The Right Side of the News

The obvious point is that they get off food stamps and unemployment BECAUSE they have jobs. Sheesh. And sorry, Obama kept them on the food stamps and the unemployment without giving them any jobs.

They cant their jobs don't pay well enough to afford rent and food its either or.

They are off food stamps and unemployment and have jobs.

Exactly BBC

Which as far as anyone knows has absolutely nothing to do with Trump's achievements. Sounds like they've lived like that for years. And why do you guys always compare improvement with perfection? Just for propaganda's sake, obviously,. Nobody says anything in the economy is perfect, but what I've said about Trump's achievements is true. But you give an anecdote without even any detail so we could judge that situation. Maybe they should scale down their expenditures. That's what wise people do.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yet the fact is the Obama created more jobs during the last three years of his administration that Trump created during his first three years.Basic Facts Faith, learn the basic facts.

Sorry I believe the people who say that's false.

quote:

---

Which as far as anyone knows has absolutely nothing to do with Trump's achievements.

---

The fact that people in full time work need to use food banks is evidence that the unemployment figures are not telling the full story.Being off food stamps and unemployment and having a job is not always enough.Some more quotes: This one is pretty relevant to Trump’s achievements: And the couple it talks about - their trouble is not something that has gone on unchanged for years. And healthcare is a big issue

quote:

---

And why do you guys always compare improvement with perfection?

---

I certainly didn’t. I was pointing out that the you were leaving out an important part of the story. If a couple, in full time work don’t earn enough to live on there is a serious problem.

quote:

---

Just for propaganda's sake, obviously

---

Because revealing important facts is propaganda to you.

quote:

---

But you give an anecdote without even any detail so we could judge that situation.

---

There is more information in the article. And it doesn’t make things look better for you.

Yes and that has been the case for decades, it is unrelated to what we are talking about. And again you don't give enough information to judge their situation in relation to any economic fact.

and what evidence do they have to support their position?

There’s more than enough information to conclude that the reduction in unemployment is not the whole story. The fact that wages haven’t recovered even to 2008 levels is a start.If they each earn $10 an hour and rent is $900 a month that’s 90 hours of work just to pay rent. Unless they’re working 45+ hour weeks that will be more than a weeks worth. It’s easy to see how they might be unable to pay the rent if one of them was unable to work, as happened.Closing your eyes and refusing to think about it is not going to convince anyone. Any more than the usual false attacks.

I worked as a software engineer from 1982 until I aged out and retired in 2018. I was lucky to be able to stay with the same company for 27 years to the end of my career.I got that last job in 1995 when I was still married. She worked as a public school teacher and at our Date of Separation in 2004 we made about the same amount (she made slightly more, so I was waiting for her to start talking about alimony so that I could ask how much I was going to get -- but it never came up). 14 years later I was making about $90,000 a year; I forget how much it was in 1995.During our marriage, we maintained separate checking accounts and assumed separate financial responsibilities. I was in charge of paying the mortgage, utilities, homeowners and auto insurance, etc, while she paid for food, clothing, our children's needs, etc. Car payments were negotiable, but we normally paid for our own cars unless it was not feasible. In our early years getting started we racked up about $15,000 in credit card debt for which I got a consolidation loan to pay off and which I in turn paid off. With my fairly good wages, I could just barely keep up on my responsibilities and at one point she had to take over my car payments (boy, did she not like that!). Also, the career of an engineer can be unstable (I've referred to it as being a high-tech migrant worker), so she put our children on her medical insurance and, since it cost no more to do so, also me.The early 90's was a time of more rapid turn-over in jobs for me, mainly because small businesses would hire me for a project that then went away in two years or seven months. And then there's the work ethic idea that you should be willing to take any job that presents itself. An engineer cannot find another engineering job, so he doesn't work as he tries to find a job in engineering. He should be willing to work in a Kwik-E-Mart, right?Well, while job hunting in 1995 I did the math (something that creationists and other professional liars really hate). If I were to go to work in a minimum wage job, how many hours a week would I need to put in to be able to pay for my household responsibilities? I forget the actual figures now, but it amounted to much more than 80 hours a week -- more than twice a normal work week. I would have been willing to take such minimum wage jobs if necessary, but I could also see how futile that would be.And if (pardon my French) one wants to object to whether my situation should be applicable since I was dealing with a mortgage instead of paying rent, one currently pays as much if not more in rent than one would in a mortgage payment -- indeed, mortgage payments remain constant whereas rents continually increase.So indeed, just counting who has a job and who doesn't (the unemployment statistics) does not tell the entire story. What are they earning and how do their earnings cover their basic expenses? Everybody working at Walmart in the USA has a job, but most of those jobs are structured so that they work too few hours to qualify for benefits, including medical. New hires at Walmart go through the usual orientation briefings, including (in the USA) instructions on how to apply to all kinds of welfare including food stamps. You know, those things that the Trump administration is stripping away. So Walmart has to deprive its employees of basic benefits in order to survive? In the meantime, the Walmarts across the border in Canada provide their employees full benefits and do just fine.Having a job and being able to survive on your earnings are two entirely different things.

Social Security has two parts: retirement is one, disability is the other. Trump's budget proposes cuts to the disability side of Social Security. These cuts, if implemented, would of course not affect the annual budget deficit but would help reduce the rate of growth of the national debt. See Trump Calls for Social Security Cuts for the 4th Consecutive Year | The Motley Fool for a few details.Some individuals can receive both retirement and disability Social Security benefits under certain limited circumstances. Anyone whose monthly Social Security retirement benefit is small, I would guess something below $1000/month, and who became disabled after retirement, might qualify for disability. Medicaid is usually a better option for those with disability issues, but Trump is proposing cuts to that, too: https://thehill.com/...ting-medicaid-aca-by-about-1-trillion--Percy

Kaiser: It's the ACA, Stupid! | ACA Signups

quote:

---

The latest Kaiser Family Foundation tracking poll (considered the gold standards when it comes to national polling on healthcare policy issues) is out, and it's findings aren't terribly surprising to anyone who's been paying attention:

​

quote:

---

The U.S. Supreme Court will decide today whether to take up Texas v. United States, which challenges the constitutionality of the 2010 Affordable Care Act (ACA). The February KFF Health Tracking Poll finds attitudes towards the ACA has hit its highest favorability since KFF began tracking opinions nearly ten years ago. The latest KFF poll finds a clear majority of the public viewing the law favorably (55%), while slightly more than one-third (37%) of the public hold unfavorable views.

---

This is one of the most encouraging and exasperating examples of human nature. Don't get me wrong, I'm thrilled that after ten years the ACA is finally enjoying high approval ratings (by an 18-point margin!), but it's the height of irony that this is happening right as the ACA is on the verge of being struck down entirely. A classic case of "you don't know what you've got 'til it's gone" I suppose... [...]

​

quote:

---

Three percent of Republican voters offer opposition to or repealing the ACA as their top health care issue in the most recent KFF Tracking Poll. This is a considerable decrease from the 2016 presidential election, during which three in ten (29%) Republican voters offered it as their top health care issue. It is also a decline from the 2018 midterm elections in which 18% of Republican voters mentioned opposition to the ACA or repealing the ACA as their top health care issue.

---

​

That's absolutely mind-blowing. 2016: 29%. 2018: 18%. 2020: 3%. Only THREE PERCENT of Republicans strongly want the ACA struck down EVEN AS the Trump Administration & Trump Justice Dept. are pushing for the Supreme Court to strike down the law entirely.

​

quote:

---

Health care remains a top issue for Democratic voters, independent voters, and the crucial group of voters who haven’t made up their minds yet — swing voters. More than one-third of Democratic voters (36%) say health care is the most important issue in their 2020 vote choice as do three in ten independent voters and 28% of swing voters. Yet, when asked what is the one thing that will motivate them to vote in 2020, a larger share of voters offer responses related to defeating President Trump and electing a Democrat than any issue, including health care. When voters who have decided to vote for the Democratic nominee are asked what is most important when choosing a Democratic candidate, a larger share say a candidate with the best chance to defeat President Trump (59%) than one who comes closest to your views on issues (39%).

---

As it happens, "healthcare" and "defeating Donald Trump" go hand in hand.

---