4 ms·
> It would mean to ignore the weakest in society (maybe lay them off?) for the benefit of a few at the top. As though almost all the unprecedented levels of pa
by donovanian 6y ago
> It would mean to ignore the weakest in society (maybe lay them off?) for the benefit of a few at the top.
As though almost all the unprecedented levels of pandemic relief in the US haven’t gone to anything but people that need relief.
- xmprt 6y agoA lot of the early pandemic relief went to large corporations looking for cheap loans.
- reaperducer 6y agoFortunately, a lot of them were publicly shamed into giving it back. Meanwhile, hundreds of billions of dollars went to people making less than $75,000 a year. Seems like a good chunk of the relief went to those most likely to need it.
- donovanian 6y agoThe bills passed claim they're for "relief", but if you examine the contents much of the spending doesn't even occur this year. > Only about 5 percent of that total is funding public health efforts related to the pandemic, according to the nonpartisan number crunchers at the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB).