Zone1 What do Dems mean by their promises of “affordability”?

[dblack]

Sorry you’re so limited. Which is the better direction:

1) Go with the Dems, who want to make sure the single mother with a 7-year old and a 9-year old gets the maximum $850 a month in food stamps, and she doesn’t have to work AT ALL. And they fought to keep it that way.

2) Go with the GOP, who now requires the mother to work 80 hours a week. She gets a job at Target for $15 an hour, and now brings in $1200 a month. Her food stamp allotment drops to $500, but she has an income of $1500 that more than makes up the difference.

Neither. Why is that so hard for two-party goons to understand? Why do you just accept whatever the media tells you are your "only" choices, no matter how bad?

 

[Lisa558]

Neither. Why is that so hard for two-party goons to understand? Why do you just accept whatever the media tells you are your "only" choices, no matter how bad?

Why do you people not admit that just because a solution isn’t perfect, that there isn’t a better way and a worse way?

 

[dblack]

Why do you people not admit that just because a solution isn’t perfect, that there isn’t a better way and a worse way?

Because better or worse doesn't matter when both choices are shit. Seriously, if it was Stalin vs Mao, would you fret over which is worse?? Or would you just say "no thanks".

Maybe that's what you don't get. For those of us not consumed by the two-party pissing match, it's not a matter of candidates being "imperfect". It's the fact that the two shit parties are nominating corrupt sociopaths in the name of "winning" the culture war. But if you elect someone like that, what have you won??

 

[Lisa558]

Because better or worse doesn't matter when both choices are shit. Seriously, if it was Stalin vs Mao, would you fret over which is worse?? Or would you just say "no thanks".

Maybe that's what you don't get. For those of us not consumed by the two-party pissing match, it's not a matter of candidates being "imperfect". It's the fact that the two shit parties are nominating corrupt sociopaths in the name of "winning" the culture war. But if you elect someone like that, what have you won??

It’s what we have now. The GOP way is better than the Dems.

If you voted for some other party, you threw away your vote.

 

[dblack]

It’s what we have now. The GOP way is better than the Dems.

If you voted for some other party, you threw away your vote.

I just don't get that logic. I won't vote for a shitty candidate. That's worse than a "wasted" vote.

 

[Lisa558]

I just don't get that logic. I won't vote for a shitty candidate. That's worse than a "wasted" vote.

If you didn’t vote for the better candidate - Trump - then your vote helped Kamala. Thankfully, not enough people threw out their vote like you.

 

[dblack]

If you didn’t vote for the better candidate - Trump - then your vote helped Kamala.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. And if I didn't vote for Kamala, then my vote helped Trump.

The truth is, I didn't help either party. And I won't until they nominate someone worth a shit.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Why shouldn't they?

Let me guess, you’re a spoiled trust fun kid? That’s the only explanation

The rich are scumwads...

they provide. You don’t.

 

[buttercup]

Because better or worse doesn't matter when both choices are shit. Seriously, if it was Stalin vs Mao, would you fret over which is worse?? Or would you just say "no thanks".

Maybe that's what you don't get. For those of us not consumed by the two-party pissing match, it's not a matter of candidates being "imperfect". It's the fact that the two shit parties are nominating corrupt sociopaths in the name of "winning" the culture war. But if you elect someone like that, what have you won??

 

[Lisa558]

View attachment 1210116

The better candidate, by FAR, won. Thank you Gd!

 

[JoeB131]

What Joe is doing - besides defaming a nice Jewish woman with his Nazi lies - is to try to get this thread turned into another “Da Joos Bad!” thread, thereby getting it sent to the Rubber Room.

I made a simple statement that I think that feeding Americans is better than funding another country's war machine. You and Pastelli got all defensive after that...

And that’s because I bring up the hypocrisy and damage that Dems cause: they promise affordability when they run for office, and the very day they’re sworn in, hit us with increased taxes and new fees. This is a fact that Joe wants to keep hidden from voters.

I do? I'm devious like that

The reality is, the Democrats actually think we should pay for the services we get. The Repukes think that running up 38 Trillion in debt is acceptable.

Notice how quickly Trump backed down from his insistance on taking Greenland when the Europeans told him they will start cashing in some of their treasuries.

Republicans are forcing people to get jobs in order to keep getting SOME free shit, so they will be less reliant on ALL free shit. The Dems block every attempt to move welfare leeches off total government dependency.

Except no one is a "leech". The people who don't work usually can't, even when the economy is good.

Requiring adults to work at least 20 hours a week means they will qualify for less of OPM, since they now earn something to put toward their own food purchases.

Except most able bodied adults on the program ARE working.

New USDA Report Provides Picture of Who Participates in SNAP - Food Research & Action Center

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has been issuing a series of annual reports on the demographic and economic characteristics of households and individuals participating in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). The latest report, covering fiscal year 2019, was released at...

frac.org

Key Report Findings

• SNAP targets those in greatest need. Among those participating in the program, most are children, elderly persons, or individuals with a disability. In fact, 86 percent of all SNAP benefits go to households that include a child, elderly person, or person with disabilities. In addition, about 92 percent of all SNAP benefits go to households with income at or below the federal poverty line.
• SNAP recipients represent different races and/or ethnicities. White: about 37 percent; African American: 26 percent; Hispanic: 16 percent; Asian: 3 percent; and Native American: about 2 percent. (About 16 percent of participants are categorized as “race unknown.”)
• Many SNAP households have earned income. Almost one-third of SNAP households have earned income, though only 20 percent of households have gross monthly income above the federal poverty line. The average SNAP household’s monthly gross income is $872 and net income is $398.
• The vast majority of SNAP households do not receive cash welfare benefits. Only 4 percent of all SNAP households, and only 10 percent of SNAP households with children, receive benefits through the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program.
• SNAP fights poverty. More than 9 percent of participating households moved above the federal poverty line when SNAP benefits were included in gross income, and 10 percent of the lowest-income SNAP households moved out of deep poverty.
• SNAP benefit adequacy is a serious concern. About 36 percent of SNAP households receive the maximum allotment. The other 64 percent of participating households receive less than the maximum, and are expected to spend some of their other income on food to make up the difference. According to one calculation, the average monthly benefit per household was $258 in fiscal year 2019. As described in a prior FRAC analysis, the greatest shortcoming of SNAP is that benefits for most households are not enough to get them through the entire month without hunger or being forced to sacrifice nutrition quality.

SNAP is a profoundly important program with well-documented benefits for participants. As shown in this new USDA report, the program targets those who are struggling the most in the nation and plays a critical role in alleviating poverty. Advocates should use these and other data to urge policymakers to protect and strengthen this effective program.

But Lisa saw a black lady buy Prime Rib once, and she was all offended by that.

 

[JoeB131]

It’s what we have now. The GOP way is better than the Dems.

If you voted for some other party, you threw away your vote.

Really? The economy is swirling the drain right now, we have secret police kicking in people's doors, and the markets go crazy everytime he says something stupid.

So question I know you won't answer... what's the line Trump has to cross for you to admit you made a mistake.

 

[candycorn]

A good hint might be the actions the new Democrat Governor of VA has made just a few days into her role, following her promises of making things more “affordable” for Virginians.

Among others, she (and the new Democrat legislature, so they’ll go through) are to;

1) Add in a 4.8% tax on investment income

2) Rejoin some green initiative, which will increase electric bills an average of $1100 a year per family

3) Add a tax for deliveries by Amazon, UPS, FedEx, Uber, etc.

4) Reverse Youngkin’s direction for local police to work with ICE, and turn VA into a sanctuary state, thereby placing more of a tax burden of Virginia earner,

So…my sense of what Dems mean by “affordable” is to raise money on the backs of the middle class in order to keep up welfare programs for people who can’t or refuse to support themselves.

Democrats Pounce On Virginia Taxpayers - Americans for Tax Reform

Under unified Democrat control, Virginia is poised to become a tax-hiking outlier in a region full of states that are phasing out their income taxes.

atr.org

To the surprise of nobody, you're dead wrong. Affordability has to do with what you're paying when you wish to buy something.

 

[candycorn]

Even more than that…..they won’t want to become self-supporting. Right now, they have their medical care paid for, highly subsidized rents, so much free food that they can afford to shop at Whole Foods, etc., etc.

Where’s the incentive to learn a job skill and move into the productive class?

When you move into the "productive class" let us know. You seem to spend your life bitching on an obscure message board.

 

[22lcidw]

I made a simple statement that I think that feeding Americans is better than funding another country's war machine. You and Pastelli got all defensive after that...



I do? I'm devious like that

The reality is, the Democrats actually think we should pay for the services we get. The Repukes think that running up 38 Trillion in debt is acceptable.

Notice how quickly Trump backed down from his insistance on taking Greenland when the Europeans told him they will start cashing in some of their treasuries.



Except no one is a "leech". The people who don't work usually can't, even when the economy is good.



Except most able bodied adults on the program ARE working.

New USDA Report Provides Picture of Who Participates in SNAP - Food Research & Action Center

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has been issuing a series of annual reports on the demographic and economic characteristics of households and individuals participating in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). The latest report, covering fiscal year 2019, was released at...

frac.org

Key Report Findings

• SNAP targets those in greatest need. Among those participating in the program, most are children, elderly persons, or individuals with a disability. In fact, 86 percent of all SNAP benefits go to households that include a child, elderly person, or person with disabilities. In addition, about 92 percent of all SNAP benefits go to households with income at or below the federal poverty line.
• SNAP recipients represent different races and/or ethnicities. White: about 37 percent; African American: 26 percent; Hispanic: 16 percent; Asian: 3 percent; and Native American: about 2 percent. (About 16 percent of participants are categorized as “race unknown.”)
• Many SNAP households have earned income. Almost one-third of SNAP households have earned income, though only 20 percent of households have gross monthly income above the federal poverty line. The average SNAP household’s monthly gross income is $872 and net income is $398.
• The vast majority of SNAP households do not receive cash welfare benefits. Only 4 percent of all SNAP households, and only 10 percent of SNAP households with children, receive benefits through the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program.
• SNAP fights poverty. More than 9 percent of participating households moved above the federal poverty line when SNAP benefits were included in gross income, and 10 percent of the lowest-income SNAP households moved out of deep poverty.
• SNAP benefit adequacy is a serious concern. About 36 percent of SNAP households receive the maximum allotment. The other 64 percent of participating households receive less than the maximum, and are expected to spend some of their other income on food to make up the difference. According to one calculation, the average monthly benefit per household was $258 in fiscal year 2019. As described in a prior FRAC analysis, the greatest shortcoming of SNAP is that benefits for most households are not enough to get them through the entire month without hunger or being forced to sacrifice nutrition quality.

SNAP is a profoundly important program with well-documented benefits for participants. As shown in this new USDA report, the program targets those who are struggling the most in the nation and plays a critical role in alleviating poverty. Advocates should use these and other data to urge policymakers to protect and strengthen this effective program.

But Lisa saw a black lady buy Prime Rib once, and she was all offended by that.

It's all the Republicans fault according to prog propaganda. Taxes would be double for the peasant if there was not sanity in letting us keep more of our money. Those losers in the daily insurrections do very little in life. If the progs raised taxes massively on them or reduced checks and benefits their shrieking would be heard in space.

 

[Lisa558]

It's all the Republicans fault according to prog propaganda. Taxes would be double for the peasant if there was not sanity in letting us keep more of our money. Those losers in the daily insurrections do very little in life. If the progs raised taxes massively on them or reduced checks and benefits their shrieking would be heard in space.

You hit it on the nail. We need to do two things:

1) Institute a Minimum Alternatve Tax. Every able-bodied adult 18 to 65 must pay at least 2% of their income in federal income taxes. (That amount can be deducted from food stamps for the welfare class, and they’ll just have to reduce soda and junk food.)

2) Nobody gets ANY welfare without at least a part-time job, other than those with an infant. The government can run day care centers for the pre-schoolers, thus providing even more jobs, and then single mothers can get jobs.

 

[initforme]

You hit it on the nail. We need to do two things:

1) Institute a Minimum Alternatve Tax. Every able-bodied adult 18 to 65 must pay at least 2% of their income in federal income taxes. (That amount can be deducted from food stamps for the welfare class, and they’ll just have to reduce soda and junk food.)

2) Nobody gets ANY welfare without at least a part-time job, other than those with an infant. The government can run day care centers for the pre-schoolers, thus providing even more jobs, and then single mothers can get jobs.

A shrinking workforce is necessary as AI will be replacing humans. The question is will the shrinking workforce shrink fast enough to kerp up with AI replacing workers?

 

[Lisa558]

A shrinking workforce is necessary as AI will be replacing humans. The question is will the shrinking workforce shrink fast enough to kerp up with AI replacing workers?

Yeah, you keep saying that. You won’t be happy until everyone is on welfare.

 

[initforme]

Yeah, you keep saying that. You won’t be happy until everyone is on welfare.

A shrinking workforce would mean less people to be on unemployment and welfare. Theres going to be alot less need for workers in the near future. That means less jobs, a shrinking economy. Those arent bad things.

 

[Lisa558]

A shrinking workforce would mean less people to be on unemployment and welfare. Theres going to be alot less need for workers in the near future. That means less jobs, a shrinking economy. Those arent bad things.

Fewer people with jobs = more people on government charity, and forced to vote for the party that gives them more freebies regardless of how bad their policies are.

And yes, that’s a bd thing.