434
submitted 1 month ago by imvii@lemmy.ca to c/politics@lemmy.world
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] chris@lemm.ee 84 points 1 month ago

So, when Social Security gets gutted, we’re all getting the money we put in back, right? …right?!

[-] CaptDust@sh.itjust.works 61 points 1 month ago

Yes, of course! As long as you make at least $100M a year, all investments will be returned as tax breaks.

[-] TechAnon@lemm.ee 17 points 1 month ago

I want it back + interest.

[-] IphtashuFitz@lemmy.world 16 points 1 month ago

Every American should file for a refund of all the SS taxes they paid when they do their income taxes next year. With the gutting of the IRS on top of SS, they’ll probably accept those claims without question and accept those refunds.

[-] TheObviousSolution@kbin.melroy.org 57 points 1 month ago

Musk has been spouting how Social Security is a scam and how tariffs will make up for it. Basically, kiss your social security pension away and just hope a substitute pops up - although it will likely be in the form of "get a check if you don't criticize us" now. DOGE is an excuse to Big Data everything from every department and process it through AI, including knowing your political association.

[-] crusa187@lemmy.ml 28 points 1 month ago

Hilarious.

“Social security is a scam” = “I’m taking your retirement money for myself”

“Tariffs will make up for it” = “As a bonus fuck you, 20% tax on everything you need to survive”

[-] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago

and just hope a substitute pops up

I have equal confidence in a trump designed Social Security replacement as the healthcare replacement trump came up with to replace Obamacare (ACA).

[-] someguy3@lemmy.world 54 points 1 month ago

The American Prospect, which first reported earlier this week that Acting SSA Commissioner Leland Dudek was weighing staff cuts of up to 50%

Congratulations protest non voters, this is what you voted for.

[-] Ledericas@lemm.ee 11 points 1 month ago

alot of MAGA are stupid enough to believe hes just joking on what hes going to do, besides the bigotry.

[-] SoleInvictus 6 points 1 month ago

My nice but moronic neighbor is one of those "but he just talks a lot of shit, he won't do that" types. Surprise: he does talk a lot of shit and he's increasingly doing that shit too.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago

And blaming the voters still isn't the energy you want.

[-] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 11 points 1 month ago

It is a pretty amusing overlap in the people that will screech about victim blaming but can't seem to wrap their head around the concept that the people ultimately responsible for a crime are only the people doing it.

[-] GrumpyDuckling@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 month ago

The Peter Parker principle.

[-] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago

How is this blame? This is what the voters wanted. This is what they are getting.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago

He's blaming the people who didn't vote. Which is a bullshit theory the conservative Democrats have been pushing to keep from dealing with why they lost.

[-] nickwitha_k@lemmy.sdf.org 11 points 1 month ago

Which is a bullshit theory the conservative Democrats have been pushing to keep from dealing with why they lost.

No. That is the bullshit excuse that performative faux-leftsts use. The impact of non-voters and anti-electoralists is plain to see for anyone with the slightest comprehension of statistical math that is so basic that is barely qualified as anything above arithmetic.

Every election in my lifetime has resulted in worsening of the human condition because "protest (non-)voters" can't be bothered to consider the most elementary examples of cause and effect:

Don't voice your view in an established manner and your view will not be reflected.

There's no political representation of us on the left because too many can't be fucked to participate in primaries or the democratic process (as much as it can be called that) either because they buy into the idea that, despite all evidence contrary, not opposing oppressors will somehow make things better or, because, again despite all evidence contrary, offering up minorities, LGBTQ+, and other vulnerable groups as blood sacrifice by enabling the establishment of fascism will somehow magically result in a workers' revolution and utopia.

TL;DR - Non-voters/protest voters and acceleration can get fucked. The are no allies to LGBTQ+ nor the working class as they are unwilling to do the literal least one can do to try to impact positive change, apparently preferring fascists and corpo dems.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

There just isn't a large leftist movement in the US. They aren't going to win more than a few seats. And blaming them while running further to the right is exactly what's happened every election in my lifetime. People have to exert effort to vote in most places, they need to get time off, they need to stand in line for hours, they need to deal with partisan poll workers, and for what? To watch the Democrats do corporate welfare too?

And don't start with the whole they were warned bit either. Every single cycle the Democrats have said the Republicans would end democracy. So nobody was listening to that anymore. The word fascist has entirely lost it's meaning in the US.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] storm 3 points 1 month ago

"Every election in my lifetime has resulted in worsening of the human condition because "protest (non-)voters" can't be bothered to consider the most elementary examples of cause and effect" You say this as if the Democratic party hasn't run with exact same strategy the entire time. A strategy that doesn't work. Followed by yelling at people for not loving them enough (which has also never worked) and doing nothing to address there own shortcomings. They (rightfully) pointed out the bigotry of American conservatives, and then run a campaign to court this vote and alienate they people they claim as there base. And pick Kamala Harris as the candidate, as conservatives would ever vote for a black woman. Blindly electing democrats for running as blue team is what got us here, it is not going to get us out of it.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[-] someguy3@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago
[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago
[-] someguy3@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

I'll point you back to the article. And to my comment: Congratulations protest non voters, this is what you voted for.

Literally what protest non voters voted for.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

Sigh. They didn't vote. That's quite literally not a vote. No matter how hard you want to blame them for something they didn't do.

[-] someguy3@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Sigh. They made a choice that amounted to voting for this. An intentional and deliberate choice. Thus, this is what they voted for. Congratulations!

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Oh? Aren't you guys always yelling about voter suppression? So which is it? Everyone who didn't vote made a conscious decision or at least some people were prevented from voting?

As for the rest. Yes apathy is a choice. After decades of watching both parties do nothing about their slow slide into homelessness I cannot act surprised that people are more worried about making rent than voting.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Ledericas@lemm.ee 5 points 1 month ago

that is literally a vote, as the saying goes, standing by not to doing anything is bad as helping the enemy.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

That's not a saying. And no. It still isn't a vote.

[-] nickwitha_k@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 1 month ago

Choosing inaction is a choice and one that only ever helps the oppressors.

[-] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

Sigh. They didn’t vote. That’s quite literally not a vote.

Inaction is a chosen action.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

Is it? Aren't we always talking about voter suppression?

Face it, the Democrats didn't make a positive argument for themselves and people were tired of hearing that Republicans were evil. They promised stuff.

[-] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

Is it?

It is. If you have the choice to act, and you choose not to act. You have made a choice.

Aren’t we always talking about voter suppression?

Voter suppression is if there is no choice to vote. I haven't seen anyone suggest those are people we're talking about. Those would be referenced by language such as "those that couldn't vote" not "those that didn't vote" who we are referring to in this thread.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[-] wanderwisley@lemm.ee 27 points 1 month ago

I work with two people that are within a year of retiring and they are absolutely ecstatic that Trump was doing this to Social Security, as well I work with people that are in their early 20s that are exactly the same happy that this is happening and thinking that they will all become super wealthy.

[-] nutsack@lemmy.dbzer0.com 24 points 1 month ago

My redneck trailer cock American family has absolutely nothing saved for retirement, but they think that social security tax took all of their money and gave it to people who are cheating the system pretending to be disabled

[-] wanderwisley@lemm.ee 8 points 1 month ago

I hear the same bs too. I work with a few hardcore Mormons who say the same thing, its bizarre.

[-] Ledericas@lemm.ee 15 points 1 month ago

did you ask them if they were making 400k+ year? because thats the only group above 400k that will benefit from all these tax cuts.

[-] wanderwisley@lemm.ee 13 points 1 month ago

No I didn’t bring that up, I actually barely talk to anybody I work with anymore. I just listen and laugh to myself.

[-] nutsack@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 1 month ago

this is the way

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] GrumpyDuckling@sh.itjust.works 23 points 1 month ago

Employer and employee both have to pay 6.2%, wanna bet they eliminate the employers portion?

[-] RvTV95XBeo@sh.itjust.works 22 points 1 month ago

Wanna bet my salary doesn't go up 6.2% when they do that?

[-] T00l_shed@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

An excuse for them to lower it by 7%

[-] Ledericas@lemm.ee 8 points 1 month ago

like alot of sketchy companies, employers will just eliminate some of thier employees even more to give them selves more money, and just squeeze out the skeleton crew for alot tech, biotech, and health

[-] meowmeowbeanz@sopuli.xyz 23 points 1 month ago

A 99.7% accuracy rate gutted for profit? Efficiency isn't the goal; it's exploitation.

🐱

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Punchshark@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 month ago

Buy the ticket, take the ride

[-] KeenFlame@feddit.nu 7 points 1 month ago

Aaah first I really thought, well, there it is, they began the killing. I'm glad that's not what happened

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

It's weird to me how much some people have internalized the politics of austerity this quickly.

The economy was humming under Biden. There was no emergency, no indicator that we have to "tighten our belts".

Then Bronzo enters the office and fElon with his MOE (Ministry of Efficiency) and all they want to do is cut everything. Even in the MOE Cinematic Universe....how do they possibly justify any of this shit? They plan on cutting taxes at the same time, so it's not about balancing anything.

What's worse, is that I now seeing lots of people on the left saying that government is bloated and should be cut, but done with precision. WTAF?

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 03 Mar 2025
434 points (100.0% liked)

politics

22913 readers
3528 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS