Socialism for the Rich and Capitalism for the Poor !

Cuddles said:
I've been done w/the GOP for a while and was done w/most when they were done w/democracy in 2020. So when I read about a bill like this, I think, oh another "performative BS" bill and it automatically goes on a scale.

On one side, realistically how much spending is this saving? How many jobs is this going to add? What will be the poverty/hunger increase vs not touching it?

On the other side I weigh the value of the politics in headlines. "GOP fights Bidenflation by curving reckless green new deal woke agenda", "Marxist dems vote against inflationary spending", "Dems entitlement policies are dragging this country down".

sux I see it that way but I didn't start it. FWIW, Dude seems far from the worst:
https://accountability.gop/profile/rep-dusty-johnson/
More...
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/25/us/politics/republicans-debt-limit-talks-biden.html

upload_2023-5-27_12-28-17.png

upload_2023-5-27_12-28-43.png
 
Darc said:
That last part is a concern "funds to be stripped from the IRS". Tax fraud is already rampant isn't it. That'll open the flood gates. Trump et al will love that.
More...
It's basically rolling back one of the few good things of the infra bill. The funding to go after 400k+ earning tax evaders. AKA, redistributing funds to the top earners.
 
Bubbles float, after the SVB collapse a scapegoat was created and allot of debt can be washed out. The elite ingroup dynamics are quite interesting. The only issue is kicking the can down the road will eventually play right into a Sino Centric Globalization.

Akuma
 
upload_2023-6-16_2-28-1.png


eh, why not....the WH predictably gave in on raising the age for SNAP benefits to little objection during the debt ceiling "negotiations". Go for broke!

Cuddles said:
let me make it less cryptic.

Short version: Benefits should not be tied to age of retirement if the age of death is not the same across the board. If someone is expected to die sooner due to income, they ought to have access to benefits sooner.

Long version: Time. If life were fair, we'd all get the same allotment and enjoyment. Life isn't fair, you get cancer, timeline's cut short. We're a democracy, one person, one vote, "all men are created equal", equal protection under the law (lol), yada, yada, yada....by extension gov attempts to make people's time equitable. You see it in punishment under the law (in theory), compensation in judgments (to some degree as income comes in play).

You can't make time so we monetize it instead. You give me your time, I give you a salary. We often talk about "redistribution of wealth" but we never really discuss "redistribution of time". If I cut a group of people's schooling/education or healthcare or wages to move to private industry, it's not just money you cut, you cut that group's ability to make informed decisions on nutrition and health practices (annual checkups, sex ed, time in the gym you can't afford due to OT from cut wages) and ability to extend their time line. I said you can't make time but you can buy it. If I'm wealthier as a result of the aforementioned, I can buy myself some more years by affording an hr to go to the gym, healthier food, better schooling, better lawyers to get me less time incarcerated, better docs....etc.

So we don't just have income inequality but a lifetime disparity. Since we're unwilling to fix it, then it makes sense to make benefits weight adjusted by age to address it. Having the same cutoff for all when the average lifetime is not just means aggravating time inequality.

Gov. can address both quantity and quality of life....quality is subjective and paradoxically the poors have higher satisfaction (must be all those unhealthy habits making life worth living) but quantity, quantity is easy.

*puts roach down*
More...

upload_2023-6-16_2-38-45.png


upload_2023-6-16_2-39-55.png

upload_2023-6-16_2-40-44.png

upload_2023-6-16_2-41-20.png
 
Last edited:
newwurldmn said:
I’m a liberal through and through but I actually agree with this. In America today, any able bodied person can get a job.

The bill targets people who aren’t encumbered by kids.
62 is the retirement age for every other facet of life, it shouldn’t be different for this program.

finally, in a period where there is a labor shortage it’s dumb for the government to subsidize able bodied people to not work.
The article made it sound like they were targeting single moms and were trying to starve kids, but they aren’t.

I also am glad that the fed bailed out depositors. You have nowhere else to put your money and depositors have little say on how a bank is run. I do believe in stricter bank regulation.
More...
%%
SAME here;
except I'm a Christian conservative.
''Block poor people from getting food stamps ??''=Only if they are too lazy to work:D:D
 
The social elites will never change their perception of superiority. Eventually they will be replaced by GAI (General Artificial Intelligence). Narcissistic hypocrisy has worked for some time for the course of human civilization's history. With the ism's that exist, logic is infallible.
When full globalization has been actualized odds are it be a Sino Centric world order. Some cultures are just more patient and wise.

Akuma
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top