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

        • AngrilyEatingMuffins@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          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.

            • VelvetStorm@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              1 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@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 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?

      • Strangle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 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

              • Strangle@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 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@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  1 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
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    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@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

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

        • QHC@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 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/