284
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 12 Oct 2023
284 points (98.0% liked)
politics
19136 readers
5258 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
In retrospect it sure was sad being a 16 year old who knew that I’d be one of the oldest people who didn’t have a chance of ever getting that program, I’d just spend into it purely to pay off the people who take it from me.
Or angering. I’m angry that I’m paying for these people to steal this from me and the people younger than me
It's not theft, it's a social program that used to not exist, and because of it not existing, life was so shit for old people that everyone was demanding something like it.
The idea that diligent investment in retirement savings might be a solution was rightly laughable, considering the Great Depression was going on. People who had retirement accounts they needed in 2001 and 2008 might tell you it still is laughable, but you can't piss and moan about that until it completely fucks your life at retirement and the only answer you get is "OH WELL" ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Social Security would be 100% solvent for the next 75 years by making two changes: lift the income cap and apply the tax to investment income as well as regular income.
If you don't see benefits it will be so conservatives can continue to reduce the tax burden on the rich, full stop.
The military budget is bigger than Social Security and nobody bats a fucking eye - whether there's an R or a D next to their name. But yeah, we're the spending problem.
Edit: predictably, the military apologists come in to mention than "defense spending" is not as high as "social security," because of course "defense spending" doesn't include "veterans benefits" and isn't 100% discretionary and not at all paid for with a payroll tax. Get fucked, the lot of you.
This is incorrect. National Defense spending is 13%. Social Security is 23%. Sauce: https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/federal-spending/
Most people don't realize that entitlements have been the lion's share of the US budget for a long time. Defense spending used to be much higher but has declined significantly since the cold war.