Summary
Low-income voters who supported Donald Trump are expressing concerns over potential cuts to government benefits as his administration pushes for aggressive spending reductions.
Trump’s newly announced “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE), led by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, is tasked with cutting programs, raising fears about impacts on social safety nets.
Trump also plans to shut down the Education Department, impose tariffs on imports from China, Mexico, and Canada, and has nominated Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as Health Secretary, signaling a focus on controversial health policies.
Voter anxieties about these shifts are growing.
“He’s not going to hurt the poor. He’s too smart for that.”
Oh, you infuriating fucking summer child. It’d be hilarious if I wasn’t stuck in this hellbound handbasket with the rest of you fucking mongoloids.
A friendly reminder that “mongoloid” is a racist pejorative, and that the government of Mongolia literally ran a campaign decades ago to get people to stop doing it.
I did not know that and will adjust accordingly.
As much as I respect Ghengis Khan and his ilk, I will not stop listening to that Devo song.
That’s their logic … they weren’t thinking “He’s not going to hurt the poor” …
They were thinking “He’s not going to hurt ME! He’s going to hurt other people I don’t like.”
I’ve actually heard Maga people admit they’ll get hurt by these policies, but immigrants and homos will get hurt MOAR!, y’know, like Jesus taught, so it’s cool.
Yep. The GOP has worked tirelessly for decades to convince people that we are not capable of helping everyone. That it’s a zero-sum game, and someone else receiving something means that another more deserving person (AKA straight/white/cis/etc.) must be deprived of the thing.
Therefore, since our government is incapable of providing for all, in their minds (because the Republicans have made sure of it), then the next best thing is making sure nobody gets the thing. Especially someone who doesn’t “deserve” it.
Good ol American rugged individualism.
Well they deserve their benefits unlike those other poors who are in a bad spot due to their own faults.
See…I don’t look at it that way. It’s not funny to me, even if I weren’t affected.
It’s like watching a blind kitten running into a house that’s on fire. I don’t laugh at the soon to be burning kitten. I cry for the suffering that’s about to take place.
Yes, the kitten chose to run into a burning house. Yes the kitten SHOULD HAVE known that’s a bad idea.
…but they didn’t. They didn’t know what they were truely doing. And now it’s time to suffer from the obvious bad situation you just ran into.
Only difference is, the kitten fire is now affecting the whole country.
That’s a bad analogy. In this situation, the kittens voted to set the house in fire because there’s a puppy in a different room that they don’t like and it will get burned too. It’s hateful, willful ignorance and a desire to hurt others.
Yeeeeaah… but see, your analogy not coincidentally fails, since the kitten is just ignorant.
It would be more accurate if the kitten ran into the burning house because some fat, smelly old tom told it that if it did, the tom and his buddies would destroy the lives of everyone the kitten hates.
So yeah - there’s a lot of ignorance there, but the foundation that makes that ignorance relevant and effective is bigotry and hatred and an utter and complete lack of empathy or integrity. If the kitten wasn’t so blinded by its hatred and cruelty, “run into this burning house to destroy someone else’s life” wouldn’t have been an effective appeal.