I'm picking the food stamps graph as the most lolworthy in the absence of other info. Am I supposed to read that and think it's a failure to give poor people food?

How can they pull on their bootstraps with both hands full of free food?

I do need help. That is, I don't have the time or expertise to figure this all out on my own. I suspect most of these graphs are some form of misrepresentation of the truth, but it's nice to get other takes on them so that I can form a more informed opinion.

I do come from very fiscally conservative roots, and I'm certainly still more conservative than you and much of this forum. That's why I value your takes so much, even when I don't agree with them.

You have to understand the conservative mindset: handing out free food is a disincentive to work for said food. That's where the welfare queen trope comes from. Hard work and boot straps is how this country was formed and why it became so great, won every world war, invented Coca Cola and everything else worthwhile. Most fiscal conservatives cannot stand any rise in the already "too lilly-libbed socialist" programs that are destroying the work ethic and moral fabric of our once great society!!

I've been moved off that hard stance in recent years by discussions in this forum, and specific advantages like the benefits to society and relative low cost of these programs.

I had no idea money was invented in the 80s. No wonder Reagan was so popular.

Im bending over backward to take a charitable view on that front, I wholly admit. It gets harder with each edition of this raised by wolves game.

Hopefully the thing will move a lot further because we should be able to understand any rise in food stamps as a very bad thing - no-one in wealthy countries should need food stamps.

Conservatives agree with that sentiment, they just assume the reason they need foodstamps is because they're too lazy to go out and find work, are on drugs, don't go to church, have babies out of wedlock, etc, etc.

It's such different reasons that they don't agree with the sentiment even if it looks similar.

We talk about basic income for all sometimes, that would completely remove the need for food stamps in a good way. Even without that, minimum wages, social provisions, pensions etc should remove any need for food stamps.

Yeah, but there's no magic gotcha for people that would rather see the poor starve. You can only lol.

I think they basically break into three types... those who don't see the starving in America and assume it's not a very big problem: reports otherwise are obviously pussy liberal ploys to get votes... those who understand there is a problem, but who ideologically believe it can/should/is taken care of by private charities, churches, etc... and those who really don't give a damn, think survival of the fit, etc. (racist/xenophobes, and similar horrible people).

Many fall into multiple categories, and there are probably types I'm not thinking of. All will likely agree that nobody "deserves" to get anything for free, and that this country is too rich and full of opportunity for anyone who is not disabled to the ever starve. So it's basically the poor hippy's own fault if he won't eat, he must just not like food enough.

There's also the kind who are mouthbreathing morons who uncritically read chain letters like the one in the OP. Don't forget those people.

Birds of a feather also do tend to fly together.

LG does go together with fly. There's no feather.

Printing money (more than usual) can lead to asset bubbles that dont show up in inflation metrics.

Not saying yay or nay to anything, just want to point out that saying there was no inflation is a pretty limited view of the possible consequences.

It can also lead to greater volatility in financial markets for example.

Confirmation bias ftw. It's not confined to morons or conservatives.

Huh? That doesn't even make sense as a rebuttal.

Stop reading those chain emails about how racism and bigotry are bad!

When people are uncritical of things that support their beliefs and very critical of things that do not (or just flat ignore them), that's confirmation bias. That's what most political chain mail relies on, but it's everywhere in politics, and life in general as I'm sure you already know.

Yeah, when your confirmation bias reaches the level where you look at this chain mail or the immigration chain mail you posted here and say "wow that makes sense"....then you are a moron.

No its not the exclusive property of conservative, but no "hey its everywhere liberulz do it tooooooo" is not really compelling or informative.

haha. Both are spot on gambool impressions.

That isn't true for all conservatives. Most bleeding heart conservatives, like myself, assume the reason people need food stamps is because the government is preventing some people from getting jobs via job killings laws. The laws most often mentioned in this conversations are MW, obamacare, increasing taxes on the rich and middle class, and mandatory family leave.

Dear aunt,
I care a lot about the country too, but neither of us are really in a position to understand the nuances of any of those issues. There are people who have for their entire lives studied the issues and still disagree on the finer points. And in case your doubts are based on his race, if it makes you feel any better most of his cabinet (and pretty much all of the ones who're informing him on matters relevant to the graphs you posted) are white.