Great job there Americans and a special shout out to White gen-X’ers for cutting your own soon to be retirement.

  • pivot_root@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    43
    ·
    18 days ago

    “We’re going to have to have some hard decisions. We got to bring the Democrats in to talk about Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare. There’s hundreds of billions of dollars to be saved, and we know how to do it, we just have to have the stomach to actually take those challenges on,”

    Or, hear me out… stop letting private healthcare and the pharmaceutical industry charge insane prices?

    • AlternatePersonMan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      18 days ago

      Those are like three of our nations most successful programs.

      Also, hundreds of billions is like a couple of aircraft carriers and a stealth bomber.

      • Madison420@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        18 days ago

        It’s not even that.

        If you buy any of those you buy the upkeep and maintenance costs as well and for even a single last Gen plane that can cost well into a the hundreds of millions and potentially billions if it has the service life of something like a b52 or the speciality of a stealth craft.

    • Coreidan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      18 days ago

      What about the poor shareholders? Are you not thinking of them? Or how about the executives and their yachts? How are they going to afford all their hookers and blow?

  • lost_faith@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    18 days ago

    “We’re going to have to have some hard decisions.

    Really? For a Repub these are easy choices, boot straps plebs, boot straps

  • inclementimmigrant@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    edit-2
    18 days ago

    There should be no tough choices here, it should only be about removing that stupid cap.

    Notwithstanding but it’s really damn stupid that my middle class ass stops paying into social security before the end of the year while the working class subsidizes me.

    • zod000@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      18 days ago

      I had no idea there was even a cap, that’s ridiculous. I don’t know a single middle class person IRL that earns enough individually to hit that cap though, so it is probably a bit regional since that cap feels like it would be awfully low in SV or a high COL city.

    • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      18 days ago

      Keep in mind that Social Security retirement benefits depend on your contributions. So by capping the amount you contribute, Social Security also caps the amount you will receive.

    • Bronzebeard@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      18 days ago

      While I agree the cap needs to be removed. The cap is only stopping you from subsidizing more of the working class. They are not subsidizing you. The payout is also capped. You’re effectively paying a portion of your contribution to boost the payout of multiple other people who contributed less during their careers

      • inclementimmigrant@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        18 days ago

        The way I see it, sure it’s capped, but I work a pretty good, white collar job, I’m going to statistically live longer than my blue collar peers drawing more over time and end of the day. I’m going to get a whole lot more out than the average blue collar worker and end result is that the working class is going and are subsidizing those rich people who are living longer putting that drain on resources.

        That’s just the way i see it.

          • Count042@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            17 days ago

            That is exactly the way the math works for anything resembling the concept of insurance.

            All of those programs are a form of insurance.

            You just don’t understand insurance.

            • Bronzebeard@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              17 days ago

              No. Social security is not funded the same way that insurance is. We’re talking about the funding here, so the comparison does not work.

        • Bronzebeard@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          17 days ago

          Why did you feel the need to say this twice?

          You’re now wing both times. Funding is very different from insurance, which was the entire point of this discussion.

  • BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    18 days ago

    Really love how it’s the cash strapped programs that gotta face the tough times while the richest CEOs and businesses are finally getting “relief” from their burdensome taxes.

    • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      18 days ago

      This is that “tough love” that Chomsky always talked about: for most everyone, it’s “tough”, meaning lots of austerity and telling people to keep their chin up and work three jobs or whatever. For the elites, it’s “love”, and lots of it. In the form of huge handouts.

  • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    18 days ago

    Only if Republicans convince 7 Democratic Senators to help them reach the 60 needed to gut Social Security.

    Which won’t happen.

      • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        18 days ago

        You are referring to “reconciliation”, which cannot be filibustered.

        Reconciliation can be used for the regular budget, but changes to Social Security are explicitly prohibited.

          • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            18 days ago

            The only way to gut Social Security unilaterally would be to nuke the filibuster, and Thune said he won’t do that.

            Probably because he knows that if he did, then the next time Democrats hold a trifecta they will use it to enact a far more progressive version of Social Security. And unilaterally gutting Social Security would very likely give Democrats that trifecta in 2028.

        • MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          18 days ago

          but changes to Social Security are explicitly prohibited

          Unless you ignore the parliamentarian. Which the GOP would never do.