Official MAGA morons FAFO thread
- Thread starter tboonpickens
- Start date
Maybe he called the tip line to get rid of her.. You just never know these days....
Again you guys did this back in 2017 and 2018 and it didnt work then either...
Let's break this down even further: Post #1-40.
#1 is you OP. There has never been a greater collection of *******/******* ever assembled in one thread.....EVER.
I don't even read what you ******* post anymore. I know if you're talking, I don't need to listen.
Trump’s big beautiful bill may force your local grocery store to close
Wright’s Market has been a fixture of Opelika, Alabama, a town of around 30,000 near Auburn University, since the 1970s. The supermarket relies on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) for roughly one-third of sales.
SNAP is a “big piece of what we do,” said owner Jimmy Wright, who has worked at the store since he was 12 and bought it almost 30 years ago. “We see very hardworking people who are using this program to try to feed their families and pay rent.”
SNAP, formerly known as food stamps, is the largest anti-hunger program in America. Recipients receive, on average, about $6.16 a day, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
But President Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act makes the largest cuts to food stamps in the program’s 86-year history, jeopardizing assistance for more than 42 million people. It also imperils the program’s role as an economic anchor for grocery stores and communities, particularly in rural areas, according to grocers and economists.
SNAP is a “great economic driver for our industry and the supply chain,” including farmers, manufacturers and wholesalers, Wright said.
In May, progressive think tank Center for American Progress identified 27,000 retailers — mostly in rural areas with large shares of SNAP recipients — likeliest to shoulder the brunt of cuts.
Large chains such as Walmart, Kroger, and Dollar General can absorb the hit. It’s the small, independent grocers that depend heavily on SNAP to sustain razor-thin profit margins that will be hit the hardest, food experts say.
These independent grocers are often the only full-service supermarket in rural and low-income areas. Cuts to SNAP, along with changes to Medicaid, will likely impact a wide swath of vulnerable Americans that the GOP promised to protect.
At Wright’s Market, shoppers using SNAP benefits are a reliable customer base and help guide business decisions. For example, the store designs its food selection and prices to meet the budgets of low-income customers on assistance. It also participates in Agriculture Department programs designed to help SNAP recipients buy fresh fruits, vegetables and milk.
But SNAP cuts may force Wright’s Market to raise prices or cut jobs.
“If we start dropping in revenue, we’ll have to find ways to compensate for that to keep going,” Wright said.
The Agriculture Department has said that every $5 in new SNAP benefits generates as much as $9 of local economic activity. Food stamps also lead to more stores and higher employment, sales, and salaries, a 2020 study by University of California, Davis, researchers found.
SNAP is “such a part of stores being able to exist,” said Wright, who is also a national advocate for independent grocers. Small stores “don’t have the sales volume to lose, and they are more dependent on the SNAP program being strong and customers being able to use it.”
DPIC, there are always anecdotal stories like this. But we can't look past the reasoning behind a decision to cut back SNAP. I'm not an expert, but it seems to me that during COVID we expanded a lot of these social programs including SNAP and Medicaid. Well, COVID is over and there is no longer the underlying reason for these program's expansion.
We are $37 trillion in debt and deficits are still too high. Something has to give.
The expansions during covid were temporary and ended in 2023, so that's not the issue. But you're right. something had to give and it was the people at the bottom of the totem pole who had to give up the most so that rich people wouldn't have to give up anything. Now, not only will those people at the bottom be harmed but so will the mom and pops in rural areas that rely on those bottom polers.
Those who stand to lose SNAP benefits or experience benefit reductions under the new legislation include:
- Individuals aged 55 to 64: The bill expands work requirements to individuals in this age group who are currently exempt from such requirements unless they are working at least 20 hours per week or qualify for an exemption.
- Parents with minor children aged 14 and up: These parents will now be subject to work requirements, whereas currently, parents with dependent children are exempt.
- Veterans: The new work requirements may impact veterans who currently receive SNAP benefits.
- Individuals in areas with insufficient jobs: The bill makes it more difficult for states to waive work requirements in areas where unemployment is high and job opportunities are scarce.
- Individuals with incomes slightly above the federal poverty line or with assets exceeding a certain threshold: Changes to eligibility criteria, particularly regarding the use of broad-based categorical eligibility, could remove individuals from the program who meet these criteria but have significant expenses like high housing costs or medical expenses.
- Households with school-age children: If adults in these households are unable to meet the work requirement or document an exemption, their family's food assistance benefits will decrease, potentially harming the children's development and increasing food insecurity.
- Older adults and people with disabilities: These groups may face challenges meeting the new requirements or navigating potential administrative issues, potentially leading to a loss of benefits or reduced benefits.
- Working women, especially mothers, single mothers, and women of color: These groups are already overrepresented among SNAP recipients and may face challenges in meeting the new requirements due to unstable jobs, limited benefits, and caregiving demands.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t the reductions in SNAP due to:
- Work requirements
- Expiration of Covid-era emergency allotments
- Potentially removing illegals
I’d love to see the elimination of junk food and sugary drinks in there too, but alas. Not sure how any of those are bad though. As Bill Clinton believed, you must work for welfare (or be a student, caregiver, volunteer, etc). We’re no longer in a pandemic. People here illegally shouldn’t be able to take money from hardworking American taxpayers.
I’m not even sure how these things are controversial.
I won’t go through each of these, but let’s start with the top two.
Explain to me why a 56 year old should be exempt from work requirements in exchange for taking money from his fellow Americans? It makes no sense whatsoever.
Explain to me why the parent of a 14-17 year old can’t work, study or volunteer for 20 hours per week? My 5 and 9 year olds are in public school 7 hours per day or 35 hours per week, not counting afterschool. There is time. This should really kick in at 5-6 years old. I get it for pre-K aged kids.
Many of the others are speculative or redundant.
I'm empathetic, and no one should go hungry, but at same time I've seen people on SNAP, not working, with help wanted signs in windows right next door to the grocery store. Purchasers with the latest cell phones, tattoos, cigarettes, $100 finger nail jobs......
No I know my story is as anecdotal as yours, I accept that. But here's where I come from..I'm likely significantly older than you and I remember the pre "great society" days. Families took care of each other. There was no SNAP, welfare, free phones, rent assistance, heat assistance, child care credits etc. And somehow we survived. Now, just so you know, I can still remember my aunts and uncles, in their 50s and 60s, sitting around the kitchen table complaining about...you guessed it the government and taxes.
We have created a people dependent on the government for their survival. That's not good for either them or the taxpayers paying the bills. I know we'll never return to the "good old days", and it will likely take "significant emotional events" to move the needle. But, if I'm a parent and my child needs food, I lay off the tattoos, $100 nail jobs (ok I know that's not fair) and put the money toward groceries. At last count, there were 7.6 million jobs open in the nation. We complain about undocumented documents being deported and ask "who will do these jobs?", Well, it might seem as if you've identified some in your post above.
I'm ready for the "incoming"
We've been through this before and I've spelled out how easy it will be for those that legitimately qualify to lose their benefits. Many will have extinuating circumstances that can't be captured by the guidelines and as I've also spelled out, there just aren't as many freeloaders gaming the system as you think, so to meet their goal of eliminating waste, they estimate that millions will lose benefits who legitimately meet the eligibility criteria.
Beyond that, these cuts weren't made in good faith because they were imposed so that people who don't need more money get to keep even more. You can also see that across the board they're making cuts everywhere that will make life harder for those that need help the most and they're doing it brazenly. Why would you narrow the open enrollment period for Obamacare and remove the premium subsidies that have allowed millions to acquire healthcare that they otherwise couldn't afford? Why not raise taxes a percentage or two instead so that people won't have to die or become bankrupted by healthcare bills?
He hasn't made even a minimal effort to make sure more people are fed or have adequate health coverage, so for those reasons among others, I don't trust how this will be implemented. People will die so that people who can pay for their healthcare out of pocket won't be inconvenienced by a higher tax bill and that's sick.
Man, you went there didn't you? We aren't just talking about the small percentage of people in 13% of the population, as many whites will also be harmed and we all know how they voted, hence why this is in the FAFO thread.
Your comments remind me of this
The Ugly Myth of the Welfare Queen
Josh Levin’s The Queen examines how politicians and the media used Taylor's story to change public opinion around government aid and the poor.
www.thenation.com
Okay so your concern is extenuating circumstances. So you agree that there’s no reason for a 56 year old or a parent of a 16 year old to be exempt from work requirements, outside of these extenuating circumstances?
The “rich” receive a lower benefit relative to what they pay from extending the current tax policy than the non-rich. We covered the math the other day. There’s nothing in bad faith here.
You’re switching topics, but I agree that there should be concerns about the ACA market. The shrinking of the enrollment period doesn’t make much sense. They should keep similar subsidies for now, but ensure the same work requirements, etc are applied. Then figure out how to phase it down while lowering overall healthcare costs, improving population health, etc. Also implement obesity screenings so healthy people can earn additional subsidies and we can incentivize good lifestyle choices, which will also reduce costs.
not sure how you came to your "racist" conclusion. There are more Caucasians on SNAP than African Americans.Man, you went there didn't you? We aren't just talking about the small percentage of people in 13% of the population, as many whites will also be harmed and we all know how they voted, hence why this is in the FAFO thread.
Your comments remind me of this
The Ugly Myth of the Welfare Queen
Josh Levin’s The Queen examines how politicians and the media used Taylor's story to change public opinion around government aid and the poor.
Can't have an honest discussion when you jump to race based conclusions without the facts.
By the way on medicaid...we have about 37 million living in poverty and almost double that on medicaid.
Sorry Ned but it's not hard to understand what's being implied here.
Also it's not only the poor that are Medicaid "eligible."
Children, pregnant women, the elderly, and individuals with disabilities, have different eligibility thresholds that may extend to higher FPL percentages or depend on other factors like asset limits for long-term care.
And now that they will require states to share the cost burden, people in red states will be hurt the most, as we already see in current non-expansion states. We know we can expect these states to make it even harder to attain coverage.
"Uninsured rates in states without Medicaid expansion are nearly twice as high as those in expansion states (14.1% vs. 7.6%). People without insurance have more difficulty accessing care, with almost one in four uninsured adults in 2023 not receiving needed medical treatment due to cost. Uninsured individuals are also less likely than those with insurance to receive preventive care and treatment for major health conditions and chronic diseases.
What are the characteristics of people in the coverage gap?
Nearly three-quarters of adults in the coverage gap live in just three Southern states. Texas accounts for 42% of individuals in the coverage gap, the highest share of any state, while Florida and Georgia account for an additional 19% and 14%, respectively (Figure 4). Overall, 97% of those in the coverage gap live in the South. Of the 16 states in the region, seven have not adopted Medicaid expansion."
How Many Uninsured Are in the Coverage Gap and How Many Could be Eligible if All States Adopted the Medicaid Expansion? | KFF
This analysis estimates that 1.4 million uninsured individuals in the ten states without Medicaid expansion, including many working adults, people of color, and those with disabilities, remain in the "coverage gap," ineligible for Medicaid or for tax credits that would make coverage through the...
www.kff.org
Sure but how many of these people do you think are completely unemployed by choice and/or not tied down with care-giving responsibilities? Data shows there are very few people who fall in this window.
Great article about the phenomenon of poverty in America and the frequently erroneous attitudes we see displayed in this very thread to it:
America looks at poverty all wrong
Would it surprise you, then, to learn that between the ages of 20 and 75, 75 % of all Americans will spend at least one year in or near poverty? Or that only 10% of the poor live in high poverty neighborhoods? Or that, according the U.S. Census Bureau, two thirds of the poor classify themselves as White? Or that most individuals in poverty remain poor for only one or two years? All of these facts describe the actual realities of poverty, rather than the myths.
It turns out that the reach of poverty is incredibly wide. Most Americans will at some point in their lives encounter poverty. The reason for this is that during the course of a lifetime, many unanticipated events can and do occur: losing a job, families splitting up, getting sick, or even experiencing a pandemic. When such events strike, there is very little in the form of a social safety net to protect people from falling into poverty in this country. The U.S. devotes far fewer of its resources to preventing poverty than most other industrialized countries. The result is that we have the highest rates of poverty and inequality among the group of wealthy nations.
America looks at poverty all wrong
Would it surprise you, then, to learn that between the ages of 20 and 75, 75 % of all Americans will spend at least one year in or near poverty? Or that only 10% of the poor live in high poverty neighborhoods? Or that, according the U.S. Census Bureau, two thirds of the poor classify themselves as White? Or that most individuals in poverty remain poor for only one or two years? All of these facts describe the actual realities of poverty, rather than the myths.
It turns out that the reach of poverty is incredibly wide. Most Americans will at some point in their lives encounter poverty. The reason for this is that during the course of a lifetime, many unanticipated events can and do occur: losing a job, families splitting up, getting sick, or even experiencing a pandemic. When such events strike, there is very little in the form of a social safety net to protect people from falling into poverty in this country. The U.S. devotes far fewer of its resources to preventing poverty than most other industrialized countries. The result is that we have the highest rates of poverty and inequality among the group of wealthy nations.
so, I'm not sure of the point you're making. Almost by definition, if you're on medicaid, you're not likely in the upper 10% wage earners in the country.Sorry Ned but it's not hard to understand what's being implied here.
Also it's not only the poor that are Medicaid "eligible."
Children, pregnant women, the elderly, and individuals with disabilities, have different eligibility thresholds that may extend to higher FPL percentages or depend on other factors like asset limits for long-term care.
And now that they will require states to share the cost burden, people in red states will be hurt the most, as we already see in current non-expansion states. We know we can expect these states to make it even harder to attain coverage.
"Uninsured rates in states without Medicaid expansion are nearly twice as high as those in expansion states (14.1% vs. 7.6%). People without insurance have more difficulty accessing care, with almost one in four uninsured adults in 2023 not receiving needed medical treatment due to cost. Uninsured individuals are also less likely than those with insurance to receive preventive care and treatment for major health conditions and chronic diseases.
What are the characteristics of people in the coverage gap?
Nearly three-quarters of adults in the coverage gap live in just three Southern states. Texas accounts for 42% of individuals in the coverage gap, the highest share of any state, while Florida and Georgia account for an additional 19% and 14%, respectively (Figure 4). Overall, 97% of those in the coverage gap live in the South. Of the 16 states in the region, seven have not adopted Medicaid expansion."
How Many Uninsured Are in the Coverage Gap and How Many Could be Eligible if All States Adopted the Medicaid Expansion? | KFF
This analysis estimates that 1.4 million uninsured individuals in the ten states without Medicaid expansion, including many working adults, people of color, and those with disabilities, remain in the "coverage gap," ineligible for Medicaid or for tax credits that would make coverage through the...
As I said, which, in fairness, you forgot to add in this post, there is a higher % of white Americans on medicaid than any other group. You jumped to a conclusion not backed by fact.
States already share in Medicaid funding. They have the option to spend more on their people if they chose to do so. Likely some will opt to increase funding and some won't. To me, just this fact puts more of a onus on the state's decision makers as opposed to their simply passing a bill up to the federal government.....which if you recall is $37 trillion in debt
wow, would you highlight this to dpic who seems to think that SNAP payments go principally to black americans. When as you point out it is 2/3 of the poor classify themselves as white. What does that do the argument about white supremacy ?
Now you're catching on Ned! Do you understand what FAFO means and why I might have posted the article in this thread?
not really, but in my short time on this board I have discovered that every post you make is intended as either something anti trump, anti Republican or anti conservative.
And that's where you and I see things differently. I can see the bad in all these but also the good. As I posted before, nobody is always right and nobody is always wrong. And, similar to "the little boy who cried wolf", when it's perceived that everything you write leans in one direction - left - then credibility sorts of goes down exponentially.
It fascinates me that on one hand we can talk about white supremacy but yet more whites are on entitlements (likely not every program) than any other racial group. just an example. Anyway, I enjoy the banter. You asked me once why it seems as if I take the position of those on the right. My answer was simple..I take the position of what I believe whether it's right or left. I've come to the realization you're a little different (not that there's anything wrong with that) in that you see things as left or further left.
Think I saw this was just a grift. That he lost his job in January.
Yep. People have really caught on that very few people are willing to read past a headline anymore to find the truth.
Like I learned as a kid, if something seems to good(or bad) to be true.... It probably is.
I certainly don't believe everything I read about DJT, etc
How is this different than anyone else on this board? I would say 99% of us are firmly on one side of the fence or the other but that doesn't mean we don't or can't recognize when our side is out of line. You haven't been here long but I've said many times I don't have much in common with the far-left and I've repeatedly said that Biden badly mis-managed the border.
I'm not a rubber stamp for anyone, but you're right that I do align much more strongly with the left and I always have. From my earliest memories, the Right has always turned me off from the Moral Majority/evangelical Republicans who espouse hatred for everyone who isn't exactly like them, their selfishness and greed, their disregard for those less fortunate, their cruelty, their lies(yes, both sides do it but it's much more prominent on that side), their disdain for science and public health, the arts, etc...
They just don't come across as good people to me and we see the evidence of that every day - hell they just confirmed a judge to a lifetime appointment who had three whistleblowers testify to his corruption and disregard for the law but they voted for him anyway. Just about every one of the cabinet secretaries testified to things that they would not do if confirmed and immediately turned around and broke their promises.
And just like you, I also take the position that I think is right and for me, that mostly aligns with the left. That doesn't mean I see my side as perfect but I do trust them a helluva lot more than the other side, who represent everything I don't want to be.
as I have said many times, I respect your opinions even if I disagree with some of them. I have been an independent for over 40 years now. I vote R sometimes and D others. I admit, I don't see one side any differently than the other. There used to be differences, but over time it seems as if issues the D were strong on now have shifted to the Rs and vice versa.
The parties used to be able to get along, not necessarily agree, and make decisions that they felt were best for the American public. They actually compromised. That changed. Now it's "we need to fight this president" instead of "let's find a middle ground". IMO that's why we haven't been able to get a good immigration bill in over 20 years.
As I've said before I didn't agree with a lot of Biden's policies and I don't like some of Trump's. But, I don't want to see Trump fail in the same way I didn't want to see Biden fail. A strong government is good for all of us - peace, prosperity, a safe place to raise our families, an opportunity to grow economically, send our kids to college, and have a fruitful retirement without worrying about heat, rent or food.
To me, there is no perfect president or perfect government policies. It's just like all of us with strengths and weaknesses. It's just a shame we can't keep our differences and still get great things done.
I have conservative friends as well but they're not hard-core maga and don't resemble the people I describe above. One is a 2nd amendment devotee and another believes in smaller government. I get along great with middle of the road Republicans but I will never relate to a hard-core Trump supporter - ever.
Of course I want the leader of the country to be successful, but not this one, hell no, for one I don't agree with the majority of his political agenda and two, if these were normal times he would have been impeached ten times over for the **** he's doing to this country. And a reminder that it's highly likely he would be in prison right now if his supporters didn't gift him a get out of jail free card.
The lessons the younger generation are learning from this psychopath disturb me because he's the worst example of morality in leadership you could conjure.
Can you imagine little leaguers claiming the other team cheated despite what the scoreboard shows? Rounding up their friends to beat the pulp out of the referee who called the game because they're embarrassed by the outcome? Never conceding the game even five years later and not filling a bit of guilt about their actions?
Sure, I'd also love for us to come together despite our differences but to make it more likely for me, I need to see the other side
swear off this dark movement, come back to the middle and eat some humble pie.
i feel your pain.
But, to be fair and I think honest, one of the reasons why we can't get our leaders together to solve the big problems is because a lot of them hold your exact opinion. So the American people miss out on a immigration plan, deficit reduction measures, and other issues facing us just because they don't like Trump. Seems counterproductive to me
We had a border bill that Trump killed and he seems to be uninterested in going through Congress for a comprehensive immigration bill. What he's doing at the border has worked but it's an executive order that can be easily overturned.
And adding 4 trillion to the debt doesn't seem like the best deficit reduction plan so not sure what I'm missing out on? It would be counterproductive to agree with it if you ask me.
Let's not forget that Trump himself used his influence to nuke a comprehensive immigration/border security bill that was lauded by House Republicans as being one of the toughest and most secure bills in recent memory...all because Trump didn't want Biden to score a victory going into the election race.
The bill was primarily authored by heavily conservative R Sen James Lankford from OK but was a bipartisan effort, and Trump very cynically leaned on his minions even though he wasn't in office at the time to kill it just so he could play political football.
So it's not just that "we don't like Trump". He's a huge problem on multiple levels and seeks to undermine processes and progress even when he's not in office.
Now if you want to give me examples of former Democrat presidents calling around to kill bipartisan bills authored by their own party, please give some real examples (not like when you blamed Jimmy Carter for what Reagan did to empty mental health facilities and explode the homeless population)
Trump was not in office when the border bill was voted on. The bipartisan bill committee was 0ne Republican senator. the House had already said the proposal was dead on arrival in that body and did not even bring it to committee.
I know I've posted this before, but...one more time. If the numbers being reported are accurate the deficit from the OBBB is $3.4 trillion over 10 years. That equates to $330 billion/ year. There has only been two or three times since 2000 that the deficit has been this low.
But, ok, what do you want to cut to get to that $330 billion a year?
Look the $37trillion debt is not a republican' s fault or a democrat's fault, both parties are complicit. I personally believe that the only way we get to balance, if that's even possible, is with cuts and tax increases. But, to get there both sides have to be willing to talk to each other and compromise. But, if I read one of your posts correctly, you don't want anything to do with Trump. So, how do we get to where it seems like both of us would like to go, if we can't talk with the other guy.
you might have forgotten that in order to become law, a bill has to go through house and Senate. The House had already said the bill was DOA there. So even as you say trump leaned on his minions. the Bill was going nowhere.
You seem to be astute about the working of the congress, how many bills have bipartisan sponsorship that go nowhere in either house or Senate? Bernie just proposed a bill to stop military sales to Israel. Let's see how far it goes. It's easy for two senators to cosponsor a bill and call it bipartisan.
There was a bipartisan bill on immigration back in 2012/2013 passed the senate, wasn't taken up in the house. It happens all the time.
So , lets assume you're 100% right about trump and his minions. Does that mean we stop working toward am immigration bill?
And, your info on mental health is different from my recollection. It appears as if I was mistaken. I do remember that it was Carter who initiated the entire mental health debate. On that I was right. But you were correct on your description. I was wrong in my statement, sorry
Is the $3.4 trillion not cumulative ADDITIONAL deficit based on OBBB vs Biden-era policy?
Yes. It's additional deficit to what was current and projected.
You think the Republicans pivoted to the middle? LOL!