And every single one of those companies has gone through rounds of layoffs in 2025. Not only that, but each one of them had released statements saying that their layoffs were (paraphrasing) “strategic reductions in force” unrelated to economic factors.

Which is a long way of stating the obvious: corporate tax cuts don’t encourage job growth. Even if that stupid theory were true, companies would have eliminated chunks of their workforce with or without the tax breaks because AI investments (/gambles) are majorly driving this iteration.

You mean lack thereof?

Yeah, because a lot of flight controllers STILL have to pickup gig work or else resign from their positions in order to pay the bills.

That means less air coverage, which in turn means mandatory flight reductions.

Even if the government 100% reopened this minute, it’ll still probably be around another 2 weeks before the first round of paychecks go out, and even then it won’t be enough to cover nearly a month and a half without income.

The effects of this shutdown will still be felt for months.

This is fucking nuts.

Guy with dual Israeli citizenship who provided fraudulent testimony to the FBI that materially damaged a presidential candidate’s reelection* efforts, and who was deemed an extreme flight risk, was … just … granted the equivalent of unsupervised work release? And now nobody knows where he is?

I can only facepalm so hard. ; _ ;

So all of this is a big lie. Immigrants aren’t given free healthcare; hospitals are required to give emergency healthcare regardless of whoever walks in the door, then left with the bill if/when their patients end up not being able to pay.

Literally the entire situation is the direct result of Ronald-fucking-Reagan signing the 1986 EMTALA Act that effectively creates an unfunded mandate of care for virtually all hospitals. They mandated healthcare but refused to pay for it.

Every year U.S. hospitals treat all kinds of people in their emergency rooms. Federal law prohibits hospitals from turning anyone away from emergency care, no matter the reason.

A percentage of the people treated are what are colloquially called “indigent care” (basically, so poor that you couldn’t make them pay if you wanted to). The bar for whether hospitals consider them “indigent” is whether or not they would ordinarily qualify for Medicaid in their state—regardless of citizenship status.

Every year, hospitals can submit claims for a certain percentage of their states’ Medicaid funds in order to help the hospital make up for the deficit they incur from treating people who have not paid their bill—as long as the hospital can provide documented evidence of a the bills that were not able to be paid.

There’s other restrictions and things involved, but the important part is that the hospital has already eaten the cost—they’re only trying to scrape back some money to break even.

Based on both personal experience as well as public data, undocumented immigrants account for less that 1% of the claims submitted by hospitals for Medicaid reimbursement. Moreover, many (many) hospitals make up for the huge deficits they run each year by relying on several of these reimbursement schemes.

Gutting Medicaid reimbursement to states will effectively render poor hospitals insolvent and—if they’re"lucky"—candidates for being bought up by private equity (or even worse, monopolistic conglomerates like Kaiser).

Because it was a hypothetical based upon an argument from absurdity.

I know that the statistics were absurd. The premise was, “let’s assume everyone who didn’t show up to vote this time around and everyone that voted for Trump (but didn’t last time) are at fault.”

My goal was not to demonstrate what statistically plausible number of people that were “responsible for Trump winning” that were on SNAP benefits.

My entire point was that even if you do shitty, uncharitable, worst-case-scenario statistics about the election, the original argument would amount to saying 42 million people should go hungry because less than a quarter of them didn’t vote hard enough. My point was that even lying with the numbers would still result in the original premise being flimsy.

Your gripe is that my math is wrong. My gripe is that even shitty math can’t come close to justifying 42 million people thrown off SNAP, which further highlights the assholery of stating “hurr durr didn’t vote hard enough so let them eat cake”.

Your pedantry misses the sarcasm and tone of my response, and—judging from your comment history—is perfectly in line with your MO of dropping one liners designed to be maximally contrarian without contributing further to the discussion.

Like… no shit the real stats are wildly different—they would very likely show that a much smaller number of people who determined the outcome of the 2024 election are currently SNAP recipients. Which, again, would not make the original premise that I was responding to any stronger.

You’re failing at reading comprehension.

YOU are not the average voter. You’re likely much more informed than the average American voter.

When the average American voter hears “socialism”, they think of “the Ruskies” or the “Chi-coms”, not Scandinavia.

They think Scandinavia is the thing that sits on your printer that converts your documents into pdfs.

That’s my point. People overwhelmingly like DSA policies, but are hesitant to say that they would consider voting for a DSA candidate because of their (incorrect) association with socialism.

McCarthyism has done such a good job of muddying the waters in American politics that any policies labeled as “social-anything” are immediately associated with USSR gulag bread lines or Maoist famine.

A not-so-insignificant number of Americans believe the Nazis were the same as the Communists because their party has “socialist” in the name.

“Hey kids! Sorry, we can’t eat this week because the neighbors voted Trump. Oopsie.”

“ThATs NoT hOW sTatIStICS wORks” he says, in the midst of a conversation in which the motion being debated is whether some of the poors not voting correctly means all of the poors deserve to go hungry.

Forgive me if I don’t take your “nuh uh” as a persuasive rationale for starving 16 million kids. You’re clearly the more intelligent of the two of us.

At least 16 million of them could not possibly have voted for this.

An estimated 39% of SNAP recipients are children.

This is giving real “well have they tried not being poor?” energy.

Harris received 6.8 million votes fewer than Biden received in 2020. Even assuming every single one of those 6.8 million votes were SNAP recipients, you’re essentially saying that 42 million people deserve to go hungry because 3 in 20 (or around 16%) of them chose not to vote in 2024.

Moreover, DJT only received 2.8 million more votes in 2024 than he did in 2020. So let’s assume all 2.8 million of those were SNAP recipients, and then let’s assume SNAP recipients entirely determined the election result. 2.8 million + 6.8 million voters is about 22% of all SNAP recipients (or about 1 in 5).

Never mind the fact that around 39% of SNAP recipients are children (i.e. unable to vote).

So 2 children and 3 adults deserve to go hungry if 1 of the adults either doesn’t vote or votes for the wrong person?

Do you realize how incredibly fucking insane you sound?

That’s misleading and deliberately misses the commenter’s point. The DSA explicitly rejects authoritarian models of socialism (USSR, DPRK, etc).

The red-scare-fueled conflation of democratic socialism with basically Stalinism is largely what drives the general disfavorability of “socialism” in these sorts of opinion polls.

It’s not like people were asked, “Do you favor ordinary people having a real voice in their workplaces, neighborhoods, and society? Do you favor a higher minimum wage, universal health care (Medicare for All), strengthening labor unions, and increasing the power of working people while weakening the power of corporations?”

People broadly support those things, but would very likely hesitate to call that democratic socialism (which, spoiler: those are the DSA’s core tenets).

“I will admit it’s worse than even I expected, but I did warn y’all!” The crowd at a sports arena in Norfolk, Virginia, half-laughed and half-groaned.

Told who exactly? What a wild thing to say in Norfolk—where the surrounding cities (Norfolk included) overwhelmingly voted Harris in 2020.

Voters told YOU (and the DNC) to back someone other than Biden, and YOU didn’t listen until it was way too late. If anyone fumbled the election, it’s the folks who had Biden’s ear and said nothing.

“I told you so” smug assed energy—get the fuck outta here and say that to Michiganders or Pennsylvanians, you tone deaf dickhead.

The way some people throw themselves all over this man…

:/

Oh oh! I know! If they really want to look ghostly then they could wear white sheets over themselves while arresting people.

👻

Nobody in particular.

FTFTFTFY

Thune: “We’re not going to negotiate on anything until Democrats stop holding government funding hostage”

So it’s “hostage taking” when you’re the ones getting leveraged?

Countdown until Repubs start chanting “free the hostages!” in reference to the American people… 🙄

It’s operating on top of a federal airstrip (yes, located in the middle of the Everglades) that was used as a staging ground for CIA extraordinary renditions.

That airstrip has ALWAYS been used for doing what they’re doing now—they’ve just scaled up operations. It’s ALWAYS been a ‘disappearing people’ center. Seriously.

The government started construction on it forever ago (it was initially supposed to be a 39 square mile international airport) but construction halted and they decided to just keep it for classified CIA/FBI/military activities. Source: am Floridian and also “Wilderness on the Edge: A History of Everglades National Park” by Robert W. Blythe.

We’ve always been the baddies. :( :(