Anonymous #2 6d

With all due respect, I live in Philly, close to the heart of the opioid and/or fentanyl crisis. Our entire state’s budget is smaller than NYC’s despite being double the city’s population. We’re steadily improving. Fentanyl overdoses are at a long-time low because of free narcan programs, but now we have tranq in the mix and the feds raiding the only dealer in Kensington who could guarantee safety and who addicts trusted.

17

Anonymous #2 6d

We have amazing social programs. We have a Utility Shutoff Grant which is single-handedly saving the city from the delays in LIHEAP. We have a gold standard nonprofit for housing the homeless. We’re contemplating grants for negative drug tests. We’ve got entire volunteer groups being first responders for overdoses. Despite a small budget, we do a lot with it. Our homestead exemption is great but makes the budget even smaller.

11

Anonymous #2 6d

It’s got nothing to do with ROI. It has everything to do with the money in politics. Favoring donors. Candidates whose campaigns aren’t funded by mega corporations are gonna support the people. Candidates whose campaigns are funded by unions are gonna support the working class. A new PA state Senator in the Philly area was funded by state capitol Republicans and immediately started just opposing Democrat funding. Our budget is 4 months overdue.

9

Anonymous #2 6d

I’m not missing any point. Many conservatives on here have talked about people being poor and not deserving SNAP because they are “lazy”. My point is in a country like America there is no reason anyone should be starving or without shelter. You are introducing a completely new talking point that was never mine.

5

Anonymous OP 6d

This is very much akin to the “healthcare is a human right” line. Saying that no American should be starving or without shelter is a nice sentiment that I think virtually everyone agrees, but how? In that sense, you are indeed missing the point. Frankly, putting aside the question of “laziness,” having 1/8 of Americans on SNAP is not sustainable—it just shouldn’t be like that, and it can’t be for too much longer…

-2

Anonymous #2 6d

This is the dumbest take cuh I'm in a republican state and city and potholes aren't even taking care of. Corruption ans greed run our country

19

Anonymous #4 6d

So what exactly are you implying? That people are stealing or redirecting money to pay for potholes to something else? And for the record, I don’t disagree with your point—but when it comes to quality of life issues, potholes are a relatively one.

-2

Anonymous #2 6d

I'm implying that just because taxes in new york are high, doesn't mean kids shouldn't get to eat? Why is Trump focusing on hurting Americans and saying we can't afford the children but he wants a ballroom? Why all of the sudden are social programs killing the U.S.? We could solve hunger today in the U.S. using logistics the food is already there we'd rather throw it out then feed our neighbor

7

Anonymous #4 6d

We rich rich but good point, an 1/8 of the U.S on snap is unsustainable, maybe we should PAY OUR EMPLOYEES?! Let's send another 20 billion to a different country and also give the .001% a tax cut bc "trickle down economics" totally exists

2

Anonymous #4 6d

The point was social programs and democrats aren't the problem. Corruption and greed are. City taking two years to fix a pothole means someone is making BANK off of it

3

Anonymous #4 6d

So many things here: 1) Trump hasn’t said we can’t afford the children—he literally wanted to use the SNAP emergency fund to feed them. But once that runs out, then constitutionally, the onus is on Congress to fund the government. 2) The ballroom’s funding is 100% private, so no tax dollars needed. 3) Social programs have been killing us for a long time actually. Almost 60% of the budget goes to entitlement spending, hence why we’re 38 trillion dollars in debt.

0

Anonymous #4 6d

4) I’m just gonna ask this: do you really think that solving hunger is that simple? Like, seriously? Don’t you think that’s a bit hyperbolic/reductionist there? 5) I don’t necessarily disagree that SNAP is a form of corporate welfare, but that’s actually an argument for cutting back on it, no? 6) The IMF loaned Argentina that money—not us. We only did a currency swap deal, which isn’t even exactly a loan. So no, we didn’t give anybody anything there.

0

Anonymous #4 6d

7) The top .01% already pay 20%+ of all taxes, but how much more should they pay…? 8) The problem with your “pothole theory” is that even if I accept your premise that somebody is making bank, then what does that say about unfilled potholes in major Democratic cities? Say what you will, but the reality is Trump would not be in the WH right now if Democrats hadn’t actively contributed to problems ranging from inflation to illegal immogration…

0