Republican SNAP Proposals Could Take Food Away From Millions of Low-Income Individuals and Families

[TruthNotBS]

You're dodging by trying to shift the spotlight onto their personal spending. You're a hypocrite who is grasping at any straw to justify your BS.

Their personal spending of money amassed by exploiting other people's labor, as a wealthy, totalitarian parasite that should go get a job. Mass production is a social process and endeavor not a private one.

Do you pay more than posted price for anything you buy? Then, yup, you're promoting what you are complaining about and pocketing the difference.

I don't exploit human labor for a profit, I am the one who is exploited by capitalists, being paid less than what I produce for them. As a consumer of goods and services, I pay the listed price, whatever that might be. So you're clearly confused and going off on a silly, incoherent tangent.

It is all relative. People who are working in the US are not merely surviving. LOL, people in a conservative 80% of the world would love to have the standard of living the US enjoys. Ask the Uyghurs in China about being exploited.

Many Americans are living paycheck to paycheck and are heavily in debt, with medical bills, student loans..etc. But the real issue here is democracy in the workplace, who owns and controls the means of production. China has its own set of unique problems, unrelated to ours.

--------------------- As far as the rest of your post..

You’re acting like the only thing that sets a low-wage candle-maker apart from someone like Gates is “skill.” That completely ignores how the system actually works. Gates didn’t just magically gain “marketable skills” overnight; he had major backing, starting with strong financial support and access to resources that most people never get. It’s easy to say, “Just build a better mousetrap,” but if you lack capital, connections, or time because you’re working two jobs to survive, that advice rings hollow.

Believing that wages reflect pure merit or skill also skips over the fact that tons of essential work, like childcare, caregiving, or food service, is paid scandalously little, even though society crumbles without it. If the market was truly fair, those crucial jobs would command far higher wages than they do. Yet they don’t, because “the market” isn’t an impartial judge of value; it’s shaped by who holds power, who sets wages, and how resources are distributed.

Exploitation is exactly what happens when a person’s labor produces more value than they’re paid for, like a store clerk who’s risking armed robbery at 3 a.m. while the owner pockets profits from a safe distance. Telling people to “just become a billionaire” ignores that most people can’t accumulate that level of wealth without underpaying others somewhere along the line, or leveraging major privileges that were never equally available.

Nobody’s whining. Questioning the fairness of a system that systematically undervalues some work while rewarding others outlandishly is not whining, it’s asking why a few benefit enormously from the efforts of many. If you believe in real fairness, you’d look beyond personal anecdotes about “just work harder” and face the structural realities that give some folks massive head starts over everyone else.

Moreover, we should have democracy or worker control in the workplace. The people who produce everything should have a say on how that business enterprise is run and collectively own and control what is produced.

 

[Concerned American]

I am the one who is exploited by capitalists, being paid less than what I produce for them.

If you don't think you're paid fairly then quit. What moron you are. How would any business ever make any money if they paid you what they charged for their product? There is overhead, regulations, taxes, materials etc that must be paid for. Take an economics class, fool.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Exploitation is exactly what happens when a person’s labor produces more value than they’re paid for

What percentage of their "value produced" should they get?

 

[TruthNotBS]

Capital is either produced by human labor or a government printing and spending. Hello?

Or by someone borrowing from a bank. So what?

Sir, we don't need them to create jobs. Their "fiefdoms" aren't the only source of employment. Haven't you been reading what I've been posting?

Yes, and I can barely get thru a sentence without laughing at your ignorance.

The cashier or stocker invests their labor power (presence, time, energy, their very lives), which produces something of value

And in exchange, they receive a paycheck, something of value.

Why would they do that? Privately owned and run businesses aren't the only source for jobs,

Right. The government could take money from the real businesses to hire a bunch of paper pushers.

Private property should be immediately abolished

DURR.

You’re pretending the only way to employ people is for some private owner to lord over them, which ignores the fact that co-ops and public enterprises absolutely do function. Worker-owned businesses exist all over the world , like the Mondragon Corporation in Spain, and they’ve been around for decades. They generate profits, provide stable jobs, and prove that people can collectively own and run a company without some billionaire holding the reins.

Your idea that a paycheck always represents “fair value” is just the usual trick of calling a bargain fair because someone agreed to it. If companies pay people less than the value they create, the rest goes to owners or shareholders who don’t clock in or risk their lives at the register. That’s not some grand stroke of fairness; it’s a built-in way to extract wealth from other people’s work.

Lumping all public employment into “paper pushing” shows a basic misunderstanding of how infrastructure gets built and services get delivered. Teachers, firefighters, transit workers, and countless other public employees do essential work that private businesses won’t or can’t handle profitably. Meanwhile, wages in the private sector don’t guarantee any real power for employees, because the boss calls every shot, if you don’t like it, you’re free to walk away, but that doesn’t mean you’ll find a better job.

In short, private business isn’t the only game in town, and a paycheck alone doesn’t magically erase the massive power imbalance between owners and workers. Claiming there’s no alternative just means you’re ignoring the real-world examples where people do things differently and thrive just fine without bowing to a handful of corporate elites.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If companies pay people less than the value they create, the rest goes to owners or shareholders who don’t clock in or risk their lives at the register.

If companies pay people exactly the value they produce, there is no reason for owners or shareholders to start the business.

If companies pay people more than the value they produce, they must be the government.

 

[TruthNotBS]

What percentage of their "value produced" should they get?

Asking for an exact percentage is a distraction from the deeper point: workers should receive enough compensation so they can thrive, not scrape by. That includes covering basic needs without resorting to food stamps, plus having a say in how the surplus is reinvested. A co-op model puts surplus earnings back into the business or the workers themselves, rather than funneling them up to distant owners or executives who don’t lift a finger in the day-to-day operations.

If the people doing the actual work can’t afford to feed their families without government assistance, clearly they aren’t getting a fair share of the value they produce. When they own and run the enterprise, however, they collectively decide how to distribute profits and make decisions that benefit everyone, not just a privileged few.

In a typical arrangement, employers claim the right to keep whatever’s left after paying wages, so workers never see the true fruits of their labor. The point isn’t to pinpoint an exact figure; it’s recognizing workers should have enough to live well and have a voice in directing the enterprise they make profitable every single day.

Paychecks shouldn’t be scraps just because the market says so. If employees collectively generate wealth, they deserve more than the bare minimum. That’s how we ensure people can actually participate in the economy, rather than waiting in line for government aid while someone else pockets the surplus they created.

 

[TruthNotBS]

If companies pay people exactly the value they produce, there is no reason for owners or shareholders to start the business.

If companies pay people more than the value they produce, they must be the government.

Put the surplus back into the company, to benefit and serve the people who are producing everything = workers.

 

[Concerned American]

Worker-owned businesses exist all over the world , like the Mondragon Corporation in Spain, and they’ve been around for decades. They generate profits, provide stable jobs, and prove that people can collectively own and run a company without some billionaire holding the reins.

You're advocating for income equality. LMAO. Good luck with that. I worked in a large company in a skilled position that took years to learn and become proficient in. I worked side by side with unskilled workers that depalletized empty boxes. If I understand your uneducated point correctly--you believe they should make the same compensation as I had without any of the knowledge. Good luck with that.

 

[Concerned American]

Put the surplus back into the company, to benefit and serve the people who are producing everything = workers.

Run along comrade. I am not a communist.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Asking for an exact percentage is a distraction from the deeper point: workers should receive enough compensation so they can thrive, not scrape by. That includes covering basic needs without resorting to food stamps, plus having a say in how the surplus is reinvested. A co-op model puts surplus earnings back into the business or the workers themselves, rather than funneling them up to distant owners or executives who don’t lift a finger in the day-to-day operations.

If the people doing the actual work can’t afford to feed their families without government assistance, clearly they aren’t getting a fair share of the value they produce. When they own and run the enterprise, however, they collectively decide how to distribute profits and make decisions that benefit everyone, not just a privileged few.

In a typical arrangement, employers claim the right to keep whatever’s left after paying wages, so workers never see the true fruits of their labor. The point isn’t to pinpoint an exact figure; it’s recognizing workers should have enough to live well and have a voice in directing the enterprise they make profitable every single day.

Paychecks shouldn’t be scraps just because the market says so. If employees collectively generate wealth, they deserve more than the bare minimum. That’s how we ensure people can actually participate in the economy, rather than waiting in line for government aid while someone else pockets the surplus they created.

Asking for an exact percentage is a distraction from the deeper point:

Give me a range.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Put the surplus back into the company, to benefit and serve the people who are producing everything = workers.

The owners should get 0%?

 

[BrokeLoser]

The cruelty is the point.

Trump cultists, being awful human beings, literally get off on cruelty.

Remember when that filthy negro shot Ashli Babbitt in the neck for trespassing and all those purple hair pukes celebrated? Remember when good Americans were imprisoned for years for protesting and purple hair pukes celebrated? Get ready for a SHIT-TON of “cruelty”.

 

[TruthNotBS]

You're advocating for income equality. LMAO. Good luck with that. I worked in a large company in a skilled position that took years to learn and become proficient in. I worked side by side with unskilled workers that depalletized empty boxes. If I understand your uneducated point correctly--you believe they should make the same compensation as I had without any of the knowledge. Good luck with that.

You’re putting words in my mouth. I never said everyone should be paid exactly the same. Having a worker-owned business doesn’t mean the person stacking boxes takes home the same income as a highly skilled technician. It just means the people contributing to the company, skilled or otherwise, get a democratic say in how profits are distributed and reinvested, rather than having their wages and working conditions dictated by a billionaire owner who takes the lion’s share without even showing up on the factory floor.

In fact, many successful co-ops do have pay structures that acknowledge varying levels of skill, responsibility, and tenure. The difference is that the process is transparent and decided collectively, not handed down from on high by someone whose only stake is the money they initially threw in. You can still have differentiated pay scales in a co-op; nobody’s forcing you to split your check evenly with the new hire who’s learning the ropes.

Talking about skill doesn’t cancel out the fact that every job in a company, whether it’s cleaning, paperwork, or running high-level machinery, contributes to overall success. Worker ownership doesn’t erase skill gaps; it just ensures no one is exploited while a CEO or absentee owner reaps astronomical profits. Skilled labor still earns higher wages, but everyone has a voice and fair conditions, instead of a system where a handful of folks at the top decide who gets crumbs and who gets caviar.

So if you’re going to laugh, maybe laugh at the idea that the only alternative to the current system is “equal pay for all.” That’s a straw-man argument. Worker co-ops are living proof you can have pay differentials and still respect the value each worker brings, without funneling all the profits to a tiny circle that barely lifts a finger.

 

[TruthNotBS]

The owners should get 0%?

Todd, the owners are the workers. For heaven's sake man, listen. Capitalist fieflords.....

​

Aren't needed.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Todd, the owners are the workers. For heaven's sake man, listen. Capitalist fieflords.....

View attachment 1073177​

Aren't needed.

No, the owners are the people who own the billions of equipment and inventory.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The program is paid for by all taxpayer money, including those in the working class who can barely afford their own food.

And who here said to do away with the entire program? You are going to the extreme, making up things that people didn’t say, and then arguing with them over something they never said.

(For sure….a liberal tactic in debate when they can’t win the argument.)

You really suck at reading for comprehension.

 

[TruthNotBS]

No, the owners are the people who own the billions of equipment and inventory.

That would be the workers because legally only a worker-owned and run cooperative should and can own the means of production or an individual to produce goods for his or her own personal use or to sell in the marketplace. That's how it would function in a genuine socialist society with a market economy.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That would be the workers because legally only a worker-owned and run cooperative should and can own the means of production or an individual to produce goods for his or her own personal use or to sell in the marketplace. That's how it would function in a genuine socialist society with a market economy.

No, that would be the people who put up the money for the equipment and inventory.

That's how it would function in a genuine socialist society with a market economy.

Yeah, that's hilarious.

 

[Concerned American]

A co-op model puts surplus earnings back into the business or the workers themselves, rather than funneling them up to distant owners or executives who don’t lift a finger in the day-to-day operations.

Get a job in a coop. Wages and standard of living are rewards for making yourself more valuable. People who create businesses deserve the fruits of their labors. An unskilled worker in a successful business has no right to any say in how that business operates. If a person wants that they should start their own business or coop---not whine that "Its not fair" Didn't your parents tell you that the world is not fair?

 

[TruthNotBS]

No, that would be the people who put up the money for the equipment and inventory.

That's how it would function in a genuine socialist society with a market economy.

Yeah, that's hilarious.

That's how it's going to be here in America. The kings and queens "owned property" and had subjects, and notice, there aren't too many of them around anymore. Like I said, the only property that should exist is personal, public, and productive co-op, other than that, it should be illegal. Now thanks to advanced automation and artificial intelligence, we're flying fast into socialism. We're entering it at MACH 10, hypersonic speed. We'll see who gets the last laugh.