The disgraceful Supreme Court justice should be held accountable for his actions but probably won’t.

  • sadreality
    link
    fedilink
    11 year ago

    show me these people who have been lifted up?

    statistics point towards largely more poor people, worse health, more debt, less home ownership. who was lifted up and when?

    • AngrilyEatingMuffins
      link
      fedilink
      151 year ago

      What statistics show that social safety nets lead to those things?

      I’ll save you time: they don’t exist

      • sadreality
        link
        fedilink
        11 year ago

        which safety nets? are they in the room here with us right now?

        • AngrilyEatingMuffins
          link
          fedilink
          17
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          You’ve never heard of social security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, housing opportunities, mental health services, food banks, soup kitchens, etc etc etc

          Like Jesus Christ with that comment. How fucking stupid are conservatives? Go hit your head with a hammer and see if it helps. Seemingly it couldn’t hurt.

          • sadreality
            link
            fedilink
            1
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            so practically speaking not much of safety net unless you are old, or single poor mother, which i support no doubt but that is [not] a safety net a vast majority of the population.

            also, note mental health services, food banks, soup kitchens >>> federal government and states hardly provide these, they are provided by private sector…

            even those have been steadily eroded under successive administration since 1980s, which share of taxes paid by working people have been increasing. so working person pays more taxes and gets no safety net for the most part.

            You need to get educated instead of vomiting generic talking points, it would help this country if everyone did the same.

            • @VelvetStorm@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              61 year ago

              You know one of the parties keeps voting to take away the safety nets/keep us from getting them right? I’m all up for getting a third forth and even fifth party but its just not going to happen unless we can fix the current system and the gop is never going to let that happen.

            • QHC
              link
              fedilink
              11 year ago

              so what is your solution, vote for the GOP and pray they will suddenly decide NOT to gut every social program they can find?

              • sadreality
                link
                fedilink
                11 year ago

                Voting for either party is providing legitimacy to the regime. you are better off voting with your feet and money since that’s the last place you still have some agency. political process is captured, voting third party is the only logical decision but none of them are really inspiring any confidence since they shill degeneracy.

                • QHC
                  link
                  fedilink
                  11 year ago

                  If you only care about ideology and not actual people that are suffering every day, then yeah, giving up and letting other people solve the problem is the best thing you can do.

                  • sadreality
                    link
                    fedilink
                    11 year ago

                    voting for a political party solves suffering for every day people?

                    bold claim chief…

      • @Strangle@lemmy.world
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        01 year ago

        Just look at the amount of people living in poverty in the 40’s and early 50’s, then the democrats started the “war on poverty” and started these programs and 70 years later, the number of people living in poverty has continued to rise

        Just look at the number of people living in poverty those stats aren’t hard to find.

        More people are living in poverty in the US today than they were 70 years ago

        You’d think after 20+ trillion dollars spent, the record on poverty would be much much better

        • HeinousTugboat
          link
          fedilink
          81 year ago

          And yet the percentage of the population that lives in poverty has dropped by more than half.

          Funny how that works.

              • @Strangle@lemmy.world
                cake
                link
                fedilink
                01 year ago

                How is it specious? Do you know what the word even means?

                Fact: there are more people living in poverty after the war on poverty was started than there were before those policies were put in place.

                There’s nothing specious about that

                • HeinousTugboat
                  link
                  fedilink
                  41 year ago

                  Fact: there are double the number of people in the country after than there were before.

                  Fact: social status tends to have generational inertia.

                  Specious: “misleading in appearance, especially misleadingly attractive.”

                  It’s absolutely specious, because you’re somehow suggesting those policies failed because the absolute number of individuals went up, disregarding the fact that had those policies not been in place, the number would’ve been double what it is.

                  And I said at best, because it’s far more likely you’re just trolling. But, giving you the benefit of the doubt, let’s work through this.

                  If a family in poverty that’s 2 people, has 3 children, that’s now 5 people.

                  If this is the only family that exists, 100% of people are in poverty. If one of those children winds up getting out of poverty, you’ve gone from 2 people in poverty, to 4 people in poverty. However, you’ve gone from 100% poverty to 80% poverty.

                  And you’re saying that’s a failure.

                  • @Strangle@lemmy.world
                    cake
                    link
                    fedilink
                    0
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    You’re being spacious right now, trying to cover up the fact that there are demonstrably MORE suffering people than there has ever been.

                    You need to talk about real people, not statistics. What’s 20%? Who gives a shit. More suffering is more suffering, no matter what the percentage is.

                    The reason these programs were introduced was supposed to lead to less suffering. That’s been a lie

                    I mean, what is an acceptable number of people living in poverty to you and when are there too many? Is it a percentage? Or is it a real number of real people?

                • QHC
                  link
                  fedilink
                  21 year ago

                  Fact: The percentage of people that are in poverty is significantly lower than it was multiple decades ago.

                  • sadreality
                    link
                    fedilink
                    11 year ago

                    if you use federal definition for US… sure, but you are a bootlicker if you use that definition.

        • QHC
          link
          fedilink
          11 year ago

          You are just wrong. Absolute numbers are not relevant when discussing trends because, guess what, the population of the whole world has increased in the last 70 years. Shocking news!

          Povery rates are approximately half of what it was in 1958, when the Census bureau began tracking data. The rate bottomed out in 2019 but then went back up in 2020 (bet you can guess why), and is now trending down again.

          https://www.debt.org/faqs/americans-in-debt/poverty-united-states/