Back when Obama made it where you couldn’t be evicted and bailed out the auto industry, I had a friend that drove a car hauler. He wasn’t paying his house payment and lived for free for a year, and only had a job because of the bailout. He talked mad shit about the bailout and about people living and not paying their rent. This is republikkklown logic. I was blown away and said to him, he wouldn’t have a job or a place to live if it wasn’t for that. He said he’d live somewhere else and get a different job.
Since then, he lives with his wife and child in his mom’s house with a shit job and complains about people being on welfare. They don’t get it.
If there’s any way they can punch down instead of address their own issues they’ll take it. It’s why they resort to going after made up nonsense or the most vulnerable.
This is happening right now in Germany. In two of our 16 federal states, the fascist party got around 30% of votes through fear mongering and propaganda. In one of the states, all of the remaining parties would be needed to create a functionable government with a majority, containing the whole spectrum from left to right. I am not sure about the future of this state.
So that one state is a minority government? If it weren’t for the fact the right is just objectively wrong about literally everything I actually prefer a setup where no one party has a majority. Majorities mean that the ruling party can just ignore everyone else and huge numbers of people just have effectively zero representation.
Election day was only yesterday, so the exploratory talks for possible coalitions are only just beginning. The party with the second most votes (conservative) had already announced that it does not want to form a coalition with the party “Die Linke” (our leftmost party, this is also the case nationwide) but also not with the fascists. This leaves only a minority government with a center-left party and a new party that has both radical right and radical left issues in its program (if I have understood this new party correctly). But “Die Linke” has already said that it would play along with a minority government, even if it is not part of it, as long as they agree or negotiate on the respective issues.
Typical. Everyone else is an asshole, but me.
Yeah, but he deserved that, unlike those lazy librulz.
“I’m using affordable care act! I don’t want Obamacare!”
I literally knew a girl who said this. She truly had no idea that they were the same thing, but rattled on about wanting it gone while benefiting from it.
I also knew an older woman who hated Obama and said “he’s arrogant for naming that after himself.” She didn’t believe me that her favorite channel was the one who named it after him unofficially and that its official name was ACA.
They truly just repeat bullshit until it sticks, and it usually works on the people who don’t bother to diversify their information sources. It’s so goddamn frustrating.
She didn’t believe me that her favorite channel was the one who named it after him unofficially and that its official name was ACA.
That can’t be true, because I’ve heard it called Obamacare 30 times. Everyone knows it!
“Everyone says so”
It’s like an introduction to fallacies in a freshman year philosophy class.
Temporarily embarrassed millionaires…
Te only reason they’re not a millionaire yet is because of all the illegal immigrants and minorities taking all the jobs…probably
“Social Security’s great for the old folks, but there’s no way it’ll be around when we’re old”
Votes for the guy trying to destroy social security.
I mean, technically that’s correct, if they keep voting for the guy trying to destroy social security lol
Ronald Reagan was cutting advertising telling people that Social Security was going to go bankrupt in a generation back in 1961.
Then he took office in 1980 (after he’d predicted bankruptcy) on the position and “fixed” SS by raising taxes on low income Americans and gutting their benefits. But the subsequent multi-trillion dollar trust fund didn’t satisfy SS scalds. They still insisted it was going bankrupt, so Republicans raised taxes and gutted benefits again under Clinton and Gingrich, while introducing alternative privatized savings programs (401k, IRA, etc).
But that still didn’t satisfy scalds. They tried to privatize the program in 2005 under Bush Jr. That failed, but we still got an earful about how SS was going to fail in the next 20 years if we didn’t do something. So then Obama tried to pass another round of cuts and tax hikes in 2013, but Republicans killed that too. So then Trump claimed we were headed to a Fiscal Cliff in 2017, and tried to privatize SS, but Republicans refused to pass that either.
At this point, we’ve passed repeated deadlines under which SS was supposedly going to fail. The 1970s, the 1980s, the 2000s, the 2020s… We’re still waiting on the Big Cliff in 2037, but since COVID killed several million people far sooner than expected, that’s thrown the math of significantly.
I anticipate we will continue to hear people predicting the end of SS until Congress finally finds the majority they need to kill it.
deleted by creator
See here’s what I’m wondering, if they are so easy to manipulate, why can’t the left just manipulate them into voting democrat?
They’re easy to manipulate if you play off their basic tribal fears and religious bigotry. The Democrats are far from a perfect party but they at the very least aren’t openly bigots.
They do sometimes but a lot of the time Democrats don’t use the same tactics or target that demographic.
Because honesty and integrity matter for society. We’re trying to create a better world, not replace the Republicans with Democrats who behave just as badly but have a different name.
The amount of people I see being payed minimum wage but dont want a living wage is insane. I don’t get it
Same vibe as:
“I won’t work overtime because I end up losing money on taxes”
That’s not how tax brackets work!
That’s not how tax brackets should work. But sadly for last year’s state tax I came across it. [Example numbers] Previously I had 24,200 annual salary but zero tax as it was below 25,000. Even though personal deductions are 10,000, below 25 was considered too low to tax. This year, due to a mistake from employers I was paid for two weeks retroactively, now I have 25,300. Instead of taxing 300 above 25,000 the tax was for 15,300 after deduction. So I had to pay taxes which decreased the money below 25,000 which should not happen if income below 25,000 pays no tax.
And considering there might be things like not qualifying for financial assistance and other things when you cross 25,000 (again example numbers), the actual benefit of making slightly below that, is higher than making slightly above that…
So the system is putting a resistance to overcome poverty. Either you start making double of what you are making, or stay on your lane. Because trying to improve your situation by only a little is harmful.
No. You showed one possible edge case, not a general rule.
I know it’s an edge case. But the edge case of having to pay more on taxes on increasing income existing for incomes close to poverty line seems counterproductive, doesn’t it?
Work has an economic cost to it. The net present value of work is not equal to the wage.
deleted by creator
Lots of people working the service sector are trained to hate one another. The assumption is always that the other guy isn’t pulling their weight, never that the establishment is understaffed or the staff undertrained and overworked.
No, no, they don’t mean me! They mean all the people that don’t deserve it!
deleted by creator
I don’t need no Obummercare, I’m covered by the Affordable Care Act!
I swear we’re living in a season of South Park
To be fair it’s not hypocritical to use service you’re entitled to and still be against it. After all, you paid for it with your taxes.
But voting against it to remove its benefit to others is the hypocrisy. For instance, a cousin of mine was on her parents’ insurance until the cutoff of 26 because of Obamacare and was all about getting rid of it. I would point out how she was only insured because of it (this was before her being 26 and booted off) and asked her what her next plan for being insured would be. Of course she didn’t think that far ahead and just said she would be 26 by the time anything changed so it wouldn’t matter.
The party of grifters is aptly put.
That’s a straw man here. The ACA didn’t require individuals to buy insurance. They’re getting it because they value it, not because their money was already taken.
But they’re only going to repeal Obamacare, not the Affordable Care Act!
I’m not American, but this happens a lot more than you’d think.
I live in Canada.
A relative of a friend actually voted for a party called “the People’s party of Canada”, and one of their goals as a party was to eliminate subsidized housing. That relative of my friend… lived in subsidized housing and was not able to afford to have a home if not subsidized.
They literally voted for a party that, if they had won, would have made them homeless.
I don’t think that the PPC won a single district (giving them no seats in government); much to their benefit and their disappointment.
Schools really need to teach critical thinking.
When you’re mad for needing healthcare.
Reminds me of all my union brothers who vote for anti union conservatives
Cool meme, but surely you realize that using a system and being against the system are not in conflict.
Then again if they like the system and think it shouldn’t be dismantled and still vote for someone who wants to dismantle, that’s dumb stupid.
Not sure how you can apply that principle here. If people don’t want insurance at all, we get it, but this is all about people who could not get insurance before and now are paying for this 100% optional thing.
Of course they could be in favor of NHS or an equivalent. That’s certainly possible. But I think you were not going that direction with your logic.
