Can we please get rid of this stupid word "destroys"?
Talarico FULLY ADDRESSES question (which by the way was asked in a completely civil manner so let's give the guy credit) to person LISTENS PATIENTLY and doesn't interrupt.
Honestly, there's a lot to celebrate when a person raises a point and the other person addresses that point, and doesn't try to humiliate or denigrate them but speaks truthfully to the facts at hand.
I would rather accept a percentage of TANF or SNAP fraud and keep those programs available for those that need them, than make the requirements so stringent that people cannot obtain the help they need. I think that deserves to be said in addition to pointing out that corporations are the biggest recipients of government dollars, often at the expense of services for regular folks.
Hey let's look at state income versus federal taxes paid and play the welfare queen game. What? It doesn't work that way? Why not? If the policies work, why are red states bottomless money pits?
This is what we need more of: ordinary people airing their views publicly, away from keyboard and echo chamber. Too much commentary on mainstream news platforms is from advocates prepared with skillfully contrived talking points to deflect any rebuttal. It's excruciating and pointless. And on social media there is no dialog possible because of the nature of the medium itself (that phenomenon will be better researched, quantified and explained in coming years).
This right here. "Don't give a man a fish, you teach a man to fish," except he's hungry RIGHT NOW. Don't try to teach people who are desperate. Alleviate their despair first. Give them a fish today, give them a fish tomorrow, give them a fishing rod the day after that - and a fish, in case it goes badly. Later, when they're catching lots of fish, they'll share back everything you gave in the first place, and more.
But what about my bullshit strawman argument about all of these people taking advantage of a system so they can get like a hundred fucking dollars a week in SNAP benefit and becoming so rich off it.
I don't give a shit if half the people in the system are taking advantage of it as long as half the people in the system are benefiting. I'm tired of living in a world where some people starve what others eat like fucking Kings every night of the week and provide nothing to this fucking society.
So in Denmark we have our "fair share" of welfare queens. people that will work under the table as wel las getting goverment pay out. There are people to investigate those... and yeah they might not catch them all and thats fine to because even with a few welfare queen... IT STILL BETTER THAN LETTING PEOPLE DIE ON THE STREETS...
Clothing donations that provide free items to low-income individuals/families support dignity, reduce textile waste, and help protect environment, less landfills. They also give businesses responsible alternative to destroying or dumping unsold inventory—reducing disposal losses while improving public relations image. Reuse creates value for people, the planet, and businesses alike. Businesses get a moderate tax write-off for donations, liberate retail space for new inventory, reclaim lost value
Charity is a responsible structural necessity to a thriving economy while benefitting the most needy individuals, not taking from deserving people or depriving someone who has earned the right to choose the way they live, feed or dress themselves. Individuals who visit food or clothing banks rarely ever get to pick what they want, having to be content with what little is given to them. One food bank visit covers only about a week of meals, sometimes less
He's a classic """"centrist"""" says trans people should be free to live their lives blah blah blah, but also we need to stop transing the kids and we should ban them from sport.
Reminder that the term "welfare queen" originally referred to ONE person. ONE. And somehow that turned into "mobs of people all living large off the system"
Reagan found one solid example of a scammer, but wrote his speeches to imply there were many, many, more similar to his one example. It is an old trick and it has never been honest.
Yeah it's the same as 'illegals are voting in our elections!' like yeah, absolutely there is like, a dozen or so illegal votes that pop up every federal cycle but that number is so insignificant to all the *actual legal votes* that it doesn't matter. I'm sure there is someone out there right now actively scamming the welfare systems in this country, but fuck me if that isn't a full time job in and of itself and that idjit is underpaying themselves tbh.
see the issue here is both of these statements, your and the OP, is they are not the real question being asked. others have said what 'welfare queen' means, so ill just answer what 'illegal' means here. illegal is being used here to represent anyone thats not white. so 'the illegals are voting' is really ' non whites are being allowed to vote'. the right uses coded language to hide what they mean. you can see this even in some religions without much effort, the whole 3rd enlightenment is thatway
Well, the article does contain the line "If Taylor was a character in a movie, people would dismiss her as an implausibility."
I get the impulse to dismiss the whole thing as fake because it's such a dead-horse right wing talking point, but I doubt her multiple husbands all just got together and decided to lie about being married to the same fictional woman.
Johnny Appleseed [John Chapman] was also a real person. He planted apple nurseries through the [now] midwest US, legally granting him the land as part of the Northwest Ordinance. He was a primitivist christian and nature conservationist who chose to live simply and avoid harming others [including animals].
He's fucking wrong. Even if he is on the side of decency. Every single fucking time we add means testing to a government program we find out that the Test costs more money than it saves in kicking people off. Why save 10k kicking people off a program if that test costs us 11k to run each year? "The numbers, confirming previous estimates, show that taxpayers spent $118,140 to reimburse people for drug test costs, at an average of $35 per screening. The state's net loss? $45,780."
Yep, the answer to "How do you handle the explorters?" Is "budget for them". Recognize that it will happen, and try to minimize it, but to use that as a reason to not help.
In Jordan Ellenberg's book 'How Not to Be Wrong', he says, "to paraphrase [George] Tigler if our government isn't wasteful you're spending too much time fighting government waste."
They don't test for the 2 biggest drug problems among public benefit recipients: nicotine and alcohol.
Benefits can't be used to pay for those things directly, but by various means from displacement to outright fraud, recipients using those drugs are in part on those benefits because any income they have is greatly consumed in feeding those dependencies.
Working retail I've seen parents put back food they lack benefits to cover to reserve their cash for cigarettes or alcohol. That needs fixed.
Those have massive companies behind them and the government rakes in a crapton of taxes on their sale. They will never be fully treated like any other drug because of that. It needs fixing but there's too much interest in keeping it as is.
I'm not very familiar with his policy recommendations, but he didn't talk about means testing in this clip. Is that a big part of his platform that he talks about?
If the other people (who are all on the same side as the bald guy debating Talarico) don't feel the current debater is doing any good they can vote to end his time in the chair and let someone else have a go. If more than half raise their flags his time is up.
I'd like to see a system that raises a red flag when the politician doesn't answer the question, forcing him to hear the question repeated and to try again. I'll admit some questions are trick questions, such as "Have you stopped beating your wife? Yes or No?", but a question like "Who do you think won the 2020 election?" is answerable.
Conservatives also believe some children don't deserve to eat.
I don't care how much money their parents have. The kids deserve to eat. I don't care if they are homeless. I don't care if they are billionaires and just refuse to pay the bill, kids still deserve food.
Why the fuck is it acceptable to say some kids don't deserve food? That response should instantly get the speaker knocked the fuck out.
And real, ethical moderates want people who deserve benefits to get them, and those that don't, don't get them. That's the hardest situation to work out of all. The right won't admit that racist and fascist factions (that they shelter in their ranks the most) will leverage 'qualification' to target the groups they hate. The left won't admit that once a few learn how to exploit benefits, it spreads because nobody wants left out, for various reasons.
It comes down to excepting what every business does, there's going to be fraud. You can try to lessen it but it will always exist. It's literally the cost of doing business. In accounting it's just put under COGS (cost of goods sold) it's baked into the business.
No, I don't think that fully describes it. Liberals want to create rights people have. Conservatives want to create rights *their* people (and only their people) have. But they know they can't do that. So what they do instead is create systems that are either skewed to exclude a group, but not exclusively (for plausible deniability, usually dressed up as fiscal responsibility), or they create systems where they get to gate keep individual cases with little to no accountability for them. (1/2)
A good example is student support here in Germany. We used to have a system where everyone below a certain income threshold was entitled to a monthly stipend while in Uni. Introduced by our social democrats. It got gutted by our conservatives first chance they got and replaced with a system where you have to apply, write essays, do charity work and "show" you're "deserving". It has so many soft criteria that can't be objectively measured that they can gate keep it without accountability.
I think both cases can be true. There is no "one driving force" that all people of a group share. Even an individual can and usually does have multiple driving forces, even on just 1 topic.
Wow... 20-25 years ago I was on Fark all the time. I had a headline used once. I don't recall what it was, but I know they changed it very slightly and it pissed me off because mine was better.
I want to know the numbers on the behaviour that the KKK member is spouting? How many ‘welfare queens’ are there to people who need the help? Cause I bet it’s 1000 people in need to 1 person abusing the system.
But that’s right, better 1000 children go hungry than one person take advantage of the system, unless they’re an oligarch.
Ok, so someone just above the threshold uses their welfare to buy lobster at Walmart. That's the intended use. And it stimulates the economy enormously.
I'm still mad that Talarico chose to throw trans people under the bus. I'm so tired of feeling like a second-class citizen.
A time will come when we look back at "Gender sports panic" and "Bathroom Laws" the same way as we look at "Whites Only" water fountains and segregation. That time can't come fast enough.
This video wasn't exactly an advertisement for him either. He started out well enough and suddenly started making moderate noises after he had already refuted the guy's point. "I agree with you… individual responsibility, blub … don't want a culture of dependency, blah … hand up, not hand out, moo". Why try and appeal to right-wingers by parroting their bad faith bullshit? How about doing a little more to appeal to the LEFT instead. Including standing up for trans rights. It worked for Mamdani.
Said in an interview that he'd support bans on some types of gender-affirming care and trans athletes playing sports if it affected "fairness or safety".
Just saying I might have to wait a very long time to find a candidate who agrees with me 100% on every conceivable issue. We all want to change the World.
I understand that, and i understand that the purity testing, is the most toxic trait of the left.
However, throwing me, and my people under the bus to win votes, is still bullshit. You do understand that right?
Did you know, that Trans people are at the Refugee Status point with sane countries? Did you know we are fleeing states for the sake of our safety and continued existence?
It. Is. That. Bad. We are people, not political strategy.
"Welfare queen" is a dog whistle for racist stereotypes of black/urban people. Don't let people use that phrase without calling them on it. The original accused of this goes back to the 1970s and her behavior has been used as justification for hurting minorities for 50 years. Meanwhile insider traders and ponzi schemers buy pardons and are forgotten.
The worst part is, he might not understand himself what he is saying. He is so drowned in his own ignorance, that he misses out on the fact that he isn't one of the rich club and never will be.
i think there was only ever that -one- big case like 40 years ago, and its just become this constant dog-whistle about "teh poors ar steel'n all teh muny!" when its so obviously not the case.
Was going to come on and remind people of that. It was Reagan's big thing. And it was definitely a racist dogwhistle. Much like "John McCain fathered a black baby out of wedlock" calls in South Carolina were in 2000.
I remember a study in the UK back in the early 2000s (or thereabouts) which found that - despite the rights constant cries of 'benefits cheats' living on jobseekers allowance without actually trying to find a job was something like 1 in 1000 people.
Of course that didn't stop the right shouting about it and claiming justification to further cut the systems budget.
And Talarico knows it. But he sidesteps that completely and sticks to his message, that it's not "left vs right, it's top vs bottom." This is a good illustration of why he has the potential to win in TX- the way he communicates kind of side steps the programmed knee jerk reaction the conservative propaganda machine has put in these people
Precisely. He does not let this person hijack the conversation about inequality, about what amounts to massive theft by big business. He refuses to let him sit and smirk at how he “triggered the libtard”. He stays on message and hits clear points the man can’t disagree with. Look at how uncomfortable he becomes. He knows he can’t argue a damn thing that Talarico said, and wasn’t planning to hear sense from him. He wanted to send him on a race tangent, and then sit back and feel superior.
Yeah. He steers a little clear because to do so would require pointing out that there are millions of white southern Republican voters who are 'welfare queens'. And that would just make their little brains mad like 'Deplorables' being said about rich white Republicans did.
Yep. Last i saw, i think it was less than 10%, and even that number is skewed by those who made honest mistakes due to bureaucracy. I’d rather help 10 people, even if it means 1 is taking advantage, than not help 10 people just because 1 is taking advantage.
And also by peaple that are told you need to apply for 3 Aid sets one will be aproved but if you only apply for the one you can get aproved on it will be denied instantly. Oh and as you apply for a Aid you do not qualifie for its counted by the statistic for the welfare queen... Note that that one aid is not even enouth it just cover part of the cost. all 3 if you could get them would be enouth to not force the person living in a rundown 1 bedroom appartment to pick food or heating.
The saying goes “Conservatives will starve 100 to prevent 1 from getting food they done deserve. Progressives will feed 100 to prevent 1 from starving.”
I work retail, and I can assure you the 'welfare queen' is a thing, but they're more often white, rural, and still a serious minority of people using public benefits in terms of a percentage of enrollment. They do seem to want to maximize they benefit amount for every program in which they are enrolled. Most of the people I see using benefit cards to pay are elderly, and clearly not 'living it up'.
Well, I don't happen to be deaf, and they love to blabber on to each other and on the phone while being checked out at my store. People openly talk about such things, loudly.
What's wrong with maximizing benefits? I feel like we shouldn't be casting aspersions on large groups of people regardless their demographics/identity. I'm by no means perfect, I 100% have my own implicit biases and gut impressions of others, I just feel its counterintuitive to say, "It's wrong to use this term primarily used on group A, but TBH it's really group B who personified this negative term". It still maintains a neg stereotype ab Human Services.
Also, and this is really important: You can only get so far by maximizing benefits. You only get so much of them before you *simply do not get any more.* I'd rather have a system that can help 1000 people that need it at the risk of helping 10 that don't than have no system for helping those 990 people who need it.
Yes, exaclty. We are the only system in which the prerequisite for recieving help is simply asking for it! I reseached the history of social welfare in grad school, so I can go on and on an on about this, but ultimately, in the US system, "being in need" has to be proven before benefits are released. Our system was born from Christian asceticism in which social diseases like hunger and poverty were caused by a moral defect of one's character, your free will and choices are to blame so if you
Want help you have to show you are repentant and willing to allow God in. This was also around the time the empricists at Columbia University and Chicago began to study "social diseases" via the scientific method, ultimately founding the study of Social Sciences in the US. But this gap in knowledge is how Christiaity and God's judgment was ablento to become secularized within our Social Welfare system.
I mean they will both 'stack benefits', and try to do so in ways that cross over into fraud. Some of the redneck welfare queens I've seen are actually the grandmothers of children they sign up for benefits, but are not even the custodial guardian for. They're getting paid for 8 or more kids when few or none of them actually live with them.
As I said, the majority of people I see using benefits aren't these 'queens', they're mostly modest elderly folks without a retirement safety net.
How do you know these people are grandmothers of children they aren't even the custodial guardians for? How on earth would someone who works retail know that level of information about their customers? You seem to think it's easy to sign kids up for "welfare" and there's no oversight. What planet do you live on? BTW, Reagan coined the term "welfare queen" as a racist dogwhistle.
You've never worked retail, eh? People blabber on about everything, and act like we're just robots. They'll speak openly about it. In smaller communities, the gossip mill fills the details in nicely, too.
I'm not touching the topic of "redneck welfare queens" one way or the other, but if you've lived in cities all your life you might not get the small town / rural experience of "everybody knows everybody around here". Even when that's not the case some people really have no filter and will blurt out their life story at every coffee shop and convenience store they visit.
possiblyafakeaccount
What do the flags mean? Does that mean they agree with what’s being said?
LeifHietala
I only need to hear the phrase "nasty people" to know that this is a Trump parrot. "Welfare queen" tells me he was raised by Reaganites.
Idrinkforevil
Spoken like a truly white privileged man would.
GuyPilot
Can we please get rid of this stupid word "destroys"?
Talarico FULLY ADDRESSES question (which by the way was asked in a completely civil manner so let's give the guy credit) to person LISTENS PATIENTLY and doesn't interrupt.
Honestly, there's a lot to celebrate when a person raises a point and the other person addresses that point, and doesn't try to humiliate or denigrate them but speaks truthfully to the facts at hand.
NotAllowedToArgueUnlessYouPay
YouTube-ification and TikTok-ification of our political discourse. Can't discuss issues we have to DESTROY each other.
WillCorrectInaccuraciesForFood
I would rather accept a percentage of TANF or SNAP fraud and keep those programs available for those that need them, than make the requirements so stringent that people cannot obtain the help they need. I think that deserves to be said in addition to pointing out that corporations are the biggest recipients of government dollars, often at the expense of services for regular folks.
draqsko
SNAP isn't welfare, it's an agricultural subsidy. That's why it's administered by the USDA, and not DHHS.
gayvillian
Hey let's look at state income versus federal taxes paid and play the welfare queen game. What? It doesn't work that way? Why not? If the policies work, why are red states bottomless money pits?
rolliefingers
This is what we need more of: ordinary people airing their views publicly, away from keyboard and echo chamber. Too much commentary on mainstream news platforms is from advocates prepared with skillfully contrived talking points to deflect any rebuttal. It's excruciating and pointless. And on social media there is no dialog possible because of the nature of the medium itself (that phenomenon will be better researched, quantified and explained in coming years).
duffman3335
We could feed every child for a year with what the military spendsin a week.
makeamericasmartagain9000
SilverStarPine
darthbiscuit
As soon as you hear, the phrase “nasty people”, you know where he’s getting his rhetoric. A certain orange goon uses the phrase all the time.
080080
"couldn't pull themselves up by their bootstraps when they didn't have boots" goddamn... this guy gets it.
LeifHietala
This right here. "Don't give a man a fish, you teach a man to fish," except he's hungry RIGHT NOW. Don't try to teach people who are desperate. Alleviate their despair first. Give them a fish today, give them a fish tomorrow, give them a fishing rod the day after that - and a fish, in case it goes badly. Later, when they're catching lots of fish, they'll share back everything you gave in the first place, and more.
Jewdakris
But what about my bullshit strawman argument about all of these people taking advantage of a system so they can get like a hundred fucking dollars a week in SNAP benefit and becoming so rich off it.
I don't give a shit if half the people in the system are taking advantage of it as long as half the people in the system are benefiting. I'm tired of living in a world where some people starve what others eat like fucking Kings every night of the week and provide nothing to this fucking society.
TripleDane
So in Denmark we have our "fair share" of welfare queens. people that will work under the table as wel las getting goverment pay out. There are people to investigate those... and yeah they might not catch them all and thats fine to because even with a few welfare queen... IT STILL BETTER THAN LETTING PEOPLE DIE ON THE STREETS...
SergeyPrkl
Yeah and the amount of those are still miniscule. Same here in the eastern corner of the Nordics, Finnish lapland! Smørrebrød !
MySushi
Clothing donations that provide free items to low-income individuals/families support dignity, reduce textile waste, and help protect environment, less landfills. They also give businesses responsible alternative to destroying or dumping unsold inventory—reducing disposal losses while improving public relations image. Reuse creates value for people, the planet, and businesses alike.
Businesses get a moderate tax write-off for donations, liberate retail space for new inventory, reclaim lost value
MySushi
Charity is a responsible structural necessity to a thriving economy while benefitting the most needy individuals, not taking from deserving people or depriving someone who has earned the right to choose the way they live, feed or dress themselves.
Individuals who visit food or clothing banks rarely ever get to pick what they want, having to be content with what little is given to them. One food bank visit covers only about a week of meals, sometimes less
ThatGuyFromJustSouthOfTheMiddleOfNowhere
komradekristoph
Wouldn't surprise me if he gets assassinated soon...sorry, I meant to say has an accident soon that results in death 😬
He's so right but rich and powerful people will want to shut him up 😔
VinnieJonesDiary
Fuck him. He's willing to throw trans people under the bus to buy votes that will never materialise.
komradekristoph
Really? Fuck 😐 I don't follow the news and live in the UK so wasn't aware. In that case yeah, fuck him!!
VinnieJonesDiary
He's a classic """"centrist"""" says trans people should be free to live their lives blah blah blah, but also we need to stop transing the kids and we should ban them from sport.
InfocalypseRising
Reminder that the term "welfare queen" originally referred to ONE person. ONE. And somehow that turned into "mobs of people all living large off the system"
QuantumInc
Reagan found one solid example of a scammer, but wrote his speeches to imply there were many, many, more similar to his one example. It is an old trick and it has never been honest.
LordBrandonTheBold
https://media1.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPWE1NzM3M2U1ZGw1MWNiYWxpendyZzFwMjhwb29mYzNwYmtvcWttbzg4MTMzM2g3ayZlcD12MV9naWZzX3NlYXJjaCZjdD1n/l0NwOkgTYRi30mT4Y/200w.webp
Reagan!
IHaveGreatKittenRecipes
Yeah it's the same as 'illegals are voting in our elections!' like yeah, absolutely there is like, a dozen or so illegal votes that pop up every federal cycle but that number is so insignificant to all the *actual legal votes* that it doesn't matter. I'm sure there is someone out there right now actively scamming the welfare systems in this country, but fuck me if that isn't a full time job in and of itself and that idjit is underpaying themselves tbh.
Cons are bad at statistics, full stop.
ProjectDA
see the issue here is both of these statements, your and the OP, is they are not the real question being asked. others have said what 'welfare queen' means, so ill just answer what 'illegal' means here. illegal is being used here to represent anyone thats not white. so 'the illegals are voting' is really ' non whites are being allowed to vote'. the right uses coded language to hide what they mean. you can see this even in some religions without much effort, the whole 3rd enlightenment is thatway
Unclescam
Isn't it very unclear if that person actually existed as well?
Einstein9073
She definitely existed, and was already convicted and jailed by the time Ronnie Reagan heard of her. There was only ever one.
InfocalypseRising
I mean she def existed, and the welfare fraud was probably the least interesting thing about her. She had a whole shitload of aliases, kidnapped children, and apparently nobody was ever really sure what her actual race was because it wasn't obvious and she lied about it constantly. https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2013/12/20/255819681/the-truth-behind-the-lies-of-the-original-welfare-queen
Unclescam
Without clicking the link because I'm at work without wifi, the things you directly said make her sound more Johnny Appleseed/Paul Bunyan mythical...
tentacularfleshscape
Some individuals do enough living for a dozen. It's rare, but it does happen
InfocalypseRising
Well, the article does contain the line "If Taylor was a character in a movie, people would dismiss her as an implausibility."
I get the impulse to dismiss the whole thing as fake because it's such a dead-horse right wing talking point, but I doubt her multiple husbands all just got together and decided to lie about being married to the same fictional woman.
Zange0
Johnny Appleseed [John Chapman] was also a real person. He planted apple nurseries through the [now] midwest US, legally granting him the land as part of the Northwest Ordinance. He was a primitivist christian and nature conservationist who chose to live simply and avoid harming others [including animals].
KR1570F
He's fucking wrong. Even if he is on the side of decency. Every single fucking time we add means testing to a government program we find out that the Test costs more money than it saves in kicking people off. Why save 10k kicking people off a program if that test costs us 11k to run each year? "The numbers, confirming previous estimates, show that taxpayers spent $118,140 to reimburse people for drug test costs, at an average of $35 per screening. The state's net loss? $45,780."
Whatwhatsomethingbutt
He didn't talk about means testing at all. As far as I can tell, he's not an advocate for means testing.
Chimponzoo
Yep, the answer to "How do you handle the explorters?" Is "budget for them". Recognize that it will happen, and try to minimize it, but to use that as a reason to not help.
KR1570F
https://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/florida-didnt-save-money-by-drug-testing-welfare-recipients-data-shows/1225721/
MarsIsAfire
In Jordan Ellenberg's book 'How Not to Be Wrong', he says, "to paraphrase [George] Tigler if our government isn't wasteful you're spending too much time fighting government waste."
Euchre
They don't test for the 2 biggest drug problems among public benefit recipients: nicotine and alcohol.
Benefits can't be used to pay for those things directly, but by various means from displacement to outright fraud, recipients using those drugs are in part on those benefits because any income they have is greatly consumed in feeding those dependencies.
Working retail I've seen parents put back food they lack benefits to cover to reserve their cash for cigarettes or alcohol. That needs fixed.
Cearnaigh
Those have massive companies behind them and the government rakes in a crapton of taxes on their sale. They will never be fully treated like any other drug because of that.
It needs fixing but there's too much interest in keeping it as is.
ontarioOT
I'm not very familiar with his policy recommendations, but he didn't talk about means testing in this clip. Is that a big part of his platform that he talks about?
dynamojoe
What do the red flags signify in this video?
TheIronPenguin
If the other people (who are all on the same side as the bald guy debating Talarico) don't feel the current debater is doing any good they can vote to end his time in the chair and let someone else have a go. If more than half raise their flags his time is up.
dynamojoe
Thanks. That's an interesting system. A debater can watch himself lose the room in real time.
TheobromineAddict
I'd like to see a system that raises a red flag when the politician doesn't answer the question, forcing him to hear the question repeated and to try again. I'll admit some questions are trick questions, such as "Have you stopped beating your wife? Yes or No?", but a question like "Who do you think won the 2020 election?" is answerable.
justfillingthespace
"I beat your wife every time she asks me to. You might want to check your insurance records. Next question."
Autittuderp
Do when they hear statements that make them uncomfortable they raise the flag...which is far more telling about them than who they are waving it at.
darkoshen
Talarico won't win over the MAGAs with that argument because they're boot-licking members of the CEO peanut gallery.
azazyel
I save these quotes decades ago and they're still relevant. The second one for this
jasondeslin
Conservatives also believe some children don't deserve to eat.
I don't care how much money their parents have. The kids deserve to eat. I don't care if they are homeless. I don't care if they are billionaires and just refuse to pay the bill, kids still deserve food.
Why the fuck is it acceptable to say some kids don't deserve food? That response should instantly get the speaker knocked the fuck out.
brainkandle1
This is awesome
Euchre
And real, ethical moderates want people who deserve benefits to get them, and those that don't, don't get them. That's the hardest situation to work out of all. The right won't admit that racist and fascist factions (that they shelter in their ranks the most) will leverage 'qualification' to target the groups they hate. The left won't admit that once a few learn how to exploit benefits, it spreads because nobody wants left out, for various reasons.
Life ain't simple, nor are perfect solutions.
KR1570F
Hey, at least you are on that pull yourself up by your own bootstraps when it comes to having and bringing the asshole supply.
azazyel
It comes down to excepting what every business does, there's going to be fraud. You can try to lessen it but it will always exist. It's literally the cost of doing business. In accounting it's just put under COGS (cost of goods sold) it's baked into the business.
CandiAlchemi
No, I don't think that fully describes it. Liberals want to create rights people have. Conservatives want to create rights *their* people (and only their people) have. But they know they can't do that. So what they do instead is create systems that are either skewed to exclude a group, but not exclusively (for plausible deniability, usually dressed up as fiscal responsibility), or they create systems where they get to gate keep individual cases with little to no accountability for them. (1/2)
CandiAlchemi
A good example is student support here in Germany. We used to have a system where everyone below a certain income threshold was entitled to a monthly stipend while in Uni. Introduced by our social democrats. It got gutted by our conservatives first chance they got and replaced with a system where you have to apply, write essays, do charity work and "show" you're "deserving". It has so many soft criteria that can't be objectively measured that they can gate keep it without accountability.
Atomic2
I think both cases can be true. There is no "one driving force" that all people of a group share. Even an individual can and usually does have multiple driving forces, even on just 1 topic.
cloneofcloneofme
Whoa, another farker!
kwogh
There are dozens.
cloneofcloneofme
https://media2.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPWE1NzM3M2U1MWRyMThxcTFkdnFubHhjeWQ5bXJxNTZkMjZobWtyNmltdWh3YXhnYSZlcD12MV9naWZzX3NlYXJjaCZjdD1n/kSlJtVrqxDYKk/200w.webp
commondog
Wow, there are three of us!
Whatwhatsomethingbutt
Wow... 20-25 years ago I was on Fark all the time. I had a headline used once. I don't recall what it was, but I know they changed it very slightly and it pissed me off because mine was better.
jakedafish
I want to know the numbers on the behaviour that the KKK member is spouting? How many ‘welfare queens’ are there to people who need the help? Cause I bet it’s 1000 people in need to 1 person abusing the system.
But that’s right, better 1000 children go hungry than one person take advantage of the system, unless they’re an oligarch.
madjo
Dear James Talarico, even well fed kids can't pull themselves up by their bootstraps. Maybe don't use that analogy.
Cardenjs
"Pull yourself up by your bootstraps? These kids have no shoes"
anhope
Sadly, this man will most likely still vote Republican.
Soggybathroomsock
Ok, so someone just above the threshold uses their welfare to buy lobster at Walmart. That's the intended use. And it stimulates the economy enormously.
WitchIrkalla
I'm still mad that Talarico chose to throw trans people under the bus. I'm so tired of feeling like a second-class citizen.
A time will come when we look back at "Gender sports panic" and "Bathroom Laws" the same way as we look at "Whites Only" water fountains and segregation. That time can't come fast enough.
Meowsma
As you should be; I'm mad, too, as I'd generally thought of him as being a solid supporter of trans rights.
LordSlickRick
In what way did he do this?
WitchIrkalla
In an interview the "Trans Athlete" question came up again.
https://youtube.com/shorts/NqUJq22ww1c?is=ofbczAXBRTsdW66x
WitchIrkalla
I'm gonna leave this source here for the curious. In short, "trans athlete question".
https://youtube.com/shorts/NqUJq22ww1c?is=ofbczAXBRTsdW66x
FiftyShadesOfMascarpone
This video wasn't exactly an advertisement for him either. He started out well enough and suddenly started making moderate noises after he had already refuted the guy's point. "I agree with you… individual responsibility, blub … don't want a culture of dependency, blah … hand up, not hand out, moo". Why try and appeal to right-wingers by parroting their bad faith bullshit? How about doing a little more to appeal to the LEFT instead. Including standing up for trans rights. It worked for Mamdani.
wags18613000
I haven't heard about this. What did he say/do?
Meowsma
Said in an interview that he'd support bans on some types of gender-affirming care and trans athletes playing sports if it affected "fairness or safety".
NotAllowedToArgueUnlessYouPay
Guess I'll have to vote Republican?
WitchIrkalla
NotAllowedToArgueUnlessYouPay
Just saying I might have to wait a very long time to find a candidate who agrees with me 100% on every conceivable issue. We all want to change the World.
WitchIrkalla
I understand that, and i understand that the purity testing, is the most toxic trait of the left.
However, throwing me, and my people under the bus to win votes, is still bullshit. You do understand that right?
Did you know, that Trans people are at the Refugee Status point with sane countries? Did you know we are fleeing states for the sake of our safety and continued existence?
It. Is. That. Bad. We are people, not political strategy.
NotAllowedToArgueUnlessYouPay
I do acknowledge the unfair and sometimes brutal persecution of trans folk. Everyone deserves to be treated with dignity.
pres465
"Welfare queen" is a dog whistle for racist stereotypes of black/urban people. Don't let people use that phrase without calling them on it. The original accused of this goes back to the 1970s and her behavior has been used as justification for hurting minorities for 50 years. Meanwhile insider traders and ponzi schemers buy pardons and are forgotten.
rguajardo
Thanks for info.
FTUG
The cut to the black women reacting when he said welfare queen was genius because everybody knows who he is talking about when he uses that term.
thewiggins
The worst part is, he might not understand himself what he is saying. He is so drowned in his own ignorance, that he misses out on the fact that he isn't one of the rich club and never will be.
IGetAllMyFactsFromHere
i think there was only ever that -one- big case like 40 years ago, and its just become this constant dog-whistle about "teh poors ar steel'n all teh muny!" when its so obviously not the case.
jiffyt101
That one lady saw it!
makesense
Was going to come on and remind people of that. It was Reagan's big thing. And it was definitely a racist dogwhistle. Much like "John McCain fathered a black baby out of wedlock" calls in South Carolina were in 2000.
bks2000
Ah yes. Karl Rove “push-polling”.
Rogahar
I remember a study in the UK back in the early 2000s (or thereabouts) which found that - despite the rights constant cries of 'benefits cheats' living on jobseekers allowance without actually trying to find a job was something like 1 in 1000 people.
Of course that didn't stop the right shouting about it and claiming justification to further cut the systems budget.
labyrinthconvention
And Talarico knows it. But he sidesteps that completely and sticks to his message, that it's not "left vs right, it's top vs bottom." This is a good illustration of why he has the potential to win in TX- the way he communicates kind of side steps the programmed knee jerk reaction the conservative propaganda machine has put in these people
rulerofthedingdongs
Precisely. He does not let this person hijack the conversation about inequality, about what amounts to massive theft by big business. He refuses to let him sit and smirk at how he “triggered the libtard”. He stays on message and hits clear points the man can’t disagree with. Look at how uncomfortable he becomes. He knows he can’t argue a damn thing that Talarico said, and wasn’t planning to hear sense from him. He wanted to send him on a race tangent, and then sit back and feel superior.
makesense
Yeah. He steers a little clear because to do so would require pointing out that there are millions of white southern Republican voters who are 'welfare queens'. And that would just make their little brains mad like 'Deplorables' being said about rich white Republicans did.
Doctorfatherson
Not only that but the vast, vast majority of people using government assistance are not abusing it. Fuck
isaidsomethingcool
Yep. Last i saw, i think it was less than 10%, and even that number is skewed by those who made honest mistakes due to bureaucracy. I’d rather help 10 people, even if it means 1 is taking advantage, than not help 10 people just because 1 is taking advantage.
ZackWester
And also by peaple that are told you need to apply for 3 Aid sets one will be aproved but if you only apply for the one you can get aproved on it will be denied instantly. Oh and as you apply for a Aid you do not qualifie for its counted by the statistic for the welfare queen... Note that that one aid is not even enouth it just cover part of the cost. all 3 if you could get them would be enouth to not force the person living in a rundown 1 bedroom appartment to pick food or heating.
Orionsdick
Conservatives will starve 100 kids on the off chance that one of them might have eaten earlier that day.
MissPhoenix56
The saying goes “Conservatives will starve 100 to prevent 1 from getting food they done deserve. Progressives will feed 100 to prevent 1 from starving.”
Euchre
I work retail, and I can assure you the 'welfare queen' is a thing, but they're more often white, rural, and still a serious minority of people using public benefits in terms of a percentage of enrollment. They do seem to want to maximize they benefit amount for every program in which they are enrolled. Most of the people I see using benefit cards to pay are elderly, and clearly not 'living it up'.
LibertyNcognito
How do you know they're "welfare queens" tho? Do you know them? Do you know what their circumstances are?
Euchre
Well, I don't happen to be deaf, and they love to blabber on to each other and on the phone while being checked out at my store. People openly talk about such things, loudly.
spittleteets
What's wrong with maximizing benefits? I feel like we shouldn't be casting aspersions on large groups of people regardless their demographics/identity. I'm by no means perfect, I 100% have my own implicit biases and gut impressions of others, I just feel its counterintuitive to say, "It's wrong to use this term primarily used on group A, but TBH it's really group B who personified this negative term". It still maintains a neg stereotype ab Human Services.
TheZerax
Also, and this is really important: You can only get so far by maximizing benefits. You only get so much of them before you *simply do not get any more.* I'd rather have a system that can help 1000 people that need it at the risk of helping 10 that don't than have no system for helping those 990 people who need it.
spittleteets
Yes, exaclty. We are the only system in which the prerequisite for recieving help is simply asking for it! I reseached the history of social welfare in grad school, so I can go on and on an on about this, but ultimately, in the US system, "being in need" has to be proven before benefits are released. Our system was born from Christian asceticism in which social diseases like hunger and poverty were caused by a moral defect of one's character, your free will and choices are to blame so if you
spittleteets
Want help you have to show you are repentant and willing to allow God in. This was also around the time the empricists at Columbia University and Chicago began to study "social diseases" via the scientific method, ultimately founding the study of Social Sciences in the US. But this gap in knowledge is how Christiaity and God's judgment was ablento to become secularized within our Social Welfare system.
Euchre
I mean they will both 'stack benefits', and try to do so in ways that cross over into fraud. Some of the redneck welfare queens I've seen are actually the grandmothers of children they sign up for benefits, but are not even the custodial guardian for. They're getting paid for 8 or more kids when few or none of them actually live with them.
As I said, the majority of people I see using benefits aren't these 'queens', they're mostly modest elderly folks without a retirement safety net.
rubypilgrim
How do you know these people are grandmothers of children they aren't even the custodial guardians for? How on earth would someone who works retail know that level of information about their customers? You seem to think it's easy to sign kids up for "welfare" and there's no oversight. What planet do you live on? BTW, Reagan coined the term "welfare queen" as a racist dogwhistle.
Euchre
You've never worked retail, eh? People blabber on about everything, and act like we're just robots. They'll speak openly about it. In smaller communities, the gossip mill fills the details in nicely, too.
nosnazeb
I'm not touching the topic of "redneck welfare queens" one way or the other, but if you've lived in cities all your life you might not get the small town / rural experience of "everybody knows everybody around here". Even when that's not the case some people really have no filter and will blurt out their life story at every coffee shop and convenience store they visit.
Dontstopbelever2000ismyfavoritesoap
Prolly because rural towns are small towns and everybody knows everybody's business