Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, March 25, 2020

Tracy Jan: Throughout his term, President Trump has chipped away at the social safety net, proposing budgets that gutted housing assistance, food stamps and health insurance for the poorest Americans. Now, ... the swelling need for federal assistance has forced even conservative lawmakers to embrace government protections in a series of sweeping stimulus bills.

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Under the $2 trillion stimulus deal reached in the Senate early Wednesday, Republicans are proposing sending direct cash payments of $1,200 to individual Americans, an idea that, on the surface, echoes former Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang's universal basic income platform. They want to bolster the unemployment insurance system after many GOP-led states spent years enacting restrictive criteria and reducing benefits.

Republicans' embrace of unemployment benefits marks a departure from the Obama years. As the economy began to improve, support for many of the provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, including extending such benefits from 26 weeks up to 99 weeks, eroded among conservatives " even through long spells of unemployment, said Indivar Dutta-Gupta, co-executive director of the Georgetown Center on Poverty and Inequality.

"In any crisis, there's a general willingness to support policies people would not support outside of the crisis, particularly for conservatives reluctant to support robust economic security systems," he said. "The question will be how long that support will last."

Hopefully long enough to allow the economic upheaval being caused by COVID to fully settle for the vast majority of affected citizens/taxpayers.

#1 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-03-25 09:54 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Republicans hate the social safety net until they need it themselves.
Republicans stopped being Republicans when they discovered Libertarianism which is Republicanism with a touch more meanness added.

#2 | Posted by danni at 2020-03-25 10:03 AM | Reply

I don't necessarily agree with the premise of the assertion of "gutting social safety nets" but if we accept for purposes of arguing, then couldn't the argument be made that we gutted such things so we can afford a real crisis such as this one? And that it suggests that everyone including those on the right actually embrace social assistance despite attempts to make them villians?

#3 | Posted by eberly at 2020-03-25 10:48 AM | Reply

then couldn't the argument be made that we gutted such things so we can afford a real crisis such as this one?

Whatever money that wasn't spent on safety net programs was spent many times over for corporate tax breaks and subsidies to already profitable industries who didn't trickle down the money to their workers as was promised by those selling them.

The government has no choice but to spend whatever it takes to save the US economy and every single US worker. Maybe it will finally dawn on our politicians that we the taxpayers are the ones who'll end up paying the tab eventually anyway, so maintaining the consumers' ability to do so is paramount.

The Trump Administration was still trying to cut SNAP benefits as recently as last week, so no, they get no credit for realizing that this 'come-to-Jesus' action is crucial to our immediate future. Their action is more self-serving, than actual benevolence. All one needs to do is listen to Trump's own words, placing the viability of the economy before the lives of citizens who might needlessly die if precedence is placed on commerce before universal societal health concerns.

And that it suggests that everyone including those on the right actually embrace social assistance despite attempts to make them villains?

They are only embracing it now as a matter of last resort, trying to preserve their wealth and power in the face of a possible depression which could wipe them out both financially and politically.

#4 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-03-25 11:46 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 10

So then Eberly, you're contending that hard working men and women who have paid into SS all their lives shouldn't get a SS check so they can retire? Because we have a crisis now? I see SS as an investment they made and the checks they receive as earned income because it actually was.
If that can be taken away then property can be confiscated, bank accounts can be too. SS was money taken directly out of income earned by working people.

#5 | Posted by danni at 2020-03-25 11:46 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

They're only reluctantly going along with this bailout for Americans because they desperately want to get as much money into the hands of their cronies as possible.

#6 | Posted by Nixon at 2020-03-25 03:03 PM | Reply

Corruption, corruption, republican is thy name.Corruption,corruption, winning is the only game. Corruption, corruption,take kickbacks to make targeted laws.Corruption, corruption,don't worry if a few losers fall...

#7 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2020-03-25 08:08 PM | Reply

I don't necessarily agree with the premise of the assertion of "gutting social safety nets" but if we accept for purposes of arguing, then couldn't the argument be made that we gutted such things so we can afford a real crisis such as this one? And that it suggests that everyone including those on the right actually embrace social assistance despite attempts to make them villians?

#3 | Posted by eberly

No they gutted those things so their donors could buy more jets and yachts.

#8 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2020-03-25 08:49 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

WE are just lucky this happened in a Pres Election year for a Republican second term. Otherwise Trump and the GOP would be quoting Marie Antoinette about cake. *her supposed quote.

"Qu'ils mangent de la brioche"

#9 | Posted by Corky at 2020-03-25 09:30 PM | Reply

"Maybe it will finally dawn on our politicians that we the taxpayers are the ones who'll end up paying the tab eventually anyway, so maintaining the consumers' ability to do so is paramount."

Maybe it will finally dawn on you that they always knew that. Under normal circumstances they'll haggle over social services because of how much interest it generates with voters. It gets many folks here all hot and bothered.

At the end of the day, they all understand it's a consumer driven economy but politics matter more most of the time.

#10 | Posted by eberly at 2020-03-25 09:42 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

"...so no, they get no credit for realizing that this 'come-to-Jesus' action is crucial to our immediate future. Their action is more self-serving, than actual benevolence."

passed a $2 trillion stimulus and you're whining it's not for a good reason.

#11 | Posted by eberly at 2020-03-25 09:43 PM | Reply

"No they gutted those things so their donors could buy more jets and yachts."

I've seen more provocative tripe written in the stall of a mens room.

#12 | Posted by eberly at 2020-03-25 09:44 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#12

Funny place to have your tap lessons...

#13 | Posted by Corky at 2020-03-25 09:47 PM | Reply

passed a $2 trillion stimulus and you're whining it's not for a good reason.

I didn't whine one bit, I simply called it as I see it.

Never said a single word about being ungrateful for whatever comes down the pike. I just recognize all the factors at play that your first comments seemed not consider.

#14 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-03-25 09:48 PM | Reply

...seemed not to consider.

#15 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-03-25 09:51 PM | Reply

"I just recognize all the factors at play that your first comments seemed not consider."

well, they were questions....not comments.

and it's fun to watch people pretend they have personal relationships with elected politicians from all over the country and can see into their hearts when they do things.

It's very Zedlike.....and I truly enjoy watching.

#16 | Posted by eberly at 2020-03-25 09:53 PM | Reply

"I've seen more provocative tripe written in the stall of a mens room."

So you're saying things like making the Bush tax cuts permanent had no effect on safety nets, then?

#17 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-03-25 10:00 PM | Reply

passed a $2 trillion stimulus and you're whining it's not for a good reason.

#11 | POSTED BY EBERLY

I personally don't care why trumplicans are finally doing the right thing.

I am just glad they are doing something good and I am hopeful that good things will finally come of this mess.

It is just sad that it took a freakin pandemic (and the blood of patriots) to get them to do it.

#18 | Posted by donnerboy at 2020-03-25 10:01 PM | Reply

-I personally don't care why trumplicans are finally doing the right thing.

Well, I think you do...but put the pom poms down until the senate passes it.

#19 | Posted by eberly at 2020-03-25 10:08 PM | Reply

Once again in a time of a dire economic crisis a republicl0wn preznit has to suck it up and "abandon free market principals in order to save the free market".
Honestly... I think its time for the cl0wns to grow a pair. Step out of that closet and own it. Say it loud and say it proud.

We're HERE
We're SOCIALIST
GET USED TO IT!!

it would save a lot of time before ---- happens

#20 | Posted by RightisTrite at 2020-03-25 10:19 PM | Reply

Capitalism always needs to be bailed out by the state. It's a failed system. Unexpected shocks break it down. Then the public sector always has to backstop it. Maybe we should nationalize the banks and fed. And close the
financial markets. Force the debt ratios to more rational levels.

#21 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2020-03-25 10:30 PM | Reply

The GOP gutted the nation's social safety nets because the GOP doesn't give a ---- about poor or working class people. If you're a billionaire though, GOP's got your back.

#22 | Posted by moder8 at 2020-03-25 10:43 PM | Reply

Well, I think you do...but put the pom poms down until the senate passes it.
#19 | POSTED BY EBERLY

The senate has passed the bill

You can stop swinging your purse at everyone now Beverly.

#23 | Posted by donnerboy at 2020-03-26 10:46 AM | Reply

Wait, so Liberals don't know the difference between emergency assistance funds and free money?

Ok, so now all of the financial illiteracy that Liberals show is completely understandable.

#24 | Posted by humtake at 2020-03-26 01:28 PM | Reply

No, humtake.

They're pointing out how the right wants to gut social safety nets until they directly benefit them and pick up the slack from their poor planning and financial skills.

It's not hard to understand that the right's rhetoric is extremely situationally dependent.

#25 | Posted by jpw at 2020-03-26 01:42 PM | Reply

Wait, so Liberals don't know the difference between emergency assistance funds and free money?

#24 | POSTED BY HUMTAKE

Haha, self-owned. You clearly don't know the difference.

It was never "free money". It's all emergency assistance. What's the difference between needing food, shelter and healthcare now or months ago?

You make it sound like government was just handing out huge checks and saying "here, go buy yourself a nice house". No, it's so people don't have to go hungry and live on the streets.

#26 | Posted by Derek_Wildstar at 2020-03-26 03:38 PM | Reply

couldn't the argument be made that we gutted such things so we can afford a real crisis such as this one?
#3 | POSTED BY EBERLY

If you're going to try to make that argument then you have to explain how cutting assistance programs ties back to to increasing readiness for such a crisis? Not an easy case to make considering that Trump/GOP have been cutting healthcare, emergency services & research budgets. You would also need to explain how blowing up the budget deficit by giving tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans has made us better prepared for a crisis.

www.washingtonpost.com

www.vox.com

www.modernhealthcare.com

foreignpolicy.com

thehill.com

#27 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2020-03-27 11:39 AM | Reply

It should be plainly obvious by now,
that the GOP does what benefits the GOP,
period. They have operated like this since
the formation of Trickle Down Economics under
Reagan. It has only grown more blatant and more
obvious since then. In Reagan's Day, they were
still smart enough to know how to hide it.
That no longer holds true under Trump.

#28 | Posted by earthmuse at 2020-03-27 01:03 PM | Reply

couldn't the argument be made that we gutted such things so we can afford a real crisis such as this one?

Sure, if you were very stupid, such an argument could be made.

Go ahead and make it!

#29 | Posted by JOE at 2020-03-27 01:07 PM | Reply

If eberly is one of the most competent of the cons, we should simply never ever elect them again. The vast 6 amount of stupidity he's posting just boggles the mind.

#30 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2020-03-27 04:05 PM | Reply

Why would a Capitalist country have a social safety net to begin with?
Some of y'all have been on this blog for ten years but you still don't know what America is.
Ask Boaz if you really still can't figure it out.

#31 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-03-27 04:09 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2020 World Readable

Drudge Retort