• InternetUser2012@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    92
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    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.

      • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        29
        ·
        3 months ago

        “I’ve been on food stamps and welfare. Anybody help me out? No. No.”

        Actor Craig T Nelson on how the government never helped him.

        • GraniteM@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          3 months ago

          So help me there was some big deal right wing personality who talked about how the government shouldn’t subsidize education by saying that when he was a kid he wanted an education so he… went down to the public library and read books there. Not a hint of irony. Can’t remember exactly who it was, but the dissonance stuck with me.

            • GraniteM@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              3 months ago

              The difficulty in locating the original is that Republicans are ALWAYS trying to destroy public education and public libraries, so it’s kind of like trying to Google John Smith.

  • dudinax@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    39
    ·
    3 months ago

    “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.

    • ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      3 months ago

      I mean, technically that’s correct, if they keep voting for the guy trying to destroy social security lol

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        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.

    • jaybone@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      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?

      • BallsandBayonets@lemmings.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        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.

      • orcrist@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        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.

  • TriflingToad@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    3 months ago

    The amount of people I see being payed minimum wage but dont want a living wage is insane. I don’t get it

    • Fillicia@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Same vibe as:

      “I won’t work overtime because I end up losing money on taxes”

      That’s not how tax brackets work!

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      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.

  • Kalkaline @leminal.space
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    What they (Republicans, conservatives, libertarians, centrists) really want is emergency departments over run with patients who can’t get care for chronic conditions and then they have an excuse to repeal EMTALA. At that point they’ll be able to sink people deep into medical debt and when social security and Medicare/Medicaid fails to cover the costs then we can force medically disabled people into low wage jobs and take their assets to sell at pennies on the dollar to mega corps and further consolidate wealth in this country.

    We should instead create a pipeline for that wealth to flow through the lower and middle class on it’s way up to the top bringing the floor up and making sure basic infrastructure like medical care has the funding it needs.

  • MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    3 months ago

    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.

  • Michal@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    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.

    • Tyler@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      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.

    • orcrist@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      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.

  • vga@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    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.

    • orcrist@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      3 months ago

      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.

  • henfredemars@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    3 months ago

    Sounds like my retiree father-in-law who insists that Social Security isn’t a social service and should be the one exception to absolute abolition of all government services because they’re “communist.”