Because they are ideologically committed to government being ineffective. Anything that increases the effectiveness of any kind of government complicates the narrative. Surely they can find some way to help out rich people and/or white people to an equivalent degree without helping government.
Will the new checks say "From Joe Biden"?
It's #1 but not just #1. Most people think politicians don't care about people like them, and that whoever is in charge their lives won't change much. I think these beliefs are stupid and wrong. I also think this kind of thinking serves the GOP well structurally. If tens of millions of people get real substantial help from the government, they are less likely to be politically apathetic. Also since the government is not like a household and can create money to solve problems the GOP doesn't want people to become generally aware of this fact.
It's because they would rather starve every child in the country than see one nickel go to "those" people.
It's as simple as that.
I've had dirt-poor students in my class explaining to me how WIC and food stamps were wrong, because "those people" have babies just so they can get the money; or how universal health care was a terrible idea because "those people" live on Cheetos and meth.
(Everyone knows it's actually Funyuns and meth, of course.)
Yes, and it's not just "those people." Trump is supposed to make people like me suffer, so cities get nothing. Except it didn't work for that. Except for emotionally.
Even in red states/cities, they want to lay off more of the public workforce which they see as a burden / too unionized, and this gives them the opportunity.
There are many red cities either. Mostly just cities in states where less of the population of urban.
Not big cities, I suppose. So, Republican minorities in actual cities, and Republican "majorities" in state houses both wanting to force it.
State government budgets go mostly to public education and Medicaid, right? The conclusion seems obvious.
10: also pensions and salaries for gov't employees.
Best I can tell, it's about ideological commitment to wrecking public pension plans, but it's a pretty convoluted way to get there. Especially when a substantial portion of the financial problems in public pensions are caused by overly generous early retirement benefits, especially for the police and firefighters that Republicans claim to love.
I think they're proven themselves pretty adept at exempting "public safety" when they slash compensation of public employees? The latter still tends to be politically risky, though, so they like to have cover.
Aren't there more people living in blue cities than red cities? So overall they'd still be screwing over more dem voters?
13: But if you wreck the pension plan, that hits everybody.
If you are over 70 and wreck the pension plan for people twenty years younger than you, it's free money.
16: Not if you wreck it so completely that you get a Detroit-style failure, which seems to be what they're shooting for. It's really important to establish that no working person anywhere can have long-term security.
The future belongs to the children.
Every last centrist can go fuck themselves. Including Pelosi.