heard it from a friend, who mis-read it in a childrens book: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/03/06/a-story-too-good-to-check-paul-ryan-and-the-story-of-the-brown-paper-bag/?hpid=z3
This whole thing is too stupid to believe. I thought Ryan had hit rock bottom when his marathon time was only off by an hour...
Justin to me the tip-off was the "brown bag" reference... I am by no means a young person anymore but even when I went to school we had hot lunches back in the 70's and 80's...
So you see "brown bag" here and right there we (should) know something is rotten with the whole thing.... all false.
Similar to Al Simpson with all of his metaphors all the time... these are tip-offs in the patterns of language that we should be able to see with all of these false people...
And btw there is imo a 'racial overtone' to this story from Ryan here... if you went to him and said: "But Ryan, moron, what about children of single parents? Dont they have enough problems in those families without advocating they shouldnt even get food?" and he imo would probably say something like: "Well no that is not what I mean here!" but then the question remains: What
DO you mean then? ....
This is like "the welfare Queen" metaphor he is using here where he is now extending the metaphor by now accusing "the Queen" of "not even caring about her children" type thing... there is a subtle racism at work under all of this imo...
rsp,
Not being able to feed yourself is powerful symbolically, and while disgusting to be seen as using it, both parties need to examine their policies and the poverty they are creating. And underclass of people that can not feed themselves might make you feel good to point at that other party but it indicates the government is failing and should not provide comfort to partisans that their side is right and the other guy is just an ignorant a-hole. We're getting a pointless shia-sunni type culture of conflict in America. This is the apex of the culture of Democrat exclusion. California intentionally builds fewer houses than can house their population. They protect and promote only the industries that serve millionaires and 'good middle class' people. It is supposed to keep everyone better off, if you believe the university sales pitches. This is the pinnacle and as close as you can get to a perfect political implementation of New Democrat government. From trade, taxes, to investment, to housing, agriculture, environment, cultural worship of the elite, this is the place where everything is controlled by harvard/standford's best and brightest liberal minds and the statistics aren't pretty. I'd call it a relentless pursuit of good middle class jobs, sorry to steal the trademark, Lexus. A stupid thing to say by Ryan. But when a liberal politician opens their big gob and talks about more of the same, it sounds as equally stupid to those they oppress. Both parties are morons that don't give a toss about people, but about how to come up with some new spin to maintain the defunct status quo and yet get elected.
Romney's "47 %" is revealing. Of course, Mitt Romney didn't come up with that himself. It's a political meme of interest politics about targeting the majority that carries elections. The implication is that 53% of the population or makers is carrying the other 47% of moochers.
The implication is that if the other party is allowed to buy the votes of the moochers with welfare, then the party that represents the makers will never win.
This harkens to Marx's analysis of the class structure of haute bourgeoisie (capitalist and rentiers) petite bourgeoisie ( ordinary middle class) and the proletariat (poor workers unable to save from their meager wages). The haute bourgeoisie can only maintain power by convincing the petite bourgeoisie to support their rule, even though their real economic interest is with the proletariat.
As more and more of the petite bourgeoisie falling into the proletariat or see themselves threaten with falling into it, it gets harder and harder for the haute bourgeoisie to maintain control. Then more extreme measures have to be resorted to, like lying, obstructionism, vote suppression, and the like.
Interestingly, I was just reading a letter to the editor in the local paper questioning capitalism and criticizing a distribution system that fails "87%" of the population.
You read that correctly. 87% rather than 47%. Plus the paper printed it, which is surprising in itself. People are getting upset with the system.
Post a Comment