The Republican fantasy of lower taxes and hard-to-access social safety net programs will now be a reality

The Republican fantasy of lower taxes and hard-to-access social safety net programs will now be a reality

For decades, Republicans have argued that the US would be better off if taxes were low, and programs to help low-income Americans were harder to access. With Donald Trump’s marquee tax and spending bill now set to become law, the country will find out what it’s like to live under that sort of system.

The massive legislation that Trump plans to sign Friday will make his campaign promises a reality by extending tax cuts enacted during his first term, and creating new deductions aimed at the working-class voters who backed his re-election.

But it will also fundamentally reorder two major social safety net programs, slashing funding and imposing new work requirements that nonpartisan estimates say will cost millions of people their benefits. The ripple effects, experts say, will be felt across the country, and not just by the poor.

  • pezhore@infosec.pub
    34·
    6 hours ago

    Medicaid, which provides healthcare to low-income and disabled Americans

    […]

    At one point, House speaker Mike Johnson circulated research from the conservative American Enterprise Institute finding that, after sleeping, playing video games was how Medicaid recipients who do not work spend most of their time.

    Yes, because heaven forbid the poor and disabled enjoy life a little.

    I’ve said this to my very conservative family when they talk about cheaters and welfare queens - I’d gladly give 10 people assistance even if some of them don’t “need” it. If it helps even a majority of the group, it’s worth it.

    Edit: And here’s a thought. What would be an acceptable third thing they most spend their time doing?

    • bcgm3@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1·
      5 minutes ago

      Not to mention that qualifying for Medicaid requires that your income doesn’t exceed a certain amount, and that said amount is very low. Make a penny over, and there goes your “benefit.”

      I struggle to imagine how one could legally collect Medicaid and do more than sleep or play games.

    • TimmyDeanSausage @lemmy.world
      7·
      4 hours ago

      I used to game with a veteran who broke his back during his last tour. He could still get around, but had enough problems that he was on disability and spent most of his time gaming. He was also a huge Trump supporter who constantly talked about “welfare queens” and immigrants destroying the country… He also sold things online and didn’t report his income from that so he could keep his disability. A perfect example of the pot calling the kettle black, and I still wouldn’t take his disability away if it meant other people that rely on theirs also had theirs taken.

    • krashmo@lemmy.world
      10·
      4 hours ago

      The logic is “I hate my job so you have to hate whatever you spend most of your time doing too”. It makes sense if you think life is supposed to be hard but it seems like the obvious solution is to make life easier for everyone rather than harder for those who have trouble participating in our dumb economic system.

  • ChillPenguin@lemmy.world
    9·
    5 hours ago

    Well, all it takes now is for someone to not have anything to lose. With this bill, I think we will be seeing more of that.

    • krashmo@lemmy.world
      9·
      4 hours ago

      You’re not wrong but everyone seems to think that’s someone else’s job. We’re not going to see actual change until people like you and I start fixing pipes ourselves.

  • ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    311·
    7 hours ago

    No, the Republican fantasy is doing that and having the benefit cuts pay for the tax cuts. This is the Republican reality where the tax cuts still require borrowing an enormous amount of money.

    Edit: Society is always making a trade-off between helping the poor and using that money for other purposes and if, with the support of working class Americans, a candidate is elected who decides that society will help the poor less, then that’s a reasonable outcome in a democracy even if it isn’t one that I personally support. However, running the debt up like this is an extremely reckless and selfish decision to buy lower taxes in the present day at the expense of America’s future. It’s so short-sighted that I think it isn’t a reasonable choice for any ideology except perhaps nihilistic disregard for anything beyond the next election cycle…