dx1

It is factually incorrect. It is not giving them money, it is taking less money from them. That has different consequences under tax law and describing it that way also completely muddles people's understanding of how the budget works.

I hate the language around the federal budget. First, how budget figures are reporting in 10 year intervals, when everything else is reported in 1 year intervals. So everything sounds 10 times bigger. When like only 5% of the population ever looks at the federal budget, this creates a TON of confusion.

Second, how reductions in tax (like to the rich) are reported as "giveaways". Taxes go in, not out. That's a reduction in revenue, not an expenditure or liability. You can say, "shift the tax burden even more onto the lower and middle classes". Then it's actually accurate. Getting fired from your job is not an expense, it's a loss of income. Same thing.

I only see one country bragging about influencing U.S. election outcomes, and it's not Russia. You guys constructed Pepe Silvia-level theories about Russian influence and ignored the domestic corporatocracy and entire U.S. empire in favor of the media's chosen explanation of "Russian influence". As the saying more or less goes, nobody is immune to propaganda, including you. Modern propaganda narratives include accusations of propaganda leveled at the propaganda narrative's scapegoats.

"Did you stop beating your wife yet?"

History will look back at the American empire and judge all its complicit civilians equally. It's Democrat vanity that makes them think they're not in the same genocidal boat as Republicans. You may think of yourselves in another class, but your politicians were complicit in the same crimes.

I am already remembering why I walked away the last time I made the mistake of talking to this guy.

Because the direction "left" doesn't actually have any inherent relationship to political ideologies, but people strive for some kind of ideological purity, especially to draw a contrast with a fundamentally unjust society?

Had that same conversation with a coworker many years back. He pitched the "time is money" theory. Really, I'm salaried, this is off-hours work, I actually find it interesting and enjoyable, and save a fortune doing it, so that theory doesn't apply very well.

Just practically speaking, hard work alone doesn't cut it. You need to figure out how to get enough money out for the labor you're putting in. Goes without saying, for many people that's impossible, especially with no financial wiggle room. On top of whatever inequalities are inherent to capitalism, the government's also gone out of their way to completely rig the rules of the game.

You're kinda stretching it there.

Right, so up until the point the USDA PLC programs get exhausted (afaict ~$25B/yr), they compensate for the difference between the price floor (not sure if we're above or below that now) and market price. But that's a subsidy to the farmers, not an effect on the market price - the expense comes to taxpayers. And sometimes, they scoop up surplus through CCC, then remarket it elsewhere, an indirect/artificial market mechanism, which can include exports.

If that's what you were saying re: USAID cancellation eventually raising food prices, you have quite a few leaps of logic in there.