380
Social Security checks could stop going out by April, ex-head warns
(www.thedailybeast.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 04 Mar 2025
380 points (100.0% liked)
politics
20664 readers
3291 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
If such a thing does not incite mass revolt, I cannot imagine anything ever would.
Why would retired old people suddenly riot? They will call their social security rep and wait for hours on hold while they watch Jeopardy and cable news that tells them rioting is bad and only criminals do that.
I mean, I guess if the only people who ever rioted were those personally affected you'd be right. Not really able to see it that way, myself.
Sorry, but you should. Historically, the only people who have ever rioted were people who were directly affected by said issues. If they can successfully be convinced that Daddy Government is going to fix everything while demonizing the actual protestors on the streets, you get decades of stagnation.
I’d love for you show me any counter examples in history.
Really? The only people? Throughout history. Bold claim...
I don't get why people make these grand statements then push off any burden of proof to those that might disagree, it's dishonest. But just so everyone else doesn't fall for this misinformation, here are some:
Many white abolitionists participated in violent riots against slavery, even though they themselves were not enslaved.
Example: The Cincinnati Riots of 1836 involved white and Black abolitionists clashing with pro-slavery mobs.
Many white South Africans and international activists participated in riots and violent protests against apartheid, even though they were not personally subjected to the system’s oppression.
Many young people who were not drafted or eligible for military service still participated in violent protests and riots against the war.
Example: The Days of Rage (1969) in Chicago, led by the Weather Underground, saw middle-class activists riot against U.S. militarism.
Some white activists participated in violent actions alongside Black activists fighting for civil rights, despite not being personally discriminated against.
Example: The Cambridge Riots (1967) saw white activists and Black residents clashing with authorities over segregation and economic inequality.
Many white and non-Black protesters participated in riots and violent clashes with police over racial injustice, even though they were not directly affected by systemic racism.
I can keep going if for some was reason that isn't enough for you to understand that your statement is wrong. Either way, please stop spreading misinformation.
Hey, you’re not entirely wrong. But, you’re also conflating protests with riots. I never said people do not protest for things that do not affect them— just that they don’t intend to riot unless something directly affects them.
And, in pretty much all of the examples you’ve given for riots, those were sparked by acts of violence perpetrated by white supremacists, union busters, police, etc. which forces the people to obviously defend themselves in a reactionary state. But, this is not the same as the masses mobilizing with the intent to root out and destroy these institutions that are designed to hurt and control us.
Holding signs and singing chants in the streets doesn’t change anything but it can easily be framed as a justification for more police and military spending to “maintain order and peace”. If you consider the elites who actually control the flow of commerce, it’s a net loss for the protestors who only have their jobs to risk and possibly jail time and a fine. In fact, the State applies Deterrence Theory in this way to keep the public from rioting and it has, so far, been extremely affective in the modern era.
Oh, and those hippies who protested the Vietnam War were a small percentage of white middle class youth that went on to be corporate leaders in America, many of whom are the primary antagonists we deal with today.
There is a threshold many people aren’t willing to cross that, in my opinion, is necessary for us to move toward dismantling classism. They have us so firmly put in place that they’re now comfortably passing laws that are erasing constitutional rights, and majority of the elderly in this country voted for him, keep that in mind.
I’ll end my rebuttal simply stating that the examples you’ve mentioned involved people who consciously viewed themselves as interconnected with those they were protesting alongside of. This is something we severely lack in today’s social-political climate; a shared consciousness, which is what a grassroots movement requires.
Well first off, I listed many riots and it only takes one instance of one existing for what you said to be wrong.
Secondly, there were instances I listed of people who rioted for rights they already had, but we're doing it for others. Full stop. This was done with many rights movements I listed. Who started them and why is irrelevant, they did the thing you said they didn't do.
I don't get how this is relevant to our convo... You said people don't riot unless directly impacted. I showed instances of where they did. Why are we talking about state responses to peaceful protests?
Source for that bold claim?
..... So you'll end by saying the thing you said never happens does in fact happen, but you don't think it will now. I mean, I agree, but that wasn't the topic at all. It can happen, and it has happened. Saying it never has is wrong and not only ignores people throughout history who put their lives out there, it also sends a message that it's not possible. It is. We've done it before and we can do it again.
If I mention the Floyd protests are we going to start splitting hairs about what makes a protest vs a riot?
Did the floydd protests/riots get comprehensive justice system reform passed?
It did make some changes in laws and policies. Change isn't an all or nothing process.
That's a whole new discussion though, he never said shit about actually changing anything.
Okay, fine, he implied it.