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.
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.