Republicans masturbate to the idea of elderly people being denied the basic necessities in life because they were unable to earn enough for a retirement due to the uncontrollable greed of the ultra wealthy.
this post was submitted on 24 May 2024
926 points (97.6% liked)
US Authoritarianism
880 readers
746 users here now
Hello, I am researching American crimes against humanity. . This space so far has been most strongly for memes, and that's fine.
There's other groups and you are welcome to add to them. USAuthoritarianism Linktree
See Also, my website. USAuthoritarianism.com be advised at time of writing it is basically just a donate link
Cool People: [email protected]
founded 9 months ago
MODERATORS
~~Republicans~~ Conservatives masturbate to the idea of ~~elderly people~~ others being denied the basic necessities in life because they were unable to earn enough ~~for a retiremen~~t due to the uncontrollable greed of ~~the ultra wealthy~~ Conservatives.
The ultra wealthy wouldn't make enough money from this to give a shit. This type of petty, ideological driven cruelty is a hallmark of conservatism (see school lunch cuts). Keep in mind, most Democrats trend to the right of center (aka "conservative") compared to the rest of the developed world.
If it were true that Democrats are conservative, and conservatives want to deny people basic necessities, then we would expect Democrats to not support things like government healthcare, public transportation, or SNAP (food) benefits.
Except they do by overwhelming majority.
In Europe, even most members of the far right support public healthcare and transportation.
load more comments
(1 replies)
In which country is it illegal to let your neighbor use your water?
They mention dollars and social security, so I'm assuming they're from the USA. I can believe it would be illegal in some states to give out water. Georgia for instance made it illegal to handout water bottles.
https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2014/aug/13/man-fined-500-for-sharing-city-water-with/
I'm just gonna leave this here.
“Although the water provided to the third party is still being paid for, the water previously provided to the third party for which that third party had not paid remains unpaid and the incentive to pay that debt is reduced,” Court of Appeals Judge John Melanson wrote for a unanimous court. “This threatens the city’s ability to provide low-cost water services.”
"We depend on fining disadvantaged people for revenue and you will not threaten that."
Same "logic" is used to stop people from filling up parking meters for other cars.
participate in the giving of any money or gifts, including, but not limited to, food and drink, to an elector
Sounds like I can set up a food truck and "sell" water with the whole "pay what you can" model
IIRC some people have been doing basically this
Yeah, that has to do with not allowing people to try to sway votes as people are going to vote, I think. I can't find anywhere that even claims anyone in a US state is not allowed to give their neighbor water.
No it doesn't. It has to do with Republicans wanting people standing in line for hours to vote to get thirsty, give up, and leave without voting. This is because (a) Democratic-leaning areas tend to have longer lines for "reasons," and (b) lower turnout favors Republicans.
I believe this was also passed after they unexpectedly closed a bunch of polling places in predominantly Democrat voting areas just days before the Presidential election, which led to lines several blocks long of people standing out in the sun with no shade or access to water or bathrooms.
You have to realize, the United States has many laws in most jurisdictions that criminalize poverty, and politicians on both sides of the aisle are quickly moving to pass more. It is not a good country to live in. People here get arrested for giving food to the homeless.
It's probably considered stealing like if you were to use a cable splitter to take your neighbor's Internet. Except that's bullshit for a metered water connection so fuck whoever made that law or regulation.
load more comments
(2 replies)
It's also illegal to give water to people in line to vote. it's also illegal to have a water break for workers working outside in the heat.
It’s also illegal to have a water break for workers working outside in the heat.
It's simultaneously more and less evil than that. The ruling was that the state cannot compell employers to provide water breaks for employees working in the heat. So those people who can't take a water break while working 13 hrs a day in direct sun are forced to do so by their employers greed, and not because of some legal obligation.
load more comments
(2 replies)
At least where I live, you get billed separately for the incoming water and drainage. So if I'm not paying the utility, and get water to my property from my neighbor, then I'm not paying for the drainage I'm using when I flush that water down my drain.
Of course the situation is ridiculous, but this is how I'd imagine this being illegal, you are "stealing" the drainage service.
load more comments
(13 replies)
load more comments
(6 replies)
This makes me so angry that I have to decompress by giving away food to the unhomed in Bullhead City Arizona.
"Dehomed" is almost more appropriate for many without a home. Their homes were taken by resource hoarders using the tools of state.
"Dehomed" is such a better term than "homeless" or "unhoused". First term I've heard that doesn't put the blame on the person without a home.
Even "unhoused" is too neutral of a term for how people often end up without secure shelter.
Unhoused genuinely seems like a tip toe attempt to make saying homeless less ugly or like it’s a word to sidestep bs YouTube guidelines like unalive. It’s dumb. Not having a home sucks.
If I were to pick between the two then “dehomed” explains it better than “unhoused”. But “homeless” definitely defines what it feels like when it happens to you.
load more comments
(2 replies)
I'm guessing this is illegal as well? Land of the free indeed...
Illegal might not be the right word but I guess anything that flusters the bad apples in blue is technically illegal.
load more comments
(1 replies)
My parents are 80 years old and their car died in April, so I had to loan them mine, basically permanently, because the alternative is that they have no income at all.
The country that the Democrats and Republicans have built would be a-okay with letting them starve to death.
One third of Americans can't drive, yet the American town is built as if everyone was a sentient automobile.
The north america in Pixar Cars is exactly the same as ours because we've built everything for cars not people.
load more comments
(2 replies)
The world that neoliberalism has built.
Being old in the US is hard mode. I mean old people in other countries live with and are supported by family. Imagine tossing la nona in a retirment home, mama mia.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
If the service is metered and public, it shouldn't matter in my opinion. This is just municipal bullying.
You're missing the point. When the state catches you being a decent human being, it is incumbent upon the state to crush you like a bug. What's next? Feeding the hungry?!
What’s next? Feeding the hungry?!
No, that's already been illegal in a lot of states/cities.
What's next is shutting down shelters, ane arresting the homeless on sight and putting them in forced labor.
Post 9/11 Public School. Watching people just slide right into authoritarianism felt like I was seeing them replaced with pod people.
Post 9/11 turned me leftist/progressive.
I was raised in rural in a deeply conservative environment. But I can pinpoint the exact moments everything started to crumble.
I was right there waving flags at troops and was completely caught up in the "OOH-RAH" feeling of righteous anger. I had people connected to me who died in the attacks. My last memories of American warfare was the Gulf War where the USA basically went on a murder-vacation across Kuwait and all the way to Bagdad. It was surreal and removed from reality, it was winning. I wished I was going, I deeply wanted to go over there and be a part of this winning-machine, but I had just started my adult life and joining the service wasn't in my cards.
Then fast forward to me watching FOX news in my first apartment, eating dinner and watching coverage of the invasion of Iraq. There was a clip they played from the perspective of a hummer entering a city, and a box truck was passing on the opposite side of the road, obviously fleeing the city. The hummer opens up with its automatic grenade launcher, and I distinctly remember the simultaneous mixture of awe seeing the box truck get chewed to molten shards of sparkling metal instantly, and a sick punch to my gut understanding that was probably just a family trying to leave with their possessions. The segment cut to the host, festooned with American flags, smiling at US might.
That image haunted me for weeks, and then they found no WMD's, the war raged and raged. Atrocities caused by our troops kept coming out, the question of why we were there was getting asked louder and louder.
The disillusionment was pretty much complete at this point and I had already sworn off FOX news for the rest of my life, and then a few years pass and people I cared about started coming home maimed, or were not coming home, or came home unable to go on and took their own lives. More people than I thought I would know. There was no satisfying ending, no victory, nothing to be proud of.
Realizing I live in the homeland of the villains of the story radicalized me.
I think my answer is: having empathy and an imagination.
It really doesn't take much anymore..
That and the realization that the ruling class doesn't have those
Yous are fucking evil
This thread makes it sound like if you're not fully on board with a hyper-exploitative oligarchy, you're the radical one.
The actions of the combined US government since my birth.
Being raised catholic and only really paying attention to the Jesus parts
Okay, so I'm going to leave my two cents here.
I'm European, from a left leaning, liberal (in the sense we actively recognize individual rights and liberties but one individual freedom can not tramble the next), and this exact same legal disposition exists.
Allow me to share the explanation I was given.
Fresh water is not easy to manage, sanitize transport and distribute. The operation is insanely complex and expensive, with huge expenses for quality control, infrastructure and machinery.
Water is a public service here; it is a guaranteed right. You need to reach extreme lengths to have your water service shut off, like having several months of delinquent bills.
however, all of this infrastructure needs to be paid for and it is paid through a serious of added charges, some percentually calculated based off the amount of water you use, others are fixed values charged as service fees (like sanitation and garbage collection).
This implies that if all the water consumed in an entire building was being paid by a single person, the water itself would be paid, but related costs would only be charged once, meaning the portion of money collected to cover the entire maintenance of the services would be severely reduced.
By enforcing that for each home there must be a separate service, the overall cost is diluted and the value service is maintained as cheap as humanly possible and the basic services are maintained as public services, out of the reach of private sector interest.
And, please take my word for, you do not want water, sewage or garbage collection controlled by private companies.
These are sectors where there is a limit for how much expense you can cut. It requires constant investment in machinery and infrastructure to just maintain operations. Improving efficiency requires even higher investment that is only recoupable after several years, if ever.
Privates work for profit. These entities work to just break even, although some can be highly profitable, but profit is always destined to reinvest.
You're definitely right about the reasons why, but it's extremely frustrating to have this kind of situation when we could probably just find another way to find it and treat water like a basic human right!
load more comments
(1 replies)
I would argue that doesn't apply. This post and whatever you call lemmy subr's is specific to the idiocy in the USA. In Europe like Canada to the best of my knowledge the public utility maintains the infrastructure up to your main. If it leaks before where you get charged, it's their problem and their pipes.
In most of the USA, their responsibility ends at your property line. Utility companies are already all privatized, electric, gas, water, and sewer. If you have an issue with a leak or distribution, they will shut you off at the property line and let you figure it out.
The added infrastructure cost for supplying water through 1 extra valve or not is paid for by the homeowner when the house was built. The labour to turn your water on and off is paid for at the time through fines and fees for disconnection and connection. There is literally no cost that they bear for your lack of water.
Not to mention the cost of maintaining a utility like that could easily be socialized. There is no reason why we need to distribute the cost of maintain a public utility to individuals when it's something everyone benefits from (and should be a basic human right, anyway)
load more comments
(3 replies)
And, please take my word for, you do not want water, sewage or garbage collection controlled by private companies.
I'm glad I have the freedom to choose between one private water company and one private garbage collection company, and I hope my sewer system is soon given away to a faceless multinational and not paid directly to my local government.
Because I'm an American goddammit!
load more comments
(5 replies)
load more comments
(9 replies)
view more: next ›