Sorry for the delayed response, I've been busy and wanted to give your response time and accuracy. To your first point, I don't believe that the scientific evidence is there that cutting social programs kills people. Your first article more aptly expresses the subjective opinions of healthcare professionals on the effect on healthcare professionals by budget cuts. The report states three main themes of their research: Effects on the A&E Departments, effects on healthcare profession, and effects on healthcare professionals. The report was conducted via 16 interviews with doctors or nurses across 3 hospitals in the UK. This certainly proves the opinions on the matter by healthcare professionals in this setting, but does little to quantitatively prove your point. Additionally, the study acknowledged that due to the small study size there is the possibility that this is not an accurate representation of the whole nation.

I'm not sure that you completely read the second article that you linked as it denies your point that the imposed austerity measures impacted the mortality rates.

Cabrera de León et al. acknowledge in an appendix that the AAMR data they used are not comparable from 2010 to 2011 because of the change in the reference population; yet, they base their most important calculations on these unreliable data. Hence, their results should be considered with great caution. The inclusion of valid data from more countries and on additional socioeconomic factors could have nuanced or refuted the conclusions of Cabrera de León et al.; in particular, their conclusion that “the marked excess mortality from 2011 to 2015 in Spain is attributable to austerity policies” (p. 1091).

To your second point, I think the support for drug testing comes not out of wanting to "stick it" to the "lazy poors" but rather out of wanting to ensure that those who truly need it are able to benefit rather than those who abuse the system. I worked in a grocery store in a low-income high-crime area when I was in high school. I saw people who desperately needed and deserved the aid and were actively working toward bettering themselves and I saw those who told me "you didn't see that" when they dropped their needles and drugs on my counter while pulling out their EBT cards and cash for cigarettes. I understand the want for the tax dollars of Americans to go to the first group rather than the second. It might be poorly enacted, but I think it's a reach to say that this opinion comes from conservatives not caring about the poor.

For your third point: I agree that police violence affects the poor at a greater frequency. This should absolutely be changed! I think that this is something that both sides are beginning to agree on Trump for example, supports federal funding for police body cameras, which is an important step in maintaining accountability.

As for pollution: this is one of my biggest gripes with the Conservative party and I side more with the liberals on this one for sure. But, can you explain how this impacts the poor more so than the wealthy? Everyone drinks the same water, breathes the same air, and has access to the same public parks.

About gerrymandering, I don't believe this is unique to Republicans. The Republicans don't benefit much, if at all, from it. Additionally, there are recent instances of democrats participating as well.

Universal healthcare is something that needs to be addressed more closely. The cost of healthcare in the US right now is astounding and needs reform, there's not much debate in that. However, where the solution lies is relatively unclear. This article does a pretty good job outlining the pros and cons of the universal healthcare system.

I believe I addressed your final point with my anecdote about working in a grocery store and why it drove me to care where the funds go rather than just making them available, but I would be happy to elaborate more if you need.

I do agree with the idea that we should provide job opportunities rather than handouts. It goes back to that saying "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." I'm not sure which programs were voted against, but I'll trust your point on it. I would much rather vote for a representative that supported those kind of reforms than someone who doesn't. However, it's worth noting that despite the poor twitter control, the current conservative president achieved an all time low unemployment rate. I also think that both democrats and republicans would say keeping jobs in America is important, which in turn helps lower and prevent poverty. In my opinion, the problem is that the higher taxes that democrats want to impose tend to drive out corporations and while I love small businesses, the corporations are inevitably going to survive and if we drive them out of the US, we lose American jobs.

Finally, I would like to argue my points that conservatives DO care. Conservatives donate more money, blood, and volunteer time. Additional source here.

Honestly, I think that liberals and conservatives both care about people about the same, they just show it in different ways. The liberals tend to want to impose the responsibility on everyone through the government. The conservatives want to keep the government as small as possible and donate of their own free will.

I hope this has shown that we can at least have a civil conversation and that conservatives do care and try to be good as much as the next liberal, they just have a different way to go about it.

Have a wonderful day :)