1/ Seeing the clip of Mike Pence today complaining that Democrats want to make poor people more comfortable (as if that’s a bad thing) reminded me how powerful anti-poor folks stereotypes are in this country, especially about poor folks of color and Black folks in particular...
2/ A common claim is that poor people (especially if Black) are sitting around collecting checks from the government. Bullshit. The most recent data shows only 2 million people in the entire U.S. getting “welfare checks.” Cash aid has been basically ended since the mid 90s...
3/ Of the 2m receiving cash aid under TANF (formerly AFDC), 29% are Black. So, 580k Black folks receiving cash aid out of 40m Black folk in all, and 7.5m Black folk in poverty. That’s 1.5% of Black folk and <8% of the Black poor receiving cash aid. acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/…...
4/ Of the 2m people getting cash aid overall, only about 437k are adults. 31% of these are black. This means there are 135k Black adults in the entire U.S. receiving cash assistance. Out of 29m Black adults in all. That’s 0.047, or <1/2 of 1% of Black adults...
5/ I want to repeat that: less than 1/2 of 1 percent of Black adults in the U.S. are receiving cash assistance from the government. Put another way, 99.53 percent of Black adults in this country are NOT. Neither are 92% of all Black folks including kids...
6/ Let me say it in the form of a quiz for your friends & family.
U of M stadium seats the most of any in the US (108k). If we filled it to capacity w/Black adults randomly from around the country on 12/31 how many would have received cash welfare this year? The answer: 508...
7/ My guess is that if people were asked that question, and had to guess correctly within a factor of 20 or else be shot in the head, the death toll from COVID would look like a day at the beach by comparison...
8/ And yes, I know the snappy comeback: well yeah but they get food stamps (SNAP) & public housing and free health care! Well, although most who get TANF also get SNAP averaging $1.33 per person per meal, the combined value of cash & SNAP is <1/2 poverty line in 49 of 50 states..
9/ ...and although 80% who get TANF also get SNAP, <8% who get SNAP get TANF. They're mostly different people. Only 1 in 10 who get checks get subsidized housing of any kind (and btw those who get housing aid still pay 28-32% of their income in rent each month…it’s not free)...
10/ In other words, most who get some form of aid are not double and triple dipping in various programs, but getting small amounts of help, and usually for short periods of time unless they are disabled or elderly...
11/ As for Medicaid, nearly 9 in 10 recipients are disabled, elderly, children, or adults who work. Of those able bodied adults not working who receive aid, almost all are looking for work but unable to find it at a pay level that would allow them to afford private health care...
12/ Plus, Medicaid puts $ in the hands of docs & hospitals, not the poor. It’s not as if the poor, in the absence of it could buy health care. They would do without, so Medicaid isn’t increasing their income or allowing them to buy more lottery tickets or whatever folks think...
13/ The mythology about poor people and those in need are false, classist, racist (in most cases), and part of a culture of cruelty to which the right is wedded and has been for a long time...
14/ They are modern day Scrooges, whose view of the poor is essentially that perhaps they should die and “reduce the surplus population.” The poor are not the problem. It is poverty and our callousness about addressing it which is the problem...
15/ Perhaps we should remember Dickens's point in his rendering of Scrooge. Scrooge was not a great moral philosopher. He was the asshole of the story. END
16/ Oh, one more thing, before folks say Dickens's point with Christmas Carol was that Scrooge changed and came to support private charity not state action, it was a parable. His inspiration was the cruelty of conditions in the tin mines...
17/ He very much supported state action on behalf of the poor but felt a parable about greed would make the point more strongly than a simple political treatise...
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Does anyone doubt which side the MAGA faithful of today would have been on at the time of this Jackson sit-in picture? Of course not. And that is why it is fair to call them evil. Anyone who was not supportive of the movement then, or wouldn't have been, is a moral monster
...and yes, please, I know the bigots in this picture were likely Democrats. I know. I also know the people they were attacking were well to their left politically, and NO movement conservatives were part of the civil rights struggle. So miss me w/ "they were Dems" BS
Oh and yes, all these white folks pouring drinks on protesters heads and verbally assaulting them deserved to be canceled: professionally, personally, whatever, until and unless they had a complete come to Jesus turn around and proved that to the satisfaction of those they abused
1/ No matter your views on student debt forgiveness, these folks who oppose it bc "I had to pay MY loans off, so they should too," are really awful people. Wanting others to experience the pain and stress you did (supposedly to build character) is sadistic...
2/ Imagine parallels: If you were physically or sexually abused ('my kids should experience that too so they won't have life too easy!'). If you experienced medical bankruptcy ('we shouldn't make health care more affordable or have M4A bc going broke for meds made me stronger!)..
3/ I mean it's just bizarre. Being burdened with heavy student debt -- bc colleges have become big businesses where hiking tuition is seen as a proxy for status/quality, and bc states have cut back on direct financing of higher ed -- is bad for everyone, not just the debtor...
Y'all can scream and yell about Antifa all you like but between people who will actually confront fascists and stand up to them and those who think they can be reasoned with, converted to prog/left class analysis, or need to be "understood," I'll take the former every time.
That doesn't mean there isn't a valid critique of certain tactics, strategies & particular actions. As is true in ANY political formation. The question is, should we respond to fascists with kindness and ecumenism or militant self-defense? No evidence the first of these works
I feel like those who critique Antifa but are on the progressive/left of the spectrum really believe you can reason with fascists, or turn them on to Gramsci if given enough time, or some such shit...
1/ The goal of GOP election fraud claims (before & after 2020) is to limit voting by folk of color & the poor. We know this bc before COVID, when mail-in & absentee was overwhelmingly whiter & upper middle class, NO right wingers focused on tighter safeguards on those votes...
2/ Rather they focused on limiting in-person early voting (disproportionately POC) and photo ID, bc even though there was almost no evidence of in person fraud, they knew POC and the poor are statistically less likely to have photo ID...
3/ In close elections, if such efforts result in even a slight decrease in turnout by such groups, the right benefits. NOW because of COVID, as POC and lower income folks availed themselves more of mail in and absentee (to stay safe), the same folks scream about absentee fraud..
1/ So Rush Limbaugh says liberals and conservatives can't co-exist, but we did, before the likes of him and other radio loudmouths came along, spinning the notion that the left was evil, trying to kill God, the country, white people, marriage, etc...he and his ilk are to blame...
2/ ...and fact is, we have no choice but to co-exist, however uneasily. There are no purely liberal or conservative states. There are plenty of liberals in he reddest states (usually in larger cities) and conservatives in the bluest. They have a right to live where they wish...
3/ how would the likes of Limbaugh suggest secession could even work? I live in TN. A red state w/a GOP super majority in the legislature. But Nashville, Memphis and Chattanooga (the engines of growth in the state btw) are blue, and Knoxville, though red has many liberals too..
Yes, and there is no contradiction there. He was saying Trump's victory, though real -- i.e., he got the most votes in the key EC states -- was achieved due in part to interference from Russia. He wasn't questioning whether Trump actually got the most votes
It's like if someone argued a candidate won because of "dark money" influence, or disinformation by trolls (whether foreign or domestic). It isn't questioning IF someone won. It's questioning the forces that caused that to happen. That's different than the Q loons and Trumpkins
So it Trumpkins said, yeah our guy lost but only bc the liberal media wouldn't give him honest coverage, blah blah blah, I would disagree but that's at least admitting a fact about the outcome. THAT is equal to what the left or Dems said after 16 re: Russia, troll farms, etc