Why do democrats want more people on foodstamps and welfare

[danielpalos]

The states with high mortgage prices and interest voted democratic. In Trump's world, they must pay a price for having voted that way. To my knowledge, Trump has never even visited California in any official governmental capacity. The Divider in Chief has simply told the entire West Coast to get fucked. He has done the same thing to the northeast. But, for his special billionaire pals, they can still write off their private jets.

Yes, they did vote Democrat and that's why their cost of living is much higher than states that didn't.

Democrats are constantly focused on "paying your fair share" however when it comes to them doing the same, they object.

But, of course, the poorest county in all of America, is solidly Trump!

Trump has made America's 'poorest white town' hopeful again

The entire economy of this country depends on "welfare" money.

"Today, the town is a ghost of its former self. The vast majority of Beattyville residents get some form of government aid -- 57% of households receive food stamps and 58% get disability payments from Social Security."

Donald Trump was voted in by these dirt poor towns

"The strength of the Trump vote puzzled Mr McCoy when he considers the local reliance on food stamps and welfare.

“Because social assistance like food stamps and welfare is what the Republicans are going to cut,” he said."

That's because they hope Trump will invigorate the economy and they will be able to WORK and not NEED assistance. This is the divide between left and right. The left assumes that everyone getting from the government wants to continue getting, while the right understands that they don't.

All the right wing does is use coercion, coming into an election cycle.

Healthcare reform and a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage!

Which is coercion. You really don't get what you're saying, do you?

Yes, I do. Requiring a work ethic is not employment at will. That Institutional public policy Only benefits Capitalists, not Labor as Individuals.

 

[hadit]

You mean people do not have a right to work in those states?

No, they currently don't. We need Persons in those States to advocate for Truth in Legislative Advertising laws.

You could first target Congress and the "Affordable HealthCare Act", that could be the first change.

Then you could go work on the "Fairness Doctrine."

As a federalist, I would insist on equal protection of the law regarding the legal concept of employment at will, and a permanent federal solution to our border issues, via Commerce, well regulated.

And, I would abolish our income tax by abolishing our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror.

So, if I have a business and I don’t need a worker and you walk in and want a job, I’d be required to hire you?

Not sure what you mean. That would cause businesses to fold.

If all the taxes were because of crime, drugs and terror then you could, it seems that defense, welfare, SSI and Medicare still need to be funded, how would you fund them?

It means I would go on unemployment for one dollar an hour less than the current minimum wage. Let's assume it is fifteen dollars for the minimum wage. The unemployment compensation wage would be fourteen dollars an hour. Your firm would only be assessed general taxes for unemployment compensation not our burdensome, current regime.

You're not being honest here, because you don't want unemployment, you want welfare. You don't want to just be paid because you got laid off and until you can find another job, you want to be paid, period, because you don't want to work at all.

 

[danielpalos]

No, they currently don't. We need Persons in those States to advocate for Truth in Legislative Advertising laws.

You could first target Congress and the "Affordable HealthCare Act", that could be the first change.

Then you could go work on the "Fairness Doctrine."

As a federalist, I would insist on equal protection of the law regarding the legal concept of employment at will, and a permanent federal solution to our border issues, via Commerce, well regulated.

And, I would abolish our income tax by abolishing our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror.

So, if I have a business and I don’t need a worker and you walk in and want a job, I’d be required to hire you?

Not sure what you mean. That would cause businesses to fold.

If all the taxes were because of crime, drugs and terror then you could, it seems that defense, welfare, SSI and Medicare still need to be funded, how would you fund them?

It means I would go on unemployment for one dollar an hour less than the current minimum wage. Let's assume it is fifteen dollars for the minimum wage. The unemployment compensation wage would be fourteen dollars an hour. Your firm would only be assessed general taxes for unemployment compensation not our burdensome, current regime.

You're not being honest here, because you don't want unemployment, you want welfare. You don't want to just be paid because you got laid off and until you can find another job, you want to be paid, period, because you don't want to work at all.

Yes, I am. That is You, not me. In any case, why do You care if I want to stay poor on an at-will basis?

 

[hadit]

You could first target Congress and the "Affordable HealthCare Act", that could be the first change.

Then you could go work on the "Fairness Doctrine."

As a federalist, I would insist on equal protection of the law regarding the legal concept of employment at will, and a permanent federal solution to our border issues, via Commerce, well regulated.

And, I would abolish our income tax by abolishing our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror.

So, if I have a business and I don’t need a worker and you walk in and want a job, I’d be required to hire you?

Not sure what you mean. That would cause businesses to fold.

If all the taxes were because of crime, drugs and terror then you could, it seems that defense, welfare, SSI and Medicare still need to be funded, how would you fund them?

It means I would go on unemployment for one dollar an hour less than the current minimum wage. Let's assume it is fifteen dollars for the minimum wage. The unemployment compensation wage would be fourteen dollars an hour. Your firm would only be assessed general taxes for unemployment compensation not our burdensome, current regime.

You're not being honest here, because you don't want unemployment, you want welfare. You don't want to just be paid because you got laid off and until you can find another job, you want to be paid, period, because you don't want to work at all.

Yes, I am. That is You, not me. In any case, why do You care if I want to stay poor on an at-will basis?

You can if you want, just don't expect the taxpayers to subsidize your lifestyle. Be honest and say you want to be on welfare and stop trying to call it UE. UE was created to help carry people to the next job who were let go through no fault of their own.

 

[Papageorgio]

No, you recommend a bunch of blargling. Your arguments have all been systematically destroyed many times, yet you seem to think they're still relevant.

in other words, you got nothing but repeal coming into an election cycle. I recommend, better solutions at lower cost.

So what is your better solution at a lower cost.

Healthcare reform and a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage. I don't mind if the right wing, "sits out the next election cycle."

You are for healthcare reform, what does that mean? I’m all for healthcare reform.

What kind of healthcare reform? How would it work, what would be the key issues it would settle? How do you keep the cost down? Who would benefit? How would you take care of the existing system? How would it be implemented? Who would pay? How would it work after the failure of Obamacare? How would the medical profession be paid?

Actually, this may happen by itself, if we can solve simple poverty. Market based products should appear to meet that new demand. In that manner, insurance products will be available which should help lower our costs via normal market forces.

If it hasn’t happened in the last 100 years, how will it happen by its self? That isn’t reform, that is status quo and you are the one wanting healthcare reform. So do you want healthcare reform or not?

 

[Papageorgio]

You mean people do not have a right to work in those states?

No, they currently don't. We need Persons in those States to advocate for Truth in Legislative Advertising laws.

You could first target Congress and the "Affordable HealthCare Act", that could be the first change.

Then you could go work on the "Fairness Doctrine."

As a federalist, I would insist on equal protection of the law regarding the legal concept of employment at will, and a permanent federal solution to our border issues, via Commerce, well regulated.

And, I would abolish our income tax by abolishing our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror.

So, if I have a business and I don’t need a worker and you walk in and want a job, I’d be required to hire you?

Not sure what you mean. That would cause businesses to fold.

If all the taxes were because of crime, drugs and terror then you could, it seems that defense, welfare, SSI and Medicare still need to be funded, how would you fund them?

It means I would go on unemployment for one dollar an hour less than the current minimum wage. Let's assume it is fifteen dollars for the minimum wage. The unemployment compensation wage would be fourteen dollars an hour. Your firm would only be assessed general taxes for unemployment compensation not our burdensome, current regime.

By solving simple poverty in our Republic.

How would that work? A good employer may have 100 people show up and want work, so he would need to pay 100 people $14 an hour for not working? At $1400 an hour that business would either fail or raise prices to compensate for the extra cost. That seems intrusive and burdensome.

I’d hire you and for $1 an hour more have you and every other applicant scrub my floors with a toothbrush and make you do every other terrible task.

Then you be happy spending 8 hours a day on your hands and knees scrubbing.

 

[danielpalos]

As a federalist, I would insist on equal protection of the law regarding the legal concept of employment at will, and a permanent federal solution to our border issues, via Commerce, well regulated.

And, I would abolish our income tax by abolishing our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror.

So, if I have a business and I don’t need a worker and you walk in and want a job, I’d be required to hire you?

Not sure what you mean. That would cause businesses to fold.

If all the taxes were because of crime, drugs and terror then you could, it seems that defense, welfare, SSI and Medicare still need to be funded, how would you fund them?

It means I would go on unemployment for one dollar an hour less than the current minimum wage. Let's assume it is fifteen dollars for the minimum wage. The unemployment compensation wage would be fourteen dollars an hour. Your firm would only be assessed general taxes for unemployment compensation not our burdensome, current regime.

You're not being honest here, because you don't want unemployment, you want welfare. You don't want to just be paid because you got laid off and until you can find another job, you want to be paid, period, because you don't want to work at all.

Yes, I am. That is You, not me. In any case, why do You care if I want to stay poor on an at-will basis?

You can if you want, just don't expect the taxpayers to subsidize your lifestyle. Be honest and say you want to be on welfare and stop trying to call it UE. UE was created to help carry people to the next job who were let go through no fault of their own.

The point is, silly right winger who never gets it, to lower costs. Unemployment insurance is simply more cost effective.

 

[Rustic]

So, if I have a business and I don’t need a worker and you walk in and want a job, I’d be required to hire you?

Not sure what you mean. That would cause businesses to fold.

If all the taxes were because of crime, drugs and terror then you could, it seems that defense, welfare, SSI and Medicare still need to be funded, how would you fund them?

It means I would go on unemployment for one dollar an hour less than the current minimum wage. Let's assume it is fifteen dollars for the minimum wage. The unemployment compensation wage would be fourteen dollars an hour. Your firm would only be assessed general taxes for unemployment compensation not our burdensome, current regime.

You're not being honest here, because you don't want unemployment, you want welfare. You don't want to just be paid because you got laid off and until you can find another job, you want to be paid, period, because you don't want to work at all.

Yes, I am. That is You, not me. In any case, why do You care if I want to stay poor on an at-will basis?

You can if you want, just don't expect the taxpayers to subsidize your lifestyle. Be honest and say you want to be on welfare and stop trying to call it UE. UE was created to help carry people to the next job who were let go through no fault of their own.

The point is, silly right winger who never gets it, to lower costs. Unemployment insurance is simply more cost effective.

Any type of insurance is fraudulent

 

[danielpalos]

in other words, you got nothing but repeal coming into an election cycle. I recommend, better solutions at lower cost.

So what is your better solution at a lower cost.

Healthcare reform and a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage. I don't mind if the right wing, "sits out the next election cycle."

You are for healthcare reform, what does that mean? I’m all for healthcare reform.

What kind of healthcare reform? How would it work, what would be the key issues it would settle? How do you keep the cost down? Who would benefit? How would you take care of the existing system? How would it be implemented? Who would pay? How would it work after the failure of Obamacare? How would the medical profession be paid?

Actually, this may happen by itself, if we can solve simple poverty. Market based products should appear to meet that new demand. In that manner, insurance products will be available which should help lower our costs via normal market forces.

If it hasn’t happened in the last 100 years, how will it happen by its self? That isn’t reform, that is status quo and you are the one wanting healthcare reform. So do you want healthcare reform or not?

Actually, this may happen by itself, if we can solve simple poverty. Market based products should appear to meet that new demand. In that manner, insurance products will be available which should help lower our costs via normal market forces.

 

[danielpalos]

No, they currently don't. We need Persons in those States to advocate for Truth in Legislative Advertising laws.

You could first target Congress and the "Affordable HealthCare Act", that could be the first change.

Then you could go work on the "Fairness Doctrine."

As a federalist, I would insist on equal protection of the law regarding the legal concept of employment at will, and a permanent federal solution to our border issues, via Commerce, well regulated.

And, I would abolish our income tax by abolishing our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror.

So, if I have a business and I don’t need a worker and you walk in and want a job, I’d be required to hire you?

Not sure what you mean. That would cause businesses to fold.

If all the taxes were because of crime, drugs and terror then you could, it seems that defense, welfare, SSI and Medicare still need to be funded, how would you fund them?

It means I would go on unemployment for one dollar an hour less than the current minimum wage. Let's assume it is fifteen dollars for the minimum wage. The unemployment compensation wage would be fourteen dollars an hour. Your firm would only be assessed general taxes for unemployment compensation not our burdensome, current regime.

By solving simple poverty in our Republic.

How would that work? A good employer may have 100 people show up and want work, so he would need to pay 100 people $14 an hour for not working? At $1400 an hour that business would either fail or raise prices to compensate for the extra cost. That seems intrusive and burdensome.

I’d hire you and for $1 an hour more have you and every other applicant scrub my floors with a toothbrush and make you do every other terrible task.

Then you be happy spending 8 hours a day on your hands and knees scrubbing.

Employment is at-will. You won't need to hire anyone. They would just go on unemployment compensation.

You would only have to pay your employees a minimum wage or more.

And, be assessed a general tax for unemployment compensation if necessary. It would be less expensive because you would not need to deal with unemployment issues.

 

[hadit]

So, if I have a business and I don’t need a worker and you walk in and want a job, I’d be required to hire you?

Not sure what you mean. That would cause businesses to fold.

If all the taxes were because of crime, drugs and terror then you could, it seems that defense, welfare, SSI and Medicare still need to be funded, how would you fund them?

It means I would go on unemployment for one dollar an hour less than the current minimum wage. Let's assume it is fifteen dollars for the minimum wage. The unemployment compensation wage would be fourteen dollars an hour. Your firm would only be assessed general taxes for unemployment compensation not our burdensome, current regime.

You're not being honest here, because you don't want unemployment, you want welfare. You don't want to just be paid because you got laid off and until you can find another job, you want to be paid, period, because you don't want to work at all.

Yes, I am. That is You, not me. In any case, why do You care if I want to stay poor on an at-will basis?

You can if you want, just don't expect the taxpayers to subsidize your lifestyle. Be honest and say you want to be on welfare and stop trying to call it UE. UE was created to help carry people to the next job who were let go through no fault of their own.

The point is, silly right winger who never gets it, to lower costs. Unemployment insurance is simply more cost effective.

You still don't get paid if you can work, but won't.

 

[danielpalos]

It means I would go on unemployment for one dollar an hour less than the current minimum wage. Let's assume it is fifteen dollars for the minimum wage. The unemployment compensation wage would be fourteen dollars an hour. Your firm would only be assessed general taxes for unemployment compensation not our burdensome, current regime.

You're not being honest here, because you don't want unemployment, you want welfare. You don't want to just be paid because you got laid off and until you can find another job, you want to be paid, period, because you don't want to work at all.

Yes, I am. That is You, not me. In any case, why do You care if I want to stay poor on an at-will basis?

You can if you want, just don't expect the taxpayers to subsidize your lifestyle. Be honest and say you want to be on welfare and stop trying to call it UE. UE was created to help carry people to the next job who were let go through no fault of their own.

The point is, silly right winger who never gets it, to lower costs. Unemployment insurance is simply more cost effective.

You still don't get paid if you can work, but won't.

Only if the employers believe in a natural rate of unemployment.

 

[Papageorgio]

You could first target Congress and the "Affordable HealthCare Act", that could be the first change.

Then you could go work on the "Fairness Doctrine."

As a federalist, I would insist on equal protection of the law regarding the legal concept of employment at will, and a permanent federal solution to our border issues, via Commerce, well regulated.

And, I would abolish our income tax by abolishing our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror.

So, if I have a business and I don’t need a worker and you walk in and want a job, I’d be required to hire you?

Not sure what you mean. That would cause businesses to fold.

If all the taxes were because of crime, drugs and terror then you could, it seems that defense, welfare, SSI and Medicare still need to be funded, how would you fund them?

It means I would go on unemployment for one dollar an hour less than the current minimum wage. Let's assume it is fifteen dollars for the minimum wage. The unemployment compensation wage would be fourteen dollars an hour. Your firm would only be assessed general taxes for unemployment compensation not our burdensome, current regime.

By solving simple poverty in our Republic.

How would that work? A good employer may have 100 people show up and want work, so he would need to pay 100 people $14 an hour for not working? At $1400 an hour that business would either fail or raise prices to compensate for the extra cost. That seems intrusive and burdensome.

I’d hire you and for $1 an hour more have you and every other applicant scrub my floors with a toothbrush and make you do every other terrible task.

Then you be happy spending 8 hours a day on your hands and knees scrubbing.

Employment is at-will. You won't need to hire anyone. They would just go on unemployment compensation.

You would only have to pay your employees a minimum wage or more.

And, be assessed a general tax for unemployment compensation if necessary. It would be less expensive because you would not need to deal with unemployment issues.

How do you run a business if you don’t hire anyone? Where does the money come from to pay for the unemployed? You said the business would be responsible for those they don’t hire. You are not clear on how this would work.

 

[Papageorgio]

No, you recommend a bunch of blargling. Your arguments have all been systematically destroyed many times, yet you seem to think they're still relevant.

in other words, you got nothing but repeal coming into an election cycle. I recommend, better solutions at lower cost.

So what is your better solution at a lower cost.

Healthcare reform and a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage. I don't mind if the right wing, "sits out the next election cycle."

You are for healthcare reform, what does that mean? I’m all for healthcare reform.

What kind of healthcare reform? How would it work, what would be the key issues it would settle? How do you keep the cost down? Who would benefit? How would you take care of the existing system? How would it be implemented? Who would pay? How would it work after the failure of Obamacare? How would the medical profession be paid?

Actually, this may happen by itself, if we can solve simple poverty. Market based products should appear to meet that new demand. In that manner, insurance products will be available which should help lower our costs via normal market forces.

Again, you claim you want reform and now you claim it will fix itself. Could you clarify.

 

[danielpalos]

As a federalist, I would insist on equal protection of the law regarding the legal concept of employment at will, and a permanent federal solution to our border issues, via Commerce, well regulated.

And, I would abolish our income tax by abolishing our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror.

So, if I have a business and I don’t need a worker and you walk in and want a job, I’d be required to hire you?

Not sure what you mean. That would cause businesses to fold.

If all the taxes were because of crime, drugs and terror then you could, it seems that defense, welfare, SSI and Medicare still need to be funded, how would you fund them?

It means I would go on unemployment for one dollar an hour less than the current minimum wage. Let's assume it is fifteen dollars for the minimum wage. The unemployment compensation wage would be fourteen dollars an hour. Your firm would only be assessed general taxes for unemployment compensation not our burdensome, current regime.

By solving simple poverty in our Republic.

How would that work? A good employer may have 100 people show up and want work, so he would need to pay 100 people $14 an hour for not working? At $1400 an hour that business would either fail or raise prices to compensate for the extra cost. That seems intrusive and burdensome.

I’d hire you and for $1 an hour more have you and every other applicant scrub my floors with a toothbrush and make you do every other terrible task.

Then you be happy spending 8 hours a day on your hands and knees scrubbing.

Employment is at-will. You won't need to hire anyone. They would just go on unemployment compensation.

You would only have to pay your employees a minimum wage or more.

And, be assessed a general tax for unemployment compensation if necessary. It would be less expensive because you would not need to deal with unemployment issues.

How do you run a business if you don’t hire anyone? Where does the money come from to pay for the unemployed? You said the business would be responsible for those they don’t hire. You are not clear on how this would work.

It is up to the Individual to stay poor on an at-will basis in any at-will employment State.

It is being paid now; I recommend simplification to complete coverage and lower costs.

Nope; employment is at-will. No more expenses in that sector from at-will employment issues.

 

[danielpalos]

in other words, you got nothing but repeal coming into an election cycle. I recommend, better solutions at lower cost.

So what is your better solution at a lower cost.

Healthcare reform and a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage. I don't mind if the right wing, "sits out the next election cycle."

You are for healthcare reform, what does that mean? I’m all for healthcare reform.

What kind of healthcare reform? How would it work, what would be the key issues it would settle? How do you keep the cost down? Who would benefit? How would you take care of the existing system? How would it be implemented? Who would pay? How would it work after the failure of Obamacare? How would the medical profession be paid?

Actually, this may happen by itself, if we can solve simple poverty. Market based products should appear to meet that new demand. In that manner, insurance products will be available which should help lower our costs via normal market forces.

Again, you claim you want reform and now you claim it will fix itself. Could you clarify.

A, "two for one deal"?

 

[Thinker101]

Whenever possible?! You mean whenever convenient.

Social costs also have to be considered. The right wing seems to care about merely lucre.

Ok, and what social costs need to be considered?

Social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour, anyway.

How about answering the question...dumbass.

the alternative to welfare.

How about answering the question...dumbass.

 

[Papageorgio]

So, if I have a business and I don’t need a worker and you walk in and want a job, I’d be required to hire you?

Not sure what you mean. That would cause businesses to fold.

If all the taxes were because of crime, drugs and terror then you could, it seems that defense, welfare, SSI and Medicare still need to be funded, how would you fund them?

It means I would go on unemployment for one dollar an hour less than the current minimum wage. Let's assume it is fifteen dollars for the minimum wage. The unemployment compensation wage would be fourteen dollars an hour. Your firm would only be assessed general taxes for unemployment compensation not our burdensome, current regime.

By solving simple poverty in our Republic.

How would that work? A good employer may have 100 people show up and want work, so he would need to pay 100 people $14 an hour for not working? At $1400 an hour that business would either fail or raise prices to compensate for the extra cost. That seems intrusive and burdensome.

I’d hire you and for $1 an hour more have you and every other applicant scrub my floors with a toothbrush and make you do every other terrible task.

Then you be happy spending 8 hours a day on your hands and knees scrubbing.

Employment is at-will. You won't need to hire anyone. They would just go on unemployment compensation.

You would only have to pay your employees a minimum wage or more.

And, be assessed a general tax for unemployment compensation if necessary. It would be less expensive because you would not need to deal with unemployment issues.

How do you run a business if you don’t hire anyone? Where does the money come from to pay for the unemployed? You said the business would be responsible for those they don’t hire. You are not clear on how this would work.

It is up to the Individual to stay poor on an at-will basis in any at-will employment State.

It is being paid now; I recommend simplification to complete coverage and lower costs.

Nope; employment is at-will. No more expenses in that sector from at-will employment issues.

So what is your better solution at a lower cost.

Healthcare reform and a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage. I don't mind if the right wing, "sits out the next election cycle."

You are for healthcare reform, what does that mean? I’m all for healthcare reform.

What kind of healthcare reform? How would it work, what would be the key issues it would settle? How do you keep the cost down? Who would benefit? How would you take care of the existing system? How would it be implemented? Who would pay? How would it work after the failure of Obamacare? How would the medical profession be paid?

Actually, this may happen by itself, if we can solve simple poverty. Market based products should appear to meet that new demand. In that manner, insurance products will be available which should help lower our costs via normal market forces.

Again, you claim you want reform and now you claim it will fix itself. Could you clarify.

A, "two for one deal"?

Just say you can't clarify, it is much simpler than pretending you have an idea.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Walmart would move out of the country if they were forced to stop exploiting poverty safety nets for employees?

No, they would simply increase the price of their products and you would pay for them. However industry may look at it differently. That was the failure of the big union days.

When unions were strong, they didn't just get ridiculous pays for their employees, it had a domino effect. If a non-union shop was in dire need of employees because of a strong economy, they had to pay similar wages of union places.

So when our pay scale went up one dollar in the US, China's went up four cents. When our pay scales went up a mother dollar, India's went up three cents. Eventually we priced ourselves out of the world market and this is where we are at today.

Even though individuals were making more money, everything else kept costing more money. So we really didn't get ahead in the long run.

I like to watch HGTV. When they look at homes for sale in the NE states or California, their homes that cost $800,000 there is something you can buy in my state for about $225.000, and in most cases get a larger yard.

But these states were strong supporters of unions and taxation. Now that the new tax plan only allows interest write-offs on mortgages under 750K, those are the states that are crying the most. Here? Nobody cares because very few people spend 750K or more on a home. Those kinds of homes are only affordable to rich people.

The states with high mortgage prices and interest voted democratic. In Trump's world, they must pay a price for having voted that way. To my knowledge, Trump has never even visited California in any official governmental capacity. The Divider in Chief has simply told the entire West Coast to get fucked. He has done the same thing to the northeast. But, for his special billionaire pals, they can still write off their private jets.

Yes, they did vote Democrat and that's why their cost of living is much higher than states that didn't.

Democrats are constantly focused on "paying your fair share" however when it comes to them doing the same, they object.

But, of course, the poorest county in all of America, is solidly Trump!

Trump has made America's 'poorest white town' hopeful again

The entire economy of this country depends on "welfare" money.

"Today, the town is a ghost of its former self. The vast majority of Beattyville residents get some form of government aid -- 57% of households receive food stamps and 58% get disability payments from Social Security."

Donald Trump was voted in by these dirt poor towns

"The strength of the Trump vote puzzled Mr McCoy when he considers the local reliance on food stamps and welfare.

“Because social assistance like food stamps and welfare is what the Republicans are going to cut,” he said."

That's because they hope Trump will invigorate the economy and they will be able to WORK and not NEED assistance. This is the divide between left and right. The left assumes that everyone getting from the government wants to continue getting, while the right understands that they don't.

You guys all get the same memo, word for word, dontcha?

 

[Vandalshandle]

The Right has such a short memory that they had forgotten their celebration of AT&T announcing $1,000 bonuses due to the new tax law, within about the 2 days span, before AT&T announced that they are laying off thousands of workers....

AT&T sued over layoffs—after promising more investment because of tax cut