• Shdwdrgn@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    71
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    9 months ago

    I wonder how many of their supporters have already forgotten that welfare checks won’t be sent out either?

    • InverseParallax@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      61
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      9 months ago

      Their supporters aren’t on welfare, that’s for freeloaders.

      Their supporters are all on SSDI because they have back pain from being overweight, and they can both cash the social security checks (which come out of a different section of the budget) and as a bonus they can sell any oxy pills they don’t snort.

      • SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        24
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        “everyone else are freeloaders. I actually need the support I get though!”

        smh, it would have been funny if it isn’t such a common mentality.

        • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          9 months ago

          I wish we could just cut the BS and do something like UBI or NIT. The welfare system is so complex that understanding it is a job in itself, and I really can’t understanding how the poor navigate it. Just give them cash, and phase it out as they earn more.

      • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        9 months ago

        can sell any oxy pills they don’t snort.

        God I basically know a town made up of these people. Then they have to trade back pills for pill counts, crazy lifestyle those people live.

    • keepcarrot [she/her]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      How many republican supporters are on welfare? I realise there’s a stereotype of white trailer trash, but what are the numbers like?

      • ProxyTheAwesome [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        GOP voters are richer on average than DNC voters, who are richer on average than non-voters. I believe the breakdown of annual income was something like non-voters $35k, DNC voters $60k, GOP voters $80k. The vast majority of “trailer trash” don’t vote and are just a punching bag for rich liberals so they don’t have to confront their rich small business owner class-allies who actually make up the core of the GOP.

        It’s funny that people’s stereotype of the GOP is either of dirt poor trailer trash reactionaries, or uber-rich Koch billionaires when the reality is that DNC is the party of billionaires and haute bourgies and the ultra-poor have no party. GOP is the party of the petty bourgies, the landlords, small business owners, home owners and labor aristocrats - the “middle class”. GOP so controls the conversations that Americans all believe “small business owner” and “home owner” are benevolent sacred things, but in fact it is the source of much evil. Democrats are afraid to attack the middle class and the GOP for being petty fascist crooks and mini-tyrannical monsters they are because their own party contains the haute imperialist crooks and the mega-tyrannical monsters.

        • ProxyTheAwesome [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          Yes, red states also have massive black populations and poor populations and have very low voter turnout. The poor people with entitlements and low tax output aren’t the ones voting for the GOP en masse, they’re just checked out and the ruling middle-upper class reigns unopposed. This is what happens when you abandon major sections of the population, they check out when they keep getting betrayed. The poor are struggling and uneducated, they do not buy into the institutions or feel compelled to do their rituals.

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        That depends on how you define “welfare.”

        This article looks at food assistance:

        Of these, about one-in-five (22%) of Democrats say they had received food stamps compared with 10% of Republicans. About 17% of political independents say they have received food stamps.

        This article looks at entitlements generally:

        While the two parties are sharply divided over entitlement spending, the differences in the proportions of Republicans and Democrats who have received entitlements is fairly modest: 60% of Democrats, 52% of Republicans and 53% of independents have benefited from one of these six major classes of federal entitlement programs.

        So at least from those two studies, Democrats use welfare more than Republicans. The “red states get more welfare funding” notion can be understood to mean that the poor in those states probably vote Democrat and use lots of federal welfare.

        Here’s another article from another source:

        Hardly surprising, we see that in a two-party split, 60-80% of welfare recipients are Democrats, while full time Workers are evenly divided between parties.

    • ProxyTheAwesome [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      welfare checks barely exist anymore, thanks to both democrats and republicans in the 90s and their “welfare reform”. Are you talking about disability, unemployment, pensions, social security, EBT or medicaid/medicare? Many of these are not even “welfare” but essentially insurance payouts on things that those people paid the premiums/contributions for and are entitled to.

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Wouldn’t all government welfare be “insurance” since they’re funded with tax dollars? Even if you’re not a net tax payer, you’re still paying your fair share as defined by the tax code.

        So I really don’t understand that line of discussion. Whether you’re getting Social Security or food assistance, it’s welfare. I don’t care if you need it or not, if you’re getting a benefit from the government, I consider it all the same thing.

        Imo, we should combine most of the various government benefits into a single check you get based on your income. Here’s my plan:

        • if you make nothing, you are brought up to the poverty line
        • if you make under a living wage (say, 2x the poverty line), you get a benefit on a sliding scale based on income
        • if you make over a living wage, you get no benefit

        This would replace the EITC, Social Security, food assistance programs, etc, though probably not Medicare/Medicaid.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    9 months ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    WASHINGTON, Sept 29 (Reuters) - Hardline Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives on Friday rejected a bill proposed by their leader to temporarily fund the government, making it all but certain that federal agencies will partially shut down beginning on Sunday.

    The defeat left Republicans - who control the chamber by 221-212 - without a clear strategy to avert a shutdown that would close national parks, disrupt pay for up to 4 million federal workers and hobble everything from financial oversight to scientific research if funding is not extended past 12:01 a.m.

    U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said on Friday that a government shutdown would “undermine” U.S. economic progress by idling programs for small businesses and children and could delay major infrastructure improvements.

    Holdouts say Congress should focus on writing detailed spending bills that would cover the entire fiscal year, rather than temporary extensions, even if doing so prompts a shutdown.

    “We’re in the middle of a Republican civil war that has been going on for months, and now threatens a catastrophic government shutdown,” top House Democrat Hakeem Jeffries told reporters.

    McCarthy and Biden in June agreed to a deal that would have set agency spending at $1.59 trillion in fiscal 2024, but hardliners like Gaetz say that figure should be $120 billion lower.


    The original article contains 714 words, the summary contains 215 words. Saved 70%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

  • GarbageShoot [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    9 months ago

    It’s a good thing Democrat leaders like Joe and Pelosi have made sure to voice their support for the existence of a “strong Republican Party.” It is definitely good to keep them around to do helpful things like this rather than try to stamp them out.

    • ProxyTheAwesome [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      9 months ago

      They are shutting down the government to stop money to Ukraine, so in this one particular example it just happens to be kind of good they can do this. Most of the time it isn’t.

      • D61 [any]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        9 months ago

        Down side is, it will also stop money going to lots of other things, services for marginalized people are going to be reduced.

        • ProxyTheAwesome [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          Yeah such is American politics. Nothing can be by itself, and nothing can be simple. It all has to be riddled with contradictions, with shit injected into the middle of something good to confuse the masses and keep everyone divided. Anything good will be co-opted and used by the system to whitewash something bad, muddying everything into a permanent morass. Rainbow imperialism is a great example on the other end of the spectrum, something the Democrats cynically use. Republicans do a weird faux-populist faux-isolationism, but their critiques are always that we should invade some other place (like Mexico or China or Iran) which is incoherent and not truly anti-imperialist.

      • Vode An@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        9 months ago

        It really says a lot that the democrats care more about feeding conscripts to artillery than keeping WIC afloat. The CR without the Ukraine aid would have prevented a lot of suffering.

  • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    19
    ·
    9 months ago

    You know the Democrats could have stopped the government from shutting down forever by getting rid of the dumb accounting rules and passing something like the Stop STUPIDITY act in 2019, or similiar bills during Obama’s terms. But For some reason they just didn’t want to, almost like they don’t really care that funding keeps getting disrupted, or that abortion is getting banned or any of the things we all see the the government doing.