this post was submitted on 30 Sep 2023
367 points (98.4% liked)

United States | News & Politics

7153 readers
548 users here now

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] carl_dungeon@lemmy.world 154 points 1 year ago (28 children)

It’s weird how all the things fucking up our country have been Republican lead- it’s almost like they don’t have people’s, or the country’s best interests at heart? Crazy coming from such flag waving patriots…

[–] tryptaminev@feddit.de 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Making sure, that Putins and Xis interests are protected... The Republican party is evidently chilling for Russia and at least by coalignment helping China tremendously too. How these traitors are not rotting in prison cells is beond my understanding. But well at least it is entertaining to watch from afar.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (27 replies)
[–] Shdwdrgn@mander.xyz 74 points 1 year ago (5 children)

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

[–] InverseParallax@lemmy.world 58 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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 23 points 1 year ago (1 children)

"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.

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.

[–] thefartographer@lemm.ee 8 points 1 year ago

Now that's just good business

[–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] InverseParallax@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Yes, but to be fair, they were personally saved by Jesus Christ, so how DARE you judge them!!!

[–] rynzcycle@kbin.social 19 points 1 year ago

Govmit better keep their hands off my social security check!

[–] keepcarrot@hexbear.net 14 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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

[–] ProxyTheAwesome@hexbear.net 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year 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.

[–] D61@hexbear.net 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] ProxyTheAwesome@hexbear.net 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year 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.

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@hexbear.net 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

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.

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 23 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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!

[–] Wilshire@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] thefartographer@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] GarbageShoot@hexbear.net 21 points 1 year ago (10 children)

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.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] Tankiedesantski@hexbear.net 8 points 1 year ago
[–] ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Anarchists: "Shutdown"

Air Quotes

load more comments
view more: next ›