184
New York Got $80 Million for Migrants. The White House Took It Back.
(www.nytimes.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 12 Feb 2025
184 points (100.0% liked)
politics
20416 readers
2733 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Trump ran budget deficits every year he was president, added trillions to the national debt with a tax giveaway to the wealthiest humans in the history of our planet, and before he was president a second time was trying to make Republicans shut down the government if the debt ceiling wasn't eliminated entirely. Don't hold your breath waiting for those tax cuts to trickle down, or for any cuts to 'defense' which is nearly half of all discretionary spending. The GOP plan is to further increase defense spending by an additional $100 billion, and $1.5 trillion in spending cuts which is not even half of their proposed $4.5 trillion tax cut. They only care about spending cuts when they can dogwhistle and lie to their base about $50 billion going to USAID just for condoms, despite their entire budget for aid to prevent foreign instability amounting to like, 3% or discretionary spending, because they have a very low estimation of their voters' math abilities.
The Democrats pretty much never reverse Republican tax cuts, because they actually like these tax cuts. They know trickle down economics works even though they can't say it out loud.
So you agree tax cuts for the rich are bad, or do you actually believe the wealth inequality and political bribery this enables is a net good? It's clear the trickle-down bullshit doesn't work as evidenced by stagnant wage growth.
I would recommend supporting progressive candidates instead of simping for the people who enacted the laws which have destroyed our middle class. Pointing out corporate Democrats exist and vote with Republicans to protect their shared donors is valid, as long as you can recognize that Republicans cry about the deficit whenever they are not in power, and when in power spend like drunken sailors, increase military spending, and continue to use the deficit they grew as a cudgel to dismantle only the parts of the administrative state they disagree with. I'm not that stupid, and I doubt you are either.
I like the tax cuts
I too like having a service provide be intentionally under funded, allowing essential services to be running super lean so that they can't function effectively. It's very efficient
Their efficiencies are so bad and they wasted so much money on stupid spendings. They are actually way over funded right now.
According to who?
According to the American majority.
Source?
Perhaps left leaning poll, 68% of voters support Trump cutting government spending
CBS YouGov Poll
That source doesn't say anything about the services being over funded. Again do you have a source?
68% support cutting government spending. That is all you need to know.
If trickle down economics works explain this
Explain what? I see the current poverty rate is very similar to the 1980 level.
Exactly, nothing has trickled down.
It did trickled down significantly.
Poverty rate is relative. If poverty rate doesn't increase and GDP grow more than normal, then in absolute terms it is better for lower and middle class. That is exactly what happened. See the chart below.
US GDP as a % of G7 GDP
Whoops wrong again
Hard to read this chart. The poverty rate trend and US GDP as a % of G7 GDP is very clear.
Yes, it is very clear that trickle down economy doesn't and never worked.
Opposite. It is. Very clear it is working well.
Trickle down working to you means the poorest Americans have not increased in net worth and the wealthiest Americans are getting richer? How is that wealth, which is being funneled to to top, "trickling down". Maybe turn your phone right side up so you can see how the graphs are supposed to look.
GDP grow faster helps everyone.
Can you actually explain why you think that?
How does a faster growing GDP help someone in poverty?
We are talking about relative poverty. A person in poverty in the US is much better than a person in poverty in North Korea.
No one is talking about North Korea. We are talking about poverty in America then vs now. Trying to move the goalpost to include a completely unrelated datapoint is pointless.
You also completely ignored my rather direct question.
I didn't move the goalposts. I mean to show you why economic growth can help the poor. US has much higher economic growth than other developed countries in the last four decades.
That doesn’t help people in poverty.
You’re not explaining how a faster growing GDP helps someone in poverty. Do you not understand what the word poverty means?
Poverty rate
Relative poverty rate didn't go up from 1980. The key is word is "relative". With faster economic growth, the people in poverty are much better off now compared to 1980.
No, they aren’t. Poverty is poverty. You don’t get better off because your neighbor has more money. That’s just not how poverty works.
America’s economic outperformance is a marvel to behold
"In 1990 America accounted for 40% of the nominal GDP of the G7, a group of the world’s seven biggest advanced economies, including Japan and Germany. Today it accounts for 58%.
America’s outperformance has translated into wealth for its people. he ultra rich have indeed done ultra well. But most other Americans have done pretty well, too. Median wages have grown almost as much as mean wages. A trucker in Oklahoma can earn more than a doctor in Portugal. The consumption gap is even starker. Britons, some of Europe’s best-off inhabitants, spent 80% as much as Americans in 1990. By 2021 that was down to 69%."
None of your quoted text is actually about people in poverty. I once again circle back to not thinking you understand what poverty means.