News From The War On The Poor

Alabama Republicans File Bill To Take Away Food Stamps If You Own A Car
Occupy Democrats - Liberal if you hadn't guessed.

The article has links.

Obviously we aren't poor enough if we own cars and computers. We won't be "poor" until we live in mud huts and our children have bellies bloated with air dying of starvation. That's the goal they seem to have at least. Even then, doing anything to benefit the poor will be completely taboo so long as there are hard-working billionaires who don't quite have everything yet.

Maybe they should look a little harder at Jesus' teachings.

If you look at the actual bill and examples you would understand. It says Alabama does not currently factor in assets in order to collect welfare. It's not banning all people who own cars from getting assistance. Currently a simple search of Alabama Welfare rules states simply you cannot have more than $3,000 in the bank and must have income not to exceed federal minimum standards (Does not list what they are and I have no intention of looking it up). That is it. So in theory you can own a 100k benz or a 150k Porsche and get food stamps.

The example they used in the bill was a lady with 5 kids and a $350k house and a land rover claiming benefits for food stamps for 18 months. Will refind link and post in a few I accidentally closed browser but I always post links.

tl/dr: stop listening to liberal rags

That's current. This is proposed.

I bet it gets read and rejected. Unlike Bills that Democrats put forward.

Well, bills that Democrats put forward don't get read. They just pass them anyway.

That is what I meant. xD

That's because only one side usually decides to try to get the most insane bills passed. Kind of like the one right wing religious nut tried to get a bill passed to allow shooting of LGBT folks on sight.

You can blame the California ballot initiative laws for that one. It wasn't even a bill from someone actually in politics, it was just a proposal from some insane lawyer who had 200 bucks to blow on something that would never get the signatures to make it to a ballot in the first place.

Except he does represent a large majority of the people on the right. While each person has their own moderation, a lot of people are voting for Trump, who advocates war crimes on the families of terrorists who usually have nothing to do with terrorism. I'm pretty sure those right wingers are more than one lawyer with too much money. While I agree liberals can be stupid with their PC culture, nothing is even remotely as crazy as ***that comes from some right wingers.

Someone who advocates murdering all LGBT people represents a large majority of the right.... Yyyyyyyeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhh no.

So if you bought and paid off a car, but then lose your job, you shouldn't be allowed food stamps? You should what, sell that car to feed your family? That reduces your options for a job.

And how many people do you think are those people with 150k Porsche's on food stamps? And how many people with a shitty '94 Camry are going to lose food stamps because of it?

No just Middle-Easterners. Most of the terrorism you guys have been trying to fight since the Bush days have been coming from there and Drumpf supports who are right wingers. One of Drumpfs ideas to stop terrorism is killing off their families as well. That's one small step from full out Hitler. Feel free to disagree, but that's probably how it started out in the Nazi party as well. "It was just a joke guys! Can't the guy who is running for president make a joke about war crimes? I mean it's not like he is going to be conversing with other heads of state around the world. Just because he voices his opinions on the public forum, doesn't mean he'll do it as a politician!"

I think the republicans' stated "less welfare, more jobs" and "smaller government" is a good ideal to strive for. Where I don't agree with them is in their tactics and lack of strategy.

Less welfare is a good thing, but only in the presence of the availability of jobs that allow for social and economic growth.

Their theory of starting your career by flipping burgers and then slowly moving into administrative and management jobs as you gain more experience looks great on paper, but in reality fails miserably. People get stuck in these jobs for years. The republican response is always "they should have been developing themselves while working" but that is near impossible to do when the working hours are so long and the pay is so low.

If the republicans were serious about empowering Americans and bringing about an end to the need of welfare programs they would have put a holistic gameplan in place.

In the US that holistic gameplan is never going to come about for many reasons, but two of them in particular make it impossible;
1. the fact the US is so large in terms of state members, land mass and population size
2. Bipartisan politics - the US is polarized now. You can see signs of this polarization at Trump rallies. People are too far to the right and left to ever be able to sit down and come to a compromise. The senate and house are hostile places when it comes to do with anything about domestic politics.

This polarization has even manifested itself alarmingly quickly in American foreign policy. In 2015 the degree to which the Dems and Republicans were so at odds with each other resulted in the nation's own president being undermined - where congress invited a foreign leader of state to address them(Netanyahu of Israel), despite their president (Obama) being in contention with Netanyahu over foreign policy.

In short, the republicans have placed themselves in an obscure position on the political scene because they have entrenched themselves into ideological political positions, as opposed to being practical. Instead of trying to help steer the nation through its current environment, they're throwing up "All or nothing" tantrums.

This is the death of the republican party in its current form. Trump is the undertaker and regardless if he wins the US general elections or not, he's ruined the GOP beyond repair. The republicans will return in a couple of decades, after many many democratic presidents, in the form of a neo-libertarian/conservative coalition where the new ideology is both less government and less corporate influence, but more civil liberties and state protection against economic instability.

Of course, I could be wrong and this is all speculation - the GOP could pull a u-turn after the beating they're about to get in the general elections, followed by the senate and house elections which i predict will be overwhelmingly blue, with the exception of some hard core red states. They could wise up and turn their attention towards fat cats like the Koch brothers and wall st., they could announce a war on the rich to survive. But it will just be a distraction that lasts for a couple of years, and in the end will have more of their voter base turn towards independents and democrats, because I doubt anyone is naive enough to believe that the republicans can afford to turn on the hands that feed them at this point.



Trump represents about 8-11% of Americans. That is still 40 million people. Trust me when I say that the rest of the world is pausing for a moment and rethinking their partnerships and relationships with the US.

Canada has already reversed its position on Russia. Canadian and Russian relationships are the way to being the best they have been since the end of the cold war.

BRIC nations have already established their IMF. Developing countries have signed up. Europe, for the first time since WWII's end is taking up a bigger role in the neighborhood watch and even beefing up its military spending and programs.

Everyone is looking at the US during these times of turmoil, expecting to see an FDR or a JFK coming into power, and they see 40 million Americans voting for Trump.. everyone is just like :

Welfare programs are going to be necessary even more in the future as robotics and technology will begin removing a whole lot more jobs from the economy than they have already. We're going to be creeping up to 15-20-30% unemployment in another couple decades as there simply won't be jobs. So we'll have to either let people die off (and hope they don't kill us before doing so) or find a way to take care of them.

All those words to say Republicans bad..

Not one of them is placing any blame at all on the Democrats for the current state of affairs.

Oh and are we still comparing Trump to hitler.... /sigh

The Democrats don't have an ideological position that is at odds with the modern world. I'm not a dem or gop supporter. I like and dislike them equally.


I can tolerate the things I dislike about the Democrates because their policies don't put my life, and that of my children, in danger.

I can't sleep easy at night about the things the republicans are trying to push through because it will mean WWIII, a neo-feudal age of ignorance, "1984", an end to civil liberties and a return to race wars.

Do you support Trump, and have you ever read the history of Hitler and the Reich?

Sadly some of you should research Communism a bit more than Hitler. See alot of Commie Sanders voters in here.

You should be researching communism a bit more, seeing how Sanders isn't a communist.

Do some research for me, what's alot? Is it a beast?

I'm with you short of the part of how it would raise the % of people not in the workforce, not necessarily the unemployment rate. Quite frankly as far as I'm concerned too many people are still in the workforce, for too many years and work too many hours. There's many factors contributing to this, but the class-warfare wage gaps has certainly contributed to this.

Even if we do magically get to a point where technology subsidizes humanity properly, and only those wanting to work are working (aka those who aren't working for a living), there's a lot of issues to be pounded out. Personally I'm curious to see if modern civilization will last long enough.

I certainly agree we already have more people employed than need to be. On multiple levels both private and public sectors. Part of this is simply our resistance to change. I work pizza, and my company has been HEAVILY pushing online ordering. Most specials online only and the sort. We still have majority phone calls in. People just want to talk to another human, or are so used to doing so. I imagine it's similar to self checkout at grocery stores. Still only ever see one or two lanes for self-checkout, and like 12 of the normal ones (though not all staffed). Betting the banking industry is also the same. So many businesses already could be majority robotics, but both customers not liking the change some companies don't want to get any backlash from obviously doing so. I remember the other night Carls Jr. was trending because the CEO said he wanted to open a fully automated one and had mixed responses to it.

I think the anti-welfare mentality slows us down from possibly getting to this situation so far. Move to a UBI and add a high top end tax bracket and I think we'll see plenty of places automate across their entire staffing.

To be fair, some of that is just poorly implemented electronics.

So, you just said that all right-wingers are Middle Easterners.

I'm a self-described conservative (mostly libertarian, but at least I call myself a Republican), and I'm not from the Middle East. I'm actually a Texan. Texans are not all Middle Easterners, although there are some Texans who's family come from the Middle East. Which is ok, because nobody here gives a *** where you come from, it's how we treat each other that we care about.

Seriously, try not to make a logical fallacy when you argue, please.

I think Triffle was saying that right-wingers want to kill all Middle Easterners, but the point is easily missed because it is a statement so hyperbolic that it is utterly detached from reality.

Yeah, right, enough Trump - Hitler comparisons already.

After all, Hitler never talked about the size of his penis in public.

They just compare it to Hitler cause they're not well versed with Mussolini!

You can have both comparisons, it isn't a "who he's more like" contest.

I'd probably say it's safe to assert that it's because most people won't know who Mussolini was, especially in the US (they like to ignore history, unless it's of the art variety :P ).

WWIII? Just like with the other world wars, I guarantee it won't be the U.S. that starts it, Republican president or not.

Neo-feudalism? Might want to check how well our current Democrat president is doing with narrowing the wealth gap.

1984? Who's advocating for forced equality and speech restriction the most?

End to civil liberties? Remind me which side fights the hardest to preserve the constitution.

Return to race wars? Donald Trump didn't start that. Try looking at our racially-divisive president's rhetoric first.