Friday, July 13, 2012

The Social Pathology of Virginia Foxx

Question of the Day: If Virginia Foxx were confronted by a starving beggar blocking her access to, say, Walgreen’s, would she:

a. Kick him in the leg and demand that he move, pronto?

b. Call the Capitol Police and ask them to remove him, pronto?

c. Step over him, hitting him in the head with her big handbag as she went?

d. Cancel her visit to Walgreen’s and go sit in her car until someone else dealt with the beggar?

She habitually talks in public about how poor she was growing up, but her contempt for the poor suggests a cold lack of empathy. She’s rich, she’s bullying, she’s rude to people who get in her way, she seems completely devoid of compassion, fellow-feeling, human understanding, or sympathy.

When two Capitol interns blundered onto a “Members Only” elevator with Foxx, she was incensed: “The things we have to put up with around here!” she commented, as though her royal presence had been violated.

She votes her lack of empathy on the floor of the U.S. House and often opens her mouth to display a shocking lack of humanity. Her comment about Matthew Shepherd in front of the boy’s grieving mother is perhaps the most famous example of this, but it’s far from the only example.

Refusing to hold predatory credit card companies accountable for raising interest rates and adding new fees, Foxx said, “People who take out credit cards don’t have a gun to their head. If you don’t like the rate, get another credit card.” She instinctively channels Marie Antoinette with no sense of irony: "I don't see raising the minimum wage as helping American workers,” she told Roll Call in 2009.

Her bland failure of empathy hit almost operatic heights when she argued against predatory mortgage relief on the floor of the House in February 2010: “Most of these people who got these loans that are in trouble now got them because they never expected to pay them back. They expected somebody to bail them out. They weren’t honest when they did the loans, and now they are going to be bailed out by this legislation. Now it’s just unbelievable that that’s the attitude that people have. They could be getting help out of the [unintelligible] program that already exists, but they don’t do it because they don’t want to pay the money back and they don’t want to share the increase in value if they ever sell the home for the federal government which is underwriting their mortgage. I think again they’re living in a never-never land. They think that they’re due this money for free. They’ve been taught to live in a welfare society. We’re continuing the welfare mentality.”

That she doesn’t understand, and doesn’t care, about the thousands of honest, forward-looking, optimistic Americans who found themselves underwater on their mortgages, and who were led into those loans by hustling sharks – that she can brush them all aside as welfare kings and queens -- opens a window into her own impoverished soul.

She was famously one of a handful of Republicans who voted against any aid for the victims of Hurricane Katrina. Most recently, she actually voted to repeal a statute intended to provide health coverage to some 30 million Americans who would otherwise be uninsured.

She’s got a huge grudge she’s been carrying around all her life. No one ever helped her, goddamnit, and she’ll be goddamned and go to hell before she ever lifts a hand to help anyone else.


Liberal POV said...

Ms Foxx represents the Limbaugh & Koch Republicans very well as does Mr Soucek with a platform of no compassion, no logic, no facts, no math and no humanity.
The new series "Newsroom" on HBO addresses such politicians as characters in the show based on actual events in 2010 where the anchor deals in facts to inform society.

Anonymous said...

The first thing we do when we seize power from the Wall Street Bankgangters is have Virgina Foxx as their working HO in the slammer..

Anonymous said...

Remember boys and girls, success is evil. If you somehow make it and become wealthy it is not your own doing. You must put others before yourself and your family and repent, by giving away all but the minimum needed to survive.

If those who can not or will not work do not have as much as you then it is your duty to lower your standard of living to raise theirs.

If you do not do it voluntarily you will be forced with threat of imprisonment instead.

Anonymous said...

It was my understanding she DID, in fact, benefit for financial aid programs for poor students in order to pay for college. How quickly people forget their own histories.

Henery said...

Where she got her money: she married well.

Anonymous said...

Two out of three in this district support her. How do you explain that?

Anonymous said...

The only people I've heard or read saying that success is evil are the newfangled Republicans; interesting.

Anonymous said...

Henry, Is marrying someone who has money a bad thing? Or should you decline to marry someone you love because they had money or at least till they gave it all away ?

Carrie said...

Anon 1:17 PM

Its an injustice to say that we want to punish someone for doing good. That's BS, we do want people who are successful to realize that without all those "lower" people they'd be no where and perhaps not treat them like crap. Is that too much to ask?

Anonymous said...

Exactly what sucesful people are you reffering to that treat good people like crap? Who gets to decidee who is good and who is not?

Anonymous said...

Carrie, If i am successful in my business where i am a sole proprietor and get rich, how should i treat people.

I offer a service for a price. My customers choose to use that service or not.

How is that treating "lower" people like crap?

Anonymous said...

Carrie - the 2 posters after you apparently didn't read the blog entry before commenting on your comment. Don't worry about it - the rest of us know exactly what you mean.

Anonymous said...

"Two out of three in this district support her. How do you explain that?"

It's beyond explanation, but people must just vote for Republicans cause they are Republicans.

Or, her supporters hate government and their Medicare and the free rest homes their relatives wind up in.

Or her supporters are bigots like her; that's a lot of bigots, so that can't be the reason either.
Maybe her supporters believe the lies they are fed by her and her right-wing noise machine.
Why don't you tell us in a good letter why you support a Congressperson that has done nothing for her district, nothing...except a teapot museum.

Anonymous said...

Or her supporters are upstanding citizens and Patriots.

I do not need a letter to say she opposes Obamacare and abortion and is in favor of our Second amendment rights and voter I.D.. This is plenty to reason to support her.

Anonymous said...

If you get rich in your sole propietorship, do you pay your employees a living wage/health care? Or do you pay minimum wage (or a small amount above) because that is what the market allows?

Anonymous said...

You pay your employee what the job is worth as determined by the free market. This includes perks. If the job requires more money and perks to get qualified employees, then that is what will be offered. This creates incentive for employees to become more qualified and improve themselves. Artificially increasing the pay scale and cost of perks only leads to inflation and a devalued dollar so it is counter productive.

Anonymous said...

Does this mean that she will attempt to shut the new health departments her district are getting because of Obamacare or will she attempt to prevent the large poverty population in her district from receiving healthcare coverage in Obamacare, including preventative care that saves billions in the long run?
We know the answer, yes she will. She prefers our present healthcare system in which the working poor wait until their medical conditions grow so bad they end up at emergency rooms, costing more billions than Obamacare. I know those pancake breakfasts really get the job done for patients needing operations or expensive treatments for cancer.
Truth is, she votes constantly against the best interests of the poor and middle-class population she serves.

Why didn't she and President Bush, when they were in complete control in DC do away with abortion, make being gay a crime and pronounce that the Evangelical baptist church is the only religion in the U.S.?

Looks like your own party left you down when they had the chance.

BTY, you still have you gun don't you?

Anonagain said...

What I've never understood about Foxx and most conservative politicians (like McCain) is that they spend their careers telling us how bad government is and that government never does anything right, when THEY have been a part of that government for years and years. Foxx has spent her life working for government entities: ASU, Mayland CC, the state Senate, the US House. If government is so terrible and so evil, why does she want to be a part of it?

Anonymous said...

"You pay your employee what the job is worth as determined by the free market."

Does that include child labor?

Anonymous said...

anon 1009, child labor is when a minor has working papers and can legally work during preset hours by law. Which i did myself starting at 13.

If a service i offered could be done properly and legally with the right supervision to keep my insurance affordable, then I would hire who ever will do the job for what the market determines it is worth.

If a 13 year old or a 30 year old takes the job at the rate i offer them then that is what they get paid. No one is forced to work in my proprietorship.

Every employee i have ever had applied for the job of their own free will.

Anonymous said...

Cheap labor contributes to high profits. There is no moral imperative to include units of production into profit sharing. It is their responsibility to make themselves valuable, yet, expendable to the employer as profit requires.

Anonymous said...

It is evident Anonymous 2:31 has never had his own business. He does not understand the free market or how competition sets all prices on everything. If competition is influenced by governmental rules that increase costs, then the price of everything foes up. This is called inflation.

If the employer mistreats his employees, then the employees go elsewhere unless the economy has been destroyed as the Obama economic plan (or lack thereof) has accomplished.

Anonymous said...

1210, you describe yourself as a Robber Barron. Teddy Roosevelt dethroned people like you years ago, sadly, it's time you are dethroned again, greedy mot#$## Fu#@#$!

Not Really said...

Anon 2:31 said: "Cheap labor contributes to high profits. There is no moral imperative to include units of production into profit sharing. It is their responsibility to make themselves valuable, yet, expendable to the employer as profit requires."

And here we see where extreme right-wing views go so far over that they merge with extreme left-wing communist views: people as units of production. It's the same reprehensible, dehumanizing, even psychopathic reasoning.

Liberal POV said...

Successful societies with market economies should be based on equal three legged stools of profit, wages and consumer value.
The governments job keep the stool level.

Taxing when the profit leg is too long using such tax to increase the education of workers and mandating work place safety and organization.
Society does not work if the stool is out of level.

Anonymous said...

Anon 4:09 way to show an educated view on how business works. If one is successful they have to be a Robber Barron or M@#$%^ F*&^%$#?

Are you an employee or an employer?
I wonder if you would answer that honestly ?

Anonymous said...

Apparently few here understand the free market. This is not surprising in a pit of liberalism.

Liberal POV said...

Anonymous 4:31PM

"Apparently few here understand the free market. This is not surprising in a pit of liberalism."

We understand the difference between capitalism and predatory capitalism.

Bernie Madoff went to jail for cheating rich people, the others were playing by Wall Street rules and cheating the poor, the middle class, unions, workers, and the taxpayers, all fair game in the Romney world.

Anonymous said...

You do not understand the free market.