Republicans reject own funding bill, US government shutdown imminent

Nobody has done more to advance Russian and Chinese interests than the democrats in the past year and a half. We now have a whole new world economy that's completely independent of the west emerging around BRICS. This would have never been possible had US not decided to fight an economic war with Russia and cut it out of the global financial system. The proxy war has also exposed the west as being incapable to defeat Russia on the battlefield and showed that western weapons do not live up to the hype.

They tried a half socialist with Bernie and the DNC said no... so not going to happen

Sure thing bubba

Do they?

When Republicans are in power they never actually cut spending.

That's why they want politicians to tell us what medical procedures we can get, why they want women to not be able to leave their states, why they want governments to pick and choose what books people can read and even what nicknames you can be called! Because small Government!

That isn't really true, now or ever. It is old, crusty propaganda. It is their excuse for their actions of opposing any and all (useful and fair) government spending, but they really just want to funnel all that same amount of government money, if not more, into the pockets of the people who bribe them. They also obviously don't believe this as far as personal liberties, they want more power with which to control all finances to their own ends.

None of that is "small" it is better described as "ineffective" or how I see it, "not designed for your benefit"

They want to show the government is "failing" so they can gut it and replace it with what they want. Profit and control. They know not enough people will pay attention to notice it's republicans actively causing the failures.

That's what they write on the can but not what they put in it.

They literally don't. The last time Republicans cut anything (spending, agency scope, etc) was.... back in Reagan's time? They say they want smaller government, but every time Republicans have control, they grow government, they just grow it differently than Democrats.

For example:

• Bush Sr. - didn't do much other than passing bipartisan bills
• Bush Jr - Patriot Act, TSA, military spending
• Trump - tax cuts and increased spending (at the tail end of an economic boom), stupid tariffs

And Reagan wasn't the epitome of small government either, he just talked about it a lot. According to Mother Jones (strong leftist bias), Reagan grew the national debt substantially and increased the number of government employees (there were far fewer in 2012 than the end of Reagan's presidency).

I used to consider myself Republican back when I believed they were actually in favor of small government, but I have seen no evidence that Republicans actually are. So I switched my registration to Libertarian and now vote for both parties, depending on how I think the candidate views government.

No worries. This will not go on your permanent record.

Well, I thought it was a good joke.

They want less of the "wrong" government...

"everyone else are freeloaders. I actually need the support I get though!"

smh, it would have been funny if it isn't such a common mentality.

can sell any oxy pills they don't snort.

God I basically know a town made up of these people. Then they have to trade back pills for pill counts, crazy lifestyle those people live.

Now that's just good business

GOP voters are richer on average than DNC voters, who are richer on average than non-voters. I believe the breakdown of annual income was something like non-voters $35k, DNC voters $60k, GOP voters $80k. The vast majority of "trailer trash" don't vote and are just a punching bag for rich liberals so they don't have to confront their rich small business owner class-allies who actually make up the core of the GOP.

It's funny that people's stereotype of the GOP is either of dirt poor trailer trash reactionaries, or uber-rich Koch billionaires when the reality is that DNC is the party of billionaires and haute bourgies and the ultra-poor have no party. GOP is the party of the petty bourgies, the landlords, small business owners, home owners and labor aristocrats - the "middle class". GOP so controls the conversations that Americans all believe "small business owner" and "home owner" are benevolent sacred things, but in fact it is the source of much evil. Democrats are afraid to attack the middle class and the GOP for being petty fascist crooks and mini-tyrannical monsters they are because their own party contains the haute imperialist crooks and the mega-tyrannical monsters.

Pretty sure the "red" states are net takers of federal funds compared to "blue" states.

That depends on how you define "welfare."

This article looks at food assistance:

Of these, about one-in-five (22%) of Democrats say they had received food stamps compared with 10% of Republicans. About 17% of political independents say they have received food stamps.

This article looks at entitlements generally:

While the two parties are sharply divided over entitlement spending, the differences in the proportions of Republicans and Democrats who have received entitlements is fairly modest: 60% of Democrats, 52% of Republicans and 53% of independents have benefited from one of these six major classes of federal entitlement programs.

So at least from those two studies, Democrats use welfare more than Republicans. The "red states get more welfare funding" notion can be understood to mean that the poor in those states probably vote Democrat and use lots of federal welfare.

Here's another article from another source:

Hardly surprising, we see that in a two-party split, 60-80% of welfare recipients are Democrats, while full time Workers are evenly divided between parties.

Wouldn't all government welfare be "insurance" since they're funded with tax dollars? Even if you're not a net tax payer, you're still paying your fair share as defined by the tax code.

So I really don't understand that line of discussion. Whether you're getting Social Security or food assistance, it's welfare. I don't care if you need it or not, if you're getting a benefit from the government, I consider it all the same thing.

Imo, we should combine most of the various government benefits into a single check you get based on your income. Here's my plan:

• if you make nothing, you are brought up to the poverty line
• if you make under a living wage (say, 2x the poverty line), you get a benefit on a sliding scale based on income
• if you make over a living wage, you get no benefit

This would replace the EITC, Social Security, food assistance programs, etc, though probably not Medicare/Medicaid.

haha get owned poor people!

Good human

Down side is, it will also stop money going to lots of other things, services for marginalized people are going to be reduced.

Man I just fucking LOVE russian warcrimes.

It really says a lot that the democrats care more about feeding conscripts to artillery than keeping WIC afloat. The CR without the Ukraine aid would have prevented a lot of suffering.

Jesus fuck I didnt know there was a porky point and Im fuckin howlIng

AhaHAHahaH!HH!!h O m f

Why does the GOP get what it wants without a majority, but the democrats need a super-hyper-majority, plus the parliamentarian, plus the presidency, plus a majority of State Governors, and they still can't accomplish anything besides naming a post-office and passing a republican healthcare plan?