- cross-posted to:
- us_news@lemmygrad.ml
The United States’ poverty rate experienced its largest one-year jump on record last year, with the rate among children more than doubling from 2021’s historic low of 5.2 percent to 12.4 percent according to new numbers from the US Census Bureau out today. They’re the latest data to reflect the devastating effects following the expiration of nearly all pandemic-era relief programs. That includes the end of Medicaid rules that protected recipients from getting kicked off because of administrative errors, an end to rental assistance policies, and the restart of student loan payments.
These policies might seem like a distant memory at this point. But they’re worth recalling with the arrival of every new report. Each demonstrates what happens when politicians long hostile to caregivers, universal health care, and the welfare state, for a brief moment, acted to create powerful, federally-backed safety net programs aimed at helping everyday Americans. One of the most effective programs to emerge was the expansion of the child tax credit, which provided families monthly checks of up to $300 per child and broadened eligibility rules for qualifying families. In turn, child poverty rates plummeted; the extra income allowed caregivers to quit grueling second and third jobs; parents were able to buy their kids decent clothes and help stop taunting at school. The Census Bureau previously reported that food insecurity dropped dramatically after just the first extended payment, from 10.7 million households reporting they didn’t have enough food to 7.4 million.
But as the pandemic receded, Republicans with the help of West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, who in private remarks reportedly warned that families were using the extra income to buy drugs, appeared to remember the country’s longstanding pre-pandemic hostility. Their opposition ultimately tanked President Biden’s agenda, and along with it, the brief life of the expanded child tax credit. That’s something worth remembering today as the predictable crowd is likely to cry about Democratic-engineered inflation.
I would classify someone who provides lists of left wing protestors to neonazi terror organization Atomwaffen to be at the very least "fascist-adjacent" but that's just me
I don't think you are correct that he provided a list directly to atomwaffen. I'm open to being wrong, but could find any evidence of this.
He met with a group that associated with Atomwaffen. So he's fascist-adjacent-adjacent. He is a hack journalist catering to a shitty audience for money, kind of like Tim Pool or Jimmy Dore or Joe Rogan. If this is the kind of person who deserves violence and censorship then you are only proving my point further.
Curious if you are an anarchist or believe in the rule of law. If the latter, what would be the legal boundary between people who deserve censorship and violence without due process?
I am not going to spend effort trying to relitigate the reasons to hate a right wing grifter who collaborates with fascists. Personally, if I wanted to avoid violence, I wouldnt associate with groups that associate with Atomwaffen, but that's just common sense
The legal boundary would be the lying, slander, and vicious radical fascist antagonization (i.e. stochastic terrorism) that Ngo engages in. These people absolutely should be censored by any means necessary as their actions ARE NOT "protected speech".
They ARE NOT.
The fucking shitheads you defend make violent threats to their political opponents all the time, even pushing people out of races (which is how MTG won). If you defend them then you too are an anti-American terrorist sympathizer.
They are TERRORISTS. They are not "voicing a different opinion". They are TERRORISTS.
So much to unpack here. Not sure what country you are from, but in the US slander is already illegal, and orthogonal to fadcism.
And how is stochastic terrorism equivalent to radical fascist antagonism. And how would you prove stochastic terrorism? Just decide in your own and then lynch without trial? I have no idea how that would even be enforced in a legal framework. You gotta give me something here. I'm not just gonna go with twitter justice, sorry. We've advanced beyond medieval public stonings.
1- Did x happen as described? 2- Does his description serve to anger a violent audience? 3- Does this violent audience hurt others in response?
Ngo is three for three. Stochastic teroorist.
You are a stochastic terrorists. You cause people to have strokes trying to process your insane logic.
You changed your comment after I replied.
You also moved the goalposts. The original premise was that Nazis don't deserve free speech or protection from violence. Now we are switching to state department propaganda, with "the terrorists, oh my!".
I'm not defending anyone, so fuck off with that bullshit now. I am simply trying to establish the facts. I only brought up one person, not a multitude. I'm not aware of any violent threats that he made.
Fuck you types that value fighting "your enemy" over facts and understanding. I won't be bucketed as a sympathizer or right wing just because I challenge factually inaccurate information about a shithead. It's such a lazy disingenuous fucked up asshole thing to do, to label someone as the outgroup for disagreeing with you. Fuck you, trash.
But you hella moved the goalposts. You all are really proving my point that you just have vague arbitrary moving lines you draw around people you don't like so you can act like shitheads yourselves and feel good about it.
Guess what? Nazis dont deserve free speech or protection from violence. They broke the social contract, there fore they waive all rights.
And accidentally hitting "send" before I finished was unfortunate. Sorry you were hurt by that
Let's go full circle again for you people with the memory of goldfish.
I'm actually fine with that, and as I said at the beginning of the thread, if they actually take the name, wear the symbols, and walk the walk.
But crypto-fascists such as yourself take advantage of this one exception that is hard to disagree with and decide to label every fucking person that disagrees with you as a Nazi. Not much different from what the Nazis did themselves. Create this fearful vague enemy that they had to break rules for to protect your safety.
Sorry, but Andy Ngo is not a Nazi, and fuck you for the gaslighting
What do you think he is, then? Also, I cant help but notice that we had a huge rise in radicalized fascists as center and left people kept insisted g that radicalized fascists should have all the free speech rights while demanding none of their own. Weird that nobody is asking Fox or OANN to allow free speech to socialists, liberals, leftists, or even centrist Democrats. Meanwhile, they passed a law allowing them to buy up all the airwaves and spew nonstop fascist ideology and Heritage Foundation radicalism.
It reminds me of the joke about Edison creating a light bulb and then wondering where all these fucking moths came from...
He's a hack journalist catering to a right-wingers to make money.
You are blind to the fact that both the "left" and "right" wing in the US are mostly artificial constructs by the corporate ruling class created to corral people like you into their pens.
The kind of shit you spew isn't fundamentally different from the shit some right wing hillbilly spews about socialism and pedo cults. It's all one big straw man to divide everyone into two manageable groups that have no overlap and see the other side as pure evil. You are a diddling kids under your Stalin poster according to billy bob deep in the appalachians. It's just as accurate a depiction as everyone on the other side being a fascist nazi.
Oh no, I'm not blind to that fact but I do recognize when one is considerably more sinister and violent than the other, and that this sinister violence is highly similar to the same similar violence we have seen in past history.
How is one more sinister than the other when they are the same people? Lol don't you see the flaw here?