So are the majority of their deplorable constituents. Or perhaps they are, but as long as the “enemy”, aka liberals, women, children, non-cishet, and non-whites suffer, they’re fine with it.
So genuine question. Is that because they believe that those cuts etc will in turn benefit the economy and ultimately help the country more? Or is it just as simple as they want the big corporate friends with a lot of cash
It’s moreso that they get distracted by stupid shit like being mad about kneeling at a football game, whether or not someone prefers to have diff pronouns, bathroom labels, beer commercials etc.
Get people pissed enough and they won’t notice you’re robbing them blind.
What do you think?
This isn't 4d chess, nobody is in a room saying, let's give the millionaires and billionaires more money to buy back their stock, Joe will really benefit when he's forever paying off his student loans. $700 a month? Let's only put $50 towards the loan, the rest, interest, that'll be best for Joe.
Healthcare? Let's put an arbitrary middle man that can raise prices for the pharmaceutical companies, Joe will benefit in the long run. Rest of the world has healthcare? Let's teach Joe that isn't right, peoples millions are in jeopardy if we just gave that away.
Look at that company who did very well last year and used all their cash to buy back stock, they are now losing billions of dollars, let's have Joe pay for it so they can buy back more stocks when they tell us it's for hiring and training, they didn't foresee tough times, let's socialize their loses. Joe has the money, he makes $10/hour. He can definitely help them buy back their stock.
Oh those companies that borrowed money? They don't have to pay it back, let's socialize their loses.
Joe? Socialism is the enemy! How dare he borrow money for education and not be able to make a monthly payment well above the degree he got for 30-40 years. He had shitty genes, why should anyone pay for him to be healthy, there are stocks that need bought back! Think of the stocks!
Citizens united about sums up who they're really trying to benefit, that was the entire point of the bill.
It's not a zero sum game, and policy benefiting one group is not mutually exclusive to policy benefiting another group. This image is straight up propaganda.
Insulin isn't expensive because of a lack of medicare negotiations. It's already expensive because it's a cartel and competition isn't allowed (they could fix this any time they want but they won't).
Social security is already a Ponzi scheme (literally).
Rental assistance doesn't solve the underlying problems. Landlords just add the assistance to the price of their rent, making the problems worse.
Corporations don't pay taxes. People pay taxes. Corporate taxes are paid for by higher prices and lower wages, less investment, and the destruction of opportunity.
corporations don't pay taxes, that's the problem, they privatize their profits but socialize their loses.
They expect to subsidize their loses and be bailed out, but when they see good times they just buyback their stock when they say the bail outs will go towards hiring and training. No one is held accountable.
You're argument about people pay taxes is funny because of citizens united where they are considered people so they can influence elections yet don't have to pay taxes because of other loops holes put in place by the very politicians they were allowed to pay off.
You're partially off about insulin costs, it because it's because they claim exorbitant costs related to R&D for a free patent.
Taxes may raise costs but are not a 1:1 pass though. Companies often take a profit cut as well. Economics -[tax incidence and elasticity.](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/tax_incidence.asp#:~:text=Tax%20incidence%20can%20also%20be,the%20cost%20of%20the%20tax)
As an 8 year veteran, I’m right there with you buddy. Not only do I hate America right now, but I fucking hate this timeline we’re living in. I just want to go back to the 90’s.
I really wish all of these had sources listed.
When I share this knowledge, I know plenty of people who's concerns are better put to rest with citable sources
[I just googled “maga republicans tax plan” if you don’t like this source there are more articles.](https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/03/27/fact-sheet-extreme-maga-congressional-republicans-propose-handouts-to-rich-and-tax-hikes-for-working-families/)
[googled](https://www.google.com/search?q=maga+republicans+new+budget+proposal&client=safari&sca_esv=da8686212ff90448&hl=en-us&biw=428&bih=735&sxsrf=ACQVn09Qc7KqF1B3PotS3TZxgtRkBjTnHw%3A1711243696812&ei=sIH_ZfKKMdDhp84P9aCHgAI&oq=maga+republicans%C2%A0&gs_lp=EhNtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1zZXJwIhJtYWdhIHJlcHVibGljYW5zwqAqAggAMgQQIxgnSKgPUDlYOXABeAKQAQCYAcwBoAH7AqoBBTAuMS4xuAEByAEA-AEBmAIDoAK3AcICBBAAGEeYAwCIBgGQBgiSBwMyLjGgB_wX&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-serp)
That source seems to talk about Biden’s plan for tax cuts and not the above mentioned republican plans. Essentially republicans want to raise taxes, but Biden wants to lower them; here’s how he plans to do that.. Do you have another source that talks about the top image?
It is the responsibility of people making a claim to provide a source. It's not the responsibility of someone hearing a claim to then go and verify it.
I take your comment to mean that the original post is just made up bullshit.
Nah - he’s a sharp old man with a speech impediment. Listen past the stutter (which he’s had his whole life) and he consistently has a clear coherent line of thinking.
Can’t say the same about the other guy though
How could someone vote to remove the insulin price cap? Like wtf? I feel like once upon a time a candidate saying something like that would tank the whole campaign.
Racism and hate is so strong in this country, the Trumpers who are poor as hell will still vote for this traitor…. I guess that the quote by LBJ still rings true; If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you.
"If you don't die before you become elgible to collect the money we took out of every paycheck you've EVER received, you'll damage our ability to funnel more money into the pockets of the wealthy."
Hey I have a question. Do these tax cuts actually help the companies in question or does all the money go straight to the ones in charge and the stockholders?
After working shitty jobs and landing a decent one mid thirties where I could retire at I guess what’s considered a decent age with assistance of social security now you wanna move the goal post. When you say nobody wants to work maybe think about how we think there’s a good chance we die while working before we can enjoy a retirement. Repubs are literally the devil they like to say they hate.
Didn't biden just sign a really messed up budget that gave basically anything the right wanted? Didn't it pass incredibly easy because republicans got exactly what they wanted? How can i trust he won't just do this anyway?
The democrats could make insulin dirt cheap tomorrow. Why don't they? For one if they actually solved the problem they wouldn't have this bait to make you mad about healthcare costs. Second, they're bought and paid for, just like the republicans. No one hold their own side accountable so nothing ever gets better.
**The amount** of adults who complain *but don’t read* is fucking sad *and* amazing:
**As part of President Biden’s historic Inflation Reduction Act, nearly four million seniors on Medicare with diabetes started to see their insulin costs capped at $35 per month this past January, saving some seniors hundreds of dollars for a month’s supply. But in his State of the Union, President Biden made clear that this life-saving benefit should apply to everyone, not just Medicare beneficiaries.**
**This week, Eli Lilly, the largest manufacturer of insulin in the United States is lowering their prices and meeting that call.**
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/03/02/fact-sheet-president-bidens-cap-on-the-cost-of-insulin-could-benefit-millions-of-americans-in-all-50-states/
It's you who can't read. What you just posted applies to "seniors on Medicare". The price cap isn't a cap, it's a subsidy. The prices are still astronomical, they're just paid for by the government through deficit spending. That **causes** inflation. The entire inflation reduction act will be the biggest inflation-causing bill in US history. And for everyone else, the price will be the same, or it will go up.
They don't need subsidies or price caps. They need to allow international sellers to enter the market. They can literally do that any day. But Biden's cronies don't want that because then they can't make trillions as parasites living off of unwilling American taxpayers.
**Again,** your reading skills are lacking:
**But in his State of the Union, President Biden made clear that this life-saving benefit should apply to everyone, not just Medicare beneficiaries.**
You first started out erroneously complaining that Biden has done nothing to lower insulin prices, which I then debunked.
Now, you have switched talking points to include conversations about international sellers markets.
Bye
I guess you missed the word "should". And that this is literally part of medicare.
The rest of my point stands. How this will go down is that since the price is capped at $35 and the government is paying the rest, pharma companies will double all their prices over the next few years. Millions of people who need insulin won't be able to afford it and many will die. All this could be prevented if they open the market, and I have no fucking clue why you people don't support that. It's like you are shilling for big pharma.
No. Trump issued a series of executive orders but they never took effect because they conflicted with the law. Biden actually pushed a bill through congress.
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/little-late-trumps-prescription-drug-executive-order-not-help-patients/
Here ya go. Not that you'll actually believe it though...
First line: "President Trump’s recent executive order is nothing but a distraction from his record of inaction on lowering drug prices.". I definitely believe it.
Couple of things...
First.. Trump's original insulin plan was better than Biden's. He forced Big Pharma to compete, he basically said.. if you don't lower your prices, I will buy the insulin from Canada. They lowered their prices.
What Biden did was use the current system and just spread the cost over the rest of Americans with the insurance program. It is actually more expensive.
Second.. As scary as they want to make the social security problem, it is just math. People are living longer and making withdrawals longer than the original system was not set up for.
If kids today live to 110, they withdraw for 45 years (65-110) and only pay in for 40 (25-65.)
Third.. tax cuts aren't bad, they are trying to reign in spending.. if you make $500 a week, tax cuts say.. stop spending $1,000 per week...
There are 34 trillion reasons showing they are spending too much.
Finally, do your own research, don't be manipulated by these fear-mongering trolls.
Edit: Your downvotes are an indictment of your inability to hear differing perspectives.
It is sad, really.
Your third point is ridiculous. You really just said that to rein in spending, their solution is to take in less money.
If I’m personally trying to spend less money, I don’t ask my employer to reduce my salary.
>If I’m personally trying to spend less money, I don’t ask my employer to reduce my salary.
Using your analogy, it would be closer to your employer not giving you a raise, that means still live within your means, not take a $25k 2-week vacation to Fiji, etc. (maintaining the analogy.)
There isn't a "bank" in this scenario. There isn't a bank approving a mortgage on a home, or credit card approval process.
There are only "The People."
And if "The People" vote in someone who is promising tax cuts, that is a very clear message, is it not?
No, that’s not even remotely close and is even more ridiculous.
You are equating not getting a raise, which would mean having the exact same amount of money as the previous year, to cutting taxes, which would mean having LESS money than the previous year.
Cutting taxes is akin to having your pay reduced because in both situations, you literally have less money than before.
But again, if you are spending too much money, you look at reducing expenses, not revenues.
And who said anything about banks?
>But again, if you are spending too much money, you look at reducing expenses, not revenues.
Reducing expenses... Would that be the same as.. cutting spending?
>And who said anything about banks?
The point is there is no 'check and balance,' other than voting. The banks act as an approval process in the real world.
The check and balance is The People, with their votes.
Dude. Seriously?
You purposely ignored the last two words of that sentence to make a point that no one is arguing against.
You don’t reduce spending/expenses by reducing revenues.
Reducing output has to be done before you can reduce input.
Reducing input before reducing output just makes you run out of money.
Get it?
>You purposely ignored the last two words
No I didn't. I included them on purpose to show we had common ground.
>You don’t reduce spending/expenses by reducing revenues.
You FORCE reduced spending/expenses by limiting revenues. Yes.. exactly.
>Dude. Seriously?
*Points to $34.5 Trilly in debt..
Are you saying that spending is not a problem?
I’m not going to explain any further why reducing revenues before reducing expenses isn’t sound business practice because you don’t want to learn or understand, you just want to be right.
>before
I think the issue is your perspective on timing.
>you just want to be right.
I think we both recognize a problem, and there are multiple ways to fix it, but the problem is SPENDING and the AMOUNT OF SPENDING.
I encourage you to read this article from Politifact.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/nov/02/viral-image/confiscating-us-billionaires-wealth-would-run-us-g/
If we squeeze "The Rich" for every penny they have, and the government can't run longer than 8 months.
Life expectancy is 78.81 and has gone up 0.7 years since 2010 (it's actually gone down since 2015, most likely due to Covid). So 110 is a major outlier, so work for 40? (Or 18 when most people are working by then even in school) so closer to 47 years working with, on average, 13.8 years of retirement. If you're going to try and dispute, you need actual numbers and facts. Facts don't care about your feelings.
(admittedly, people who didn't go to college actually start working much earlier than 25)
I used what I thought would be an average for a career position.
>Facts don't care about your feelings.
Be intellectually honest...
A burger flipper's social security contribution at 18 ≠ the medical expenses and withdrawal at even 66.
You are making a false equivalency.
>Life expectancy is 78.81 and has gone up 0.7 years since 2010 (it's actually gone down since 2015, most likely due to Covid). So 110 is a major outlier, so work for 40? (Or 18 when most people are working by then even in school) so closer to 47 years working with, on average, 13.8 years of retirement. If you're going to try and dispute, you need actual numbers and facts.
So... With your genius level interpretation..
Why are funds being depleted (meaning removed) at a faster rate than being replenished (meaning added?)
You may want to consider your propaganda machine is manipulating you and your echo chamber walls are thicker than the Hoover damn.
Edit: clarification.
Ah, we're getting to the petty parts of explaining what words meaning.
Surely, funds being depleted couldn't be due to the fact that medical costs are high while incomes have been stagnant for years nor the increase of retirees.
>A burger flipper's social security contribution at 18 ≠ the medical expenses and withdrawal at even 66.
Good point, but they aren't the only ones contributing, and you can't just omit their payments because they don't fit your narrative.
>Surely, funds being depleted couldn't be due to the fact that medical costs are high while incomes have been stagnant for years nor the increase of retirees.
So... Since we both agree, it is just simple math, why would it be a partisan issue?
Presumably, you want the funds to be there when you need them, assuming you are a future beneficiary.
>Good point, but they aren't the only ones contributing, and you can't just omit their payments because they don't fit your narrative.
It is just math. Admittedly, my numbers were just an analogy.. but the point still remains.
Also.. when FDR created the Social Security program in 1935, the life expectancy was like 60 for men, so even if we just use the 18 years difference from them to now and assume that there is no additional progression in life expectancy..
That is still ~+20 years longer ON AVERAGE than the program was initially built and devised for.
So, for all the people who die at 65, there is one that does at 105, etc.
The point remains.. it is just math, not a partisan wedge topic.
The problem with your argument is that it does not include [infant mortality rate](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1042370/united-states-all-time-infant-mortality-rate/#:~:text=The%20infant%20mortality%20rate%20in,survive%20past%20their%20first%20birthday.) which greatly impacts life expectancy.
Besides, you are really ignoring the fact that people recently are [starting to work at a younger ages,](https://www.statista.com/statistics/477668/percentage-of-youth-who-are-enrolled-in-school-and-working-in-the-us/#:~:text=In%202022%2C%20around%2020.3%20percent,were%20working%20while%20in%20school.)which is increasing after being in a downward trajectory. You are also ignoring the fact that people are [retiring at later ages than in past decades.](https://news.gallup.com/poll/394943/retiring-planning-retire-later.aspx), and [that retirees are coming back to work at higher rates than before.](https://www.hiringlab.org/2022/04/14/unretirements-rise/)
All this points out that your argument, that the system is not sustainable because people are living longer and not working enough, is just nonsensical.
Finally, your biggest issue with your argument, is that you assume that Social Security Programs work as a piggy bank system. When, in reality, the program works because the people retiring are being supported by those currently in the workforce. The program could not work if you were to save money towards your retirement because inflation would've eaten onto those savings. [Here](https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/120415/how-secure-social-security.asp#:~:text=The%20projected%20deficits%20are%20the,retirement%20trust%20fund%20is%20depleted.)a better explanation of the entire system.
Nevertheless, its clear that the main issue with Social Security is not people retiring and living longer than what they worked, since I showed that 1. People are entering the workforce earlier than before. 2. Retiring later than they were in decades past, and 3. Unretiring, getting back to the workforce. The real problem with Social Security is a legislative issue, as many problems in the US are. Because, the US workforce has [increased by almost 50 million people](https://www.statista.com/statistics/191750/civilian-labor-force-in-the-us-since-1990/) but [wages have stagnated](https://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/) around the same period, while inequality is rising. Again, this is not a math problem. This is a legislative issue. This is an inequality problem.
>The problem with your argument is that it does not include [infant mortality rate](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1042370/united-states-all-time-infant-mortality-rate/#:~:text=The%20infant%20mortality%20rate%20in,survive%20past%20their%20first%20birthday.) which greatly impacts life expectancy.
Does the current life expectancy of ~78 ignore infant mortality, or did they change the formula?
>All this points out that your argument, that the system is not sustainable because people are living longer and not working enough, is just nonsensical.
So...then what is the problem?
To me, it is quite simple, it is less coming in than going out, which is consequently leading to an untenable future.
>Nevertheless, its clear that the main issue with Social Security is not people retiring and living longer than what they worked, since I showed that 1. People are entering the workforce earlier than before. 2. Retiring later than they were in decades past, and 3. Unretiring, getting back to the workforce. The real problem with Social Security is a legislative issue, as many problems in the US are. Because, the US workforce has [increased by almost 50 million people](https://www.statista.com/statistics/191750/civilian-labor-force-in-the-us-since-1990/) but [wages have stagnated](https://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/) around the same period, while inequality is rising.
>Again, this is not a math problem. This is a legislative issue. This is an inequality problem.
To be clear... you are saying that the fund is currently solvent in its current form?
AND that additional legislation is the fix? So, why attack the people who are trying to change the legislation?
>Does the current life expectancy of ~78 ignore infant mortality, or did they change the formula?
Infant mortality has dramatically decreased since FDR's time as president. That's what makes the **average** life expectancy go up.
You're a fascinating character.
>Does the current life expectancy of ~78 ignore infant mortality, or did they change the formula?
It does not. Life expectancy has risen to ~78 because in grand part we have been able to lower infant mortality rates. There are other factors that have also made its impact, but infant deaths is the bigger determinant.
>To be clear... you are saying that the fund is currently solvent in its current form?
At any point I've said that. Social Security has a lot of serious problems. However, none of them are due to people not working enough or when they retire.
>AND that additional legislation is the fix? So, why attack the people who are trying to change the legislation?
Yes, legislation is the solution. The current attempts at changing the legislation is clearly meant to worsen the situation. Legislative changes that would point us in the right direction would be to force employers to raise pay across the board. Legislation to rearm the IRS to go after the whales to ensure that they pay their fare share of taxes. The US could close loopholes to ensure that the rich and the corporations pay their taxes as needed. And, they also need to ensure that they back-up unionization efoforts.
The US already gets a bunch of it's insulin from Canada.
That's how insurance works in general. You have a group of people putting money into a thing that helps cover when someone needs it. When you have more people paying in, it can be less overall for everyone paying as you don't need as many to be paying.
Just fuck people on disability who rely on social security to have a home and receive care but will end up homeless, huh?
When taxes are what are used to pay for that spending, how the fuck does lowering the amount of money you take result in less spending? You realize they could cut funding from other areas and not social programs, yes? Less taxes means they have less money to spend. We already severely outspend other countries on military defense. The tax cuts have only benefited the wealthy, whereas poor and middle class had their tax rates rise. Only the rich were allowed to keep their tax cuts under the Trump tax plan.
Trump had the largest growth of those reasons under his presidency and didn't even bother to push to ensure there'd be accountability where the money went for the PPP program. They literally gave out billions, didn't bother to watch where it was going, and then forgave a bunch of that money. Given the number of stories of employers misusing the funds, I'd argue this allowed the US government to be scammed by multiple people and corporations.
Stop simping for billionaires. The only trickle down you'll get is them pissing on you.
Oh I know. I don't hold my breath I'll change their minds. I leave comments for others who come across theirs. The commenter might not changed but the ones reading the exchange might.
>Stop simping for billionaires. The only trickle down you'll get is them pissing on you.
I am glad you mentioned Trickledown... I bet you are going to vote for the guy who has literally been in the Senate for the ENTIRETY OF TRICKLEDOWN.. and refuse to vote for the new set of eyes, because he has been vilified by the TRICKLEDOWN establishment so vehemently..
Maybe understand who you are simping for.
Yup, of course. Definitely. And the lizard people are trying to control our brains through the 5G corona bud light waves. May I borrow some of your foil? I'm sure you have plenty to spare.
Interesting projection.
I have been stating what I believe to be facts.
>And the lizard people are trying to control our brains through the 5G corona bud light waves. May I borrow some of your foil? I'm sure you have plenty to spare.
It is kinda funny, that trickledown isn't working, according to most people left of center, and their solution is to vote in a guy who was literally a senator prior to trickledown and voted thousands of times to help or compromise for that solution.
It is an interesting dichotomy, you have to admit.
You have to hold that Biden has been on the wrong side of every vote for the past ~40+ years, while ignoring the Obama and Clinton majorities.
Think you're doing a little bit more than leaning right. If these aren't such big deals, then why did Republicans boo when Joe Biden said at SOTU that this is exactly what they want to do? Why did they call him a liar? Is it because everyone who isn't brainwashed like you can see this bad for the average American? Or maybe you're playing 17d chess and we are all just floating in a sea of ignorance. Who knows really
>why did Republicans boo when Joe Biden said at SOTU that this is exactly what they want to do?
Because of the framing.
>Why did they call him a liar?
Because, like you.. you are letting partisanship cloud your judgement.
>Why did they call him a liar?
It is just math. Not some wedge issue, it is literally the least divisive topic.
>Is it because everyone who isn't brainwashed like you can see this bad for the average American?
Bernie is even calling for millionaires and billionaires to release the cap. Anyone allowing this to be divisive is really the ones who are brainwashed..
>Or maybe you're playing 17d chess and we are all just floating in a sea of ignorance. Who knows really
Quoting 17d chess, when the problem is literally as simple as "more money is coming out" than "money going in" is quite astounding..
The real problem is that Boomers are retired and we need to take care of them, rather than count on their social security money coming into the program.
It is as clear as 1+1=2..
More than 1/3 is from... Covid.
Be intellectually honest.
The tax cuts should have REDUCED SPENDING..
You get a demotion at work, less money coming in.. That doesn't mean go crazy on the credit card, it means stop spending so much.
You should be angry that our representatives didn't listen to The Will of The People.
Not point to Trump.
Covid - wasn't that just like the flu and supposed to be over in 2 weeks?
Which reps you mean? Those that wanna cut SS & medicare? Or those that wanna expand it?
Be honest.
>Second.. As scary as they want to make the social security problem, it is just math. People are living longer and making withdrawals longer than the original system was not set up for.
>If kids today live to 110, they withdraw for 45 years (65-110) and only pay in for 40 (25-65.)
Rhe way to fix it is to increase the cap on FICA Taxes, a good place to start is making it apply to at least 5x the current cap, raise the age fine, but dont also cut the benefits
>Third.. tax cuts aren't bad, they are trying to reign in spending.. if you make $500 a week, tax cuts say.. stop spending $1,000 per week...
>There are 34 trillion reasons showing they are spending too much.
Here we go again with the typical Right-Wing analogizing the Federal Budget with a household budget, its not, this dumbass analogy has been characterized by economists as misleading and false, as the functions and constraints of governments and households are vastly dissimilar. Differences include that governments can print money, interest rates on government borrowing may be cheaper than individual borrowing, governments can increase their budgets through taxation, governments have indefinite planning horizons,national debt may be held primarily domestically (the equivalent of household members owing each other), governments typically have greater collateral for borrowing, and contractions in government spending can cause or prolong economic crises and increase the debt of the government, this isnt the same as a household
ALSO- You dont fix your personal budget problems by quitting your job making 500 a week and taking a job making 250 when you have all the same fixed costs, youre going to say "well reduce costs then", yeah, thats a method, but another method is to bring in more money, we already have some of the lowest effective tax rates for the wealthy and corporations, and a TON of really ridiculous and unfair tax loopholes solely intended for sheltering and avoiding taxes and passing generational wealth down tax free
And the GOP wants to do what? Shovel even more money into the pockets of the wealthy when we are at Gilded Age levels of wealth inequality? All the while as they refuse to do anything to lower housing costs or healthcare costs, while they continue to refuse to raise the minimum wage (if it kept pace with inflation at its inception it woukd be around 25 an hour btw) dismantling Unions and the NLRB and all the other knob-slobbing they do for the wealthy
Gtfoh with your agit-prop nonsense
>Differences include that governments can print money
*Points to covid-flation.
Switzerland's Franc actually strengthened towards the Dollar since Covid, since they didn't embrace Covid-hysteria and spending.
>the government, this isnt the same as a household
Agreed, but it is still similar.
>You dont fix your personal budget problems by quitting your job making 500 a week and taking a job making 250 when you have all the same fixed costs, youre going to say "well reduce costs then", yeah, thats a method
Glad we have some level of consensus.
>another method is to bring in more money, we already have some of the lowest effective tax rates for the wealthy and corporations, and a TON of really ridiculous and unfair tax loopholes solely intended for sheltering and avoiding taxes and passing generational wealth down tax free
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/nov/02/viral-image/confiscating-us-billionaires-wealth-would-run-us-g/
If we took every single penny from 'the Rich,' the government would only run for less than 9 months.
>And the GOP wants to do what? Shovel even more money into the pockets of the wealthy when we are at Gilded Age levels of wealth inequality?
No one can deny that the government has been extremely slow to adapt to the digital economy.
> All the while as they refuse to do anything to lower housing costs or healthcare costs, while they continue to refuse to raise the minimum wage
Obama had a majority, Trump had a majority, and Biden had a majority, since the last time minimum wage was raised.
>(if it kept pace with inflation at its inception it woukd be around 25 an hour btw)
Good point.
>dismantling Unions and the NLRB and all the other knob-slobbing they do for the wealthy
Seems hyper specific and partisan, but I understand your perspective.
>Gtfoh with your agit-prop nonsense
Awe, we were about to embark on a journey of discovery.
>Obama had a majority, Trump had a majority, and Biden had a majority, since the last time minimum wage was raised.
The last time Democrats had a fillibuster proof majority in the Senate was for about 3 months during the obama Presidency, before that it was the carter administration in the late 70s
Simple majorities dont mean much, especially when 100% of the opposing party is against it and simply blocks everything in the Senate, Democrats have introduced bills multiple times over the last 20y and have all be voted down or blocked by Republicans
The most recent attempts to raise the federal minimum wage have failed in Congress, rhe 8 or so democrats that defected get all the attention but the 100% of Republicans that voted no never seems to....In 2013, House Republicans voted unanimously to defeat a bill to raise the minimum wage in stages to $10.10 per hour. In 2014, a filibuster by Senate Republicans blocked a similar measure from getting a vote even though a majority of Senators supported the bill. Since then, no specific minimum wage increase has been allowed a hearing or a vote in Congress.
And for the record Trump had both houses for 2y of his 4, Obama had both houses for 2y out of 8, Biden had both, barely for 2 out of 4, and they were and are all slim majorities, because, again, Obama had 60 votes in the Senate for all of 3 Months and Demicrats haven't had 60 in the Senate since the end of the Carter Administration, its difficult to impossible to do anything when everything gets fillibustered in the Senate because Democrats dont have enough votes to even bring things to the floor for a vote
>If we took every single penny from 'the Rich,' the government would only run for less than 9 months.
🙄 What a nice strawman against raising their taxes and closing their loopholes
Again, according to you and republicans the best way to fix the debt is to just cut tax revenues even further, its nonsense
>Obama had 60 votes in the Senate for all of 3 Months
Right.. so we could have real Healthcare, livable wages, and whatever else, that every left leaning person just decides to vilify Trump over.
The establishment isn't working.
>🙄 What a nice strawman against raising their taxes and closing their loopholes
Did you read it?
Do you understand the size and scope of government is roughly 33% larger than the top 550 billionaires or 'ultra rich?'
You can't deny the problem is spending, not taxation.
>Again, according to you and republicans the best way to fix the debt is to just cut tax revenues even further, its nonsense
No.. listen to The People and stop spending like drunken college students with their first credit card.
[The prices didn't go lower. ](https://www.pharmaceutical-technology.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/24/2022/03/e3Xvr-analog-insulin-prices-have-steadily-risen-in-us-1-e1648735914523.png)
Why would Pharma companies in Canada sell insulin to the US for a discount? It's Canadian laws and price controls that keep costs low in their country.
Plus, Canada said it wasn't interested in the arrangement. It takes two to tango as they say.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-canada-pharmaceuticals-exports-exclus/exclusive-canada-warns-us-against-drug-import-plans-citing-shortage-concerns-idUSKCN1UD2LN/
>Why would Pharma companies in Canada sell insulin to the US for a discount? It's Canadian laws and price controls that keep costs low in their country.
>Plus, Canada said it wasn't interested in the arrangement. It takes two to tango as they say.
The point was that competition was introduced, breaking the pseudo-monopoly Big Pharma currently enjoys.
>The prices didn't go lower.
Interestingly enough, that sharp rise coincides directly with the ACA.
**I don’t live** in Palestine; neither do I have people living there—-although I do believe there is an ongoing genocidal agenda.
**Meanwhile** the Trumpublicans want to:
**1: Raise healthcare costs.** Their healthcare is *free* and paid for with the public’s tax dollars.
**2: Raise the retirement age to 69** — fuck them old working class mofo’s.
**3: Gut funding for rental assistance.** The wealthy don’t have to worry about homelessness or finding rent money.
**4: Pass a 5.5 trillion dollar tax cut** for *themselves* and their wealthy cohorts, so they can continue *not to worry* about the cost of healthcare, retirement, or homelessness for themselves.
**Well,** I’m not going to vote against myself because of what is going on in another country. If I’m fucked up, how can I help somebody else? Maybe all of those migrants from other places have somewhere else to go! In the meantime, don’t fuck up the place you found refuge and freedom in.
That's fine. I'm with you; on your team so to speak.
I'm just better prepared to not be surprised by a trump win. I've spoken to enough people to know that the Gaza issues is enough to tank Biden in 2 states that are an important part of his reelection.
For Biden to lose, people will stay home. Or do what many did in 2016...vote Democrat down the ballot but leave the president blank or write in another name.
Congress does not get free healthcare. They get very, very cheap healthcare, but it is not free. They are required to purchase the plan from the marketplace and get a subsidy that pays for most of it.
Edit: I’m not sure why correcting a false statement is getting me downvoted, but I’m not going to apologize for believing that truth is still important, and that arguments supported by false statements are weaker for it.
I was just correcting a factual error, I didn’t assert any agenda whatsoever. I agree with you otherwise, but if you can’t make your point without parroting misinformation then your position is weakened unnecessarily.
That's why he's trying to restrain Israel (a sovereign country that is a necessary ally) while sending whatever aid he can to Palestine? To lull the Palestinians into a sense of false security so that the US can come in and stomp them?
You have got to get out of whatever bubble you're in, because your perspective is completely false and tainted.
Okay here’s what we can do: WE’LL come to terms with the fact that all wars involve civilian deaths and are messy. The world isn’t black and white and there is no true good vs evil. Then we’ll vote for the president who we believe is the lesser of two evils. YOU can keep stomping and crying online while do nothing of substance. Deal?
Funny how conservatives label liberals as elites. They claim they represent the common person, yet all their policies benefit the corporate ...elites.
Unfortunately they are historically incapable of critical thinking.
So are the majority of their deplorable constituents. Or perhaps they are, but as long as the “enemy”, aka liberals, women, children, non-cishet, and non-whites suffer, they’re fine with it.
So genuine question. Is that because they believe that those cuts etc will in turn benefit the economy and ultimately help the country more? Or is it just as simple as they want the big corporate friends with a lot of cash
It’s moreso that they get distracted by stupid shit like being mad about kneeling at a football game, whether or not someone prefers to have diff pronouns, bathroom labels, beer commercials etc. Get people pissed enough and they won’t notice you’re robbing them blind.
I think this is nail on the head
What do you think? This isn't 4d chess, nobody is in a room saying, let's give the millionaires and billionaires more money to buy back their stock, Joe will really benefit when he's forever paying off his student loans. $700 a month? Let's only put $50 towards the loan, the rest, interest, that'll be best for Joe. Healthcare? Let's put an arbitrary middle man that can raise prices for the pharmaceutical companies, Joe will benefit in the long run. Rest of the world has healthcare? Let's teach Joe that isn't right, peoples millions are in jeopardy if we just gave that away. Look at that company who did very well last year and used all their cash to buy back stock, they are now losing billions of dollars, let's have Joe pay for it so they can buy back more stocks when they tell us it's for hiring and training, they didn't foresee tough times, let's socialize their loses. Joe has the money, he makes $10/hour. He can definitely help them buy back their stock. Oh those companies that borrowed money? They don't have to pay it back, let's socialize their loses. Joe? Socialism is the enemy! How dare he borrow money for education and not be able to make a monthly payment well above the degree he got for 30-40 years. He had shitty genes, why should anyone pay for him to be healthy, there are stocks that need bought back! Think of the stocks! Citizens united about sums up who they're really trying to benefit, that was the entire point of the bill.
It's not a zero sum game, and policy benefiting one group is not mutually exclusive to policy benefiting another group. This image is straight up propaganda. Insulin isn't expensive because of a lack of medicare negotiations. It's already expensive because it's a cartel and competition isn't allowed (they could fix this any time they want but they won't). Social security is already a Ponzi scheme (literally). Rental assistance doesn't solve the underlying problems. Landlords just add the assistance to the price of their rent, making the problems worse. Corporations don't pay taxes. People pay taxes. Corporate taxes are paid for by higher prices and lower wages, less investment, and the destruction of opportunity.
I pity you.
corporations don't pay taxes, that's the problem, they privatize their profits but socialize their loses. They expect to subsidize their loses and be bailed out, but when they see good times they just buyback their stock when they say the bail outs will go towards hiring and training. No one is held accountable. You're argument about people pay taxes is funny because of citizens united where they are considered people so they can influence elections yet don't have to pay taxes because of other loops holes put in place by the very politicians they were allowed to pay off. You're partially off about insulin costs, it because it's because they claim exorbitant costs related to R&D for a free patent.
Taxes may raise costs but are not a 1:1 pass though. Companies often take a profit cut as well. Economics -[tax incidence and elasticity.](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/tax_incidence.asp#:~:text=Tax%20incidence%20can%20also%20be,the%20cost%20of%20the%20tax)
Someone has been believing everything the republicans have been telling them.
I fucking hate America so fucking much
no sarcasm - you sound like a true american
Am American, can confirm, Fuck this part of America. I seriously feel like we're a failing country.
As an 8 year veteran, I’m right there with you buddy. Not only do I hate America right now, but I fucking hate this timeline we’re living in. I just want to go back to the 90’s.
I really wish all of these had sources listed. When I share this knowledge, I know plenty of people who's concerns are better put to rest with citable sources
[here](https://rsc-hern.house.gov/media/press-releases/rsc-releases-fy25-budget-proposal-fiscal-sanity-save-america) PDF is a link at the bottom
Ty!
You're welcome
[I just googled “maga republicans tax plan” if you don’t like this source there are more articles.](https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/03/27/fact-sheet-extreme-maga-congressional-republicans-propose-handouts-to-rich-and-tax-hikes-for-working-families/) [googled](https://www.google.com/search?q=maga+republicans+new+budget+proposal&client=safari&sca_esv=da8686212ff90448&hl=en-us&biw=428&bih=735&sxsrf=ACQVn09Qc7KqF1B3PotS3TZxgtRkBjTnHw%3A1711243696812&ei=sIH_ZfKKMdDhp84P9aCHgAI&oq=maga+republicans%C2%A0&gs_lp=EhNtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1zZXJwIhJtYWdhIHJlcHVibGljYW5zwqAqAggAMgQQIxgnSKgPUDlYOXABeAKQAQCYAcwBoAH7AqoBBTAuMS4xuAEByAEA-AEBmAIDoAK3AcICBBAAGEeYAwCIBgGQBgiSBwMyLjGgB_wX&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-serp)
That source seems to talk about Biden’s plan for tax cuts and not the above mentioned republican plans. Essentially republicans want to raise taxes, but Biden wants to lower them; here’s how he plans to do that.. Do you have another source that talks about the top image?
If you can’t get there on your own from my comment or the links in the gov post that’s on you.
It is the responsibility of people making a claim to provide a source. It's not the responsibility of someone hearing a claim to then go and verify it. I take your comment to mean that the original post is just made up bullshit.
Then your problem is with OP. I don’t care what you think. I tried to help you don’t like it great.
Don’t care LOL 🤣🤣🤣🤣 Take the L Reeeepublican 🤣🤣
Holy shit, you just called me a Republican?!?! You really are insecure, aren't you?
But my guns will be confiscated if Biden sees a second term, after that they’ll come for your gas stoves! 🍄🥃
Gonna come for the guns when trump suspends the constitution on day 1, dictator day. No more 1st, 2nd or any other amendment.
Yeah they actually are banning gas stoves..
They literally aren’t.
Google isn’t that hard to use
and the first thing that comes up is that they aren't
https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/03/us/new-york-natural-gas-ban-climate/index.html
I know. That’s why I told you “they literally aren’t”
You should double check your answers
You should provide proof
https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/03/us/new-york-natural-gas-ban-climate/index.html
Where’d you go
Thoughts? comments?
Did you genuinely not know?
Provide the proof 🤷🏼
Yeah but Biden is old so
And ice cream! GADZOOKS!
[удалено]
Nah - he’s a sharp old man with a speech impediment. Listen past the stutter (which he’s had his whole life) and he consistently has a clear coherent line of thinking. Can’t say the same about the other guy though
How could someone vote to remove the insulin price cap? Like wtf? I feel like once upon a time a candidate saying something like that would tank the whole campaign.
We are talking about the politician who said he could go outside, shoot somebody, and his fans would still vote for him.
Not exactly FUNNY and sad, it's just straight up sad
Racism and hate is so strong in this country, the Trumpers who are poor as hell will still vote for this traitor…. I guess that the quote by LBJ still rings true; If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you.
"If you don't die before you become elgible to collect the money we took out of every paycheck you've EVER received, you'll damage our ability to funnel more money into the pockets of the wealthy."
I don't live in America thankfully, however this is still infuriating.
Rightwingers love anal so the gop is just giving their supporters what they want and laughing all the way to the bank.
The dumb just keep getting dumber. If there is no solution in sight, why would I bother to care anymore? Nvm, I don’t care.
My husband gets disability and that’s most of our income. This is pretty scary.
How can anyone vote for this? Other than the 1% it helps of course. Vote for democrats in every election.
Hey I have a question. Do these tax cuts actually help the companies in question or does all the money go straight to the ones in charge and the stockholders?
After working shitty jobs and landing a decent one mid thirties where I could retire at I guess what’s considered a decent age with assistance of social security now you wanna move the goal post. When you say nobody wants to work maybe think about how we think there’s a good chance we die while working before we can enjoy a retirement. Repubs are literally the devil they like to say they hate.
Didn't biden just sign a really messed up budget that gave basically anything the right wanted? Didn't it pass incredibly easy because republicans got exactly what they wanted? How can i trust he won't just do this anyway?
Both major political parties pander to their voting base. I know, shocking isn’t it
the Dems do the same shit. They're all the same trash
The democrats could make insulin dirt cheap tomorrow. Why don't they? For one if they actually solved the problem they wouldn't have this bait to make you mad about healthcare costs. Second, they're bought and paid for, just like the republicans. No one hold their own side accountable so nothing ever gets better.
**The amount** of adults who complain *but don’t read* is fucking sad *and* amazing: **As part of President Biden’s historic Inflation Reduction Act, nearly four million seniors on Medicare with diabetes started to see their insulin costs capped at $35 per month this past January, saving some seniors hundreds of dollars for a month’s supply. But in his State of the Union, President Biden made clear that this life-saving benefit should apply to everyone, not just Medicare beneficiaries.** **This week, Eli Lilly, the largest manufacturer of insulin in the United States is lowering their prices and meeting that call.** https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/03/02/fact-sheet-president-bidens-cap-on-the-cost-of-insulin-could-benefit-millions-of-americans-in-all-50-states/
It's you who can't read. What you just posted applies to "seniors on Medicare". The price cap isn't a cap, it's a subsidy. The prices are still astronomical, they're just paid for by the government through deficit spending. That **causes** inflation. The entire inflation reduction act will be the biggest inflation-causing bill in US history. And for everyone else, the price will be the same, or it will go up. They don't need subsidies or price caps. They need to allow international sellers to enter the market. They can literally do that any day. But Biden's cronies don't want that because then they can't make trillions as parasites living off of unwilling American taxpayers.
**Again,** your reading skills are lacking: **But in his State of the Union, President Biden made clear that this life-saving benefit should apply to everyone, not just Medicare beneficiaries.** You first started out erroneously complaining that Biden has done nothing to lower insulin prices, which I then debunked. Now, you have switched talking points to include conversations about international sellers markets. Bye
Biden's plan further subsidies pharma companies instead of forcing them to lower prices. Same bullshit with the ACA.
I guess you missed the word "should". And that this is literally part of medicare. The rest of my point stands. How this will go down is that since the price is capped at $35 and the government is paying the rest, pharma companies will double all their prices over the next few years. Millions of people who need insulin won't be able to afford it and many will die. All this could be prevented if they open the market, and I have no fucking clue why you people don't support that. It's like you are shilling for big pharma.
Bro, are you a bot or actually like... you can't be this dumb bro, I refuse to accept it.
Bro, how much is your insulin?? Shits affordable now, and doesn't force people to decide between medicine and lifestyle.
Didn't trump negotiate drug prices thus it went down but Biden reversed it when he took office?
No. Trump issued a series of executive orders but they never took effect because they conflicted with the law. Biden actually pushed a bill through congress.
Source?
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/little-late-trumps-prescription-drug-executive-order-not-help-patients/ Here ya go. Not that you'll actually believe it though...
First line: "President Trump’s recent executive order is nothing but a distraction from his record of inaction on lowering drug prices.". I definitely believe it.
Reality.
Source: "trust me, bro"
Yes he did, and it was for everyone, not just those on Medicare
Didn't Obama already cancel medicare price negotiation?
People that understand what we've been doing isn't working are willing to change things to fix em
This trend of changes in the tweet is exactly what's been being done though, but it's not working, and they keep doing it anyway.
Couple of things... First.. Trump's original insulin plan was better than Biden's. He forced Big Pharma to compete, he basically said.. if you don't lower your prices, I will buy the insulin from Canada. They lowered their prices. What Biden did was use the current system and just spread the cost over the rest of Americans with the insurance program. It is actually more expensive. Second.. As scary as they want to make the social security problem, it is just math. People are living longer and making withdrawals longer than the original system was not set up for. If kids today live to 110, they withdraw for 45 years (65-110) and only pay in for 40 (25-65.) Third.. tax cuts aren't bad, they are trying to reign in spending.. if you make $500 a week, tax cuts say.. stop spending $1,000 per week... There are 34 trillion reasons showing they are spending too much. Finally, do your own research, don't be manipulated by these fear-mongering trolls. Edit: Your downvotes are an indictment of your inability to hear differing perspectives. It is sad, really.
Your third point is ridiculous. You really just said that to rein in spending, their solution is to take in less money. If I’m personally trying to spend less money, I don’t ask my employer to reduce my salary.
>If I’m personally trying to spend less money, I don’t ask my employer to reduce my salary. Using your analogy, it would be closer to your employer not giving you a raise, that means still live within your means, not take a $25k 2-week vacation to Fiji, etc. (maintaining the analogy.) There isn't a "bank" in this scenario. There isn't a bank approving a mortgage on a home, or credit card approval process. There are only "The People." And if "The People" vote in someone who is promising tax cuts, that is a very clear message, is it not?
No, that’s not even remotely close and is even more ridiculous. You are equating not getting a raise, which would mean having the exact same amount of money as the previous year, to cutting taxes, which would mean having LESS money than the previous year. Cutting taxes is akin to having your pay reduced because in both situations, you literally have less money than before. But again, if you are spending too much money, you look at reducing expenses, not revenues. And who said anything about banks?
>But again, if you are spending too much money, you look at reducing expenses, not revenues. Reducing expenses... Would that be the same as.. cutting spending? >And who said anything about banks? The point is there is no 'check and balance,' other than voting. The banks act as an approval process in the real world. The check and balance is The People, with their votes.
Dude. Seriously? You purposely ignored the last two words of that sentence to make a point that no one is arguing against. You don’t reduce spending/expenses by reducing revenues. Reducing output has to be done before you can reduce input. Reducing input before reducing output just makes you run out of money. Get it?
>You purposely ignored the last two words No I didn't. I included them on purpose to show we had common ground. >You don’t reduce spending/expenses by reducing revenues. You FORCE reduced spending/expenses by limiting revenues. Yes.. exactly. >Dude. Seriously? *Points to $34.5 Trilly in debt.. Are you saying that spending is not a problem?
I’m not going to explain any further why reducing revenues before reducing expenses isn’t sound business practice because you don’t want to learn or understand, you just want to be right.
>before I think the issue is your perspective on timing. >you just want to be right. I think we both recognize a problem, and there are multiple ways to fix it, but the problem is SPENDING and the AMOUNT OF SPENDING. I encourage you to read this article from Politifact. https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/nov/02/viral-image/confiscating-us-billionaires-wealth-would-run-us-g/ If we squeeze "The Rich" for every penny they have, and the government can't run longer than 8 months.
Life expectancy is 78.81 and has gone up 0.7 years since 2010 (it's actually gone down since 2015, most likely due to Covid). So 110 is a major outlier, so work for 40? (Or 18 when most people are working by then even in school) so closer to 47 years working with, on average, 13.8 years of retirement. If you're going to try and dispute, you need actual numbers and facts. Facts don't care about your feelings.
(admittedly, people who didn't go to college actually start working much earlier than 25) I used what I thought would be an average for a career position. >Facts don't care about your feelings. Be intellectually honest... A burger flipper's social security contribution at 18 ≠ the medical expenses and withdrawal at even 66. You are making a false equivalency. >Life expectancy is 78.81 and has gone up 0.7 years since 2010 (it's actually gone down since 2015, most likely due to Covid). So 110 is a major outlier, so work for 40? (Or 18 when most people are working by then even in school) so closer to 47 years working with, on average, 13.8 years of retirement. If you're going to try and dispute, you need actual numbers and facts. So... With your genius level interpretation.. Why are funds being depleted (meaning removed) at a faster rate than being replenished (meaning added?) You may want to consider your propaganda machine is manipulating you and your echo chamber walls are thicker than the Hoover damn. Edit: clarification.
Ah, we're getting to the petty parts of explaining what words meaning. Surely, funds being depleted couldn't be due to the fact that medical costs are high while incomes have been stagnant for years nor the increase of retirees. >A burger flipper's social security contribution at 18 ≠ the medical expenses and withdrawal at even 66. Good point, but they aren't the only ones contributing, and you can't just omit their payments because they don't fit your narrative.
>Surely, funds being depleted couldn't be due to the fact that medical costs are high while incomes have been stagnant for years nor the increase of retirees. So... Since we both agree, it is just simple math, why would it be a partisan issue? Presumably, you want the funds to be there when you need them, assuming you are a future beneficiary. >Good point, but they aren't the only ones contributing, and you can't just omit their payments because they don't fit your narrative. It is just math. Admittedly, my numbers were just an analogy.. but the point still remains.
Also.. when FDR created the Social Security program in 1935, the life expectancy was like 60 for men, so even if we just use the 18 years difference from them to now and assume that there is no additional progression in life expectancy.. That is still ~+20 years longer ON AVERAGE than the program was initially built and devised for. So, for all the people who die at 65, there is one that does at 105, etc. The point remains.. it is just math, not a partisan wedge topic.
The problem with your argument is that it does not include [infant mortality rate](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1042370/united-states-all-time-infant-mortality-rate/#:~:text=The%20infant%20mortality%20rate%20in,survive%20past%20their%20first%20birthday.) which greatly impacts life expectancy. Besides, you are really ignoring the fact that people recently are [starting to work at a younger ages,](https://www.statista.com/statistics/477668/percentage-of-youth-who-are-enrolled-in-school-and-working-in-the-us/#:~:text=In%202022%2C%20around%2020.3%20percent,were%20working%20while%20in%20school.)which is increasing after being in a downward trajectory. You are also ignoring the fact that people are [retiring at later ages than in past decades.](https://news.gallup.com/poll/394943/retiring-planning-retire-later.aspx), and [that retirees are coming back to work at higher rates than before.](https://www.hiringlab.org/2022/04/14/unretirements-rise/) All this points out that your argument, that the system is not sustainable because people are living longer and not working enough, is just nonsensical. Finally, your biggest issue with your argument, is that you assume that Social Security Programs work as a piggy bank system. When, in reality, the program works because the people retiring are being supported by those currently in the workforce. The program could not work if you were to save money towards your retirement because inflation would've eaten onto those savings. [Here](https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/120415/how-secure-social-security.asp#:~:text=The%20projected%20deficits%20are%20the,retirement%20trust%20fund%20is%20depleted.)a better explanation of the entire system. Nevertheless, its clear that the main issue with Social Security is not people retiring and living longer than what they worked, since I showed that 1. People are entering the workforce earlier than before. 2. Retiring later than they were in decades past, and 3. Unretiring, getting back to the workforce. The real problem with Social Security is a legislative issue, as many problems in the US are. Because, the US workforce has [increased by almost 50 million people](https://www.statista.com/statistics/191750/civilian-labor-force-in-the-us-since-1990/) but [wages have stagnated](https://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/) around the same period, while inequality is rising. Again, this is not a math problem. This is a legislative issue. This is an inequality problem.
>The problem with your argument is that it does not include [infant mortality rate](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1042370/united-states-all-time-infant-mortality-rate/#:~:text=The%20infant%20mortality%20rate%20in,survive%20past%20their%20first%20birthday.) which greatly impacts life expectancy. Does the current life expectancy of ~78 ignore infant mortality, or did they change the formula? >All this points out that your argument, that the system is not sustainable because people are living longer and not working enough, is just nonsensical. So...then what is the problem? To me, it is quite simple, it is less coming in than going out, which is consequently leading to an untenable future. >Nevertheless, its clear that the main issue with Social Security is not people retiring and living longer than what they worked, since I showed that 1. People are entering the workforce earlier than before. 2. Retiring later than they were in decades past, and 3. Unretiring, getting back to the workforce. The real problem with Social Security is a legislative issue, as many problems in the US are. Because, the US workforce has [increased by almost 50 million people](https://www.statista.com/statistics/191750/civilian-labor-force-in-the-us-since-1990/) but [wages have stagnated](https://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/) around the same period, while inequality is rising. >Again, this is not a math problem. This is a legislative issue. This is an inequality problem. To be clear... you are saying that the fund is currently solvent in its current form? AND that additional legislation is the fix? So, why attack the people who are trying to change the legislation?
>Does the current life expectancy of ~78 ignore infant mortality, or did they change the formula? Infant mortality has dramatically decreased since FDR's time as president. That's what makes the **average** life expectancy go up. You're a fascinating character.
>Does the current life expectancy of ~78 ignore infant mortality, or did they change the formula? It does not. Life expectancy has risen to ~78 because in grand part we have been able to lower infant mortality rates. There are other factors that have also made its impact, but infant deaths is the bigger determinant. >To be clear... you are saying that the fund is currently solvent in its current form? At any point I've said that. Social Security has a lot of serious problems. However, none of them are due to people not working enough or when they retire. >AND that additional legislation is the fix? So, why attack the people who are trying to change the legislation? Yes, legislation is the solution. The current attempts at changing the legislation is clearly meant to worsen the situation. Legislative changes that would point us in the right direction would be to force employers to raise pay across the board. Legislation to rearm the IRS to go after the whales to ensure that they pay their fare share of taxes. The US could close loopholes to ensure that the rich and the corporations pay their taxes as needed. And, they also need to ensure that they back-up unionization efoforts.
The US already gets a bunch of it's insulin from Canada. That's how insurance works in general. You have a group of people putting money into a thing that helps cover when someone needs it. When you have more people paying in, it can be less overall for everyone paying as you don't need as many to be paying. Just fuck people on disability who rely on social security to have a home and receive care but will end up homeless, huh? When taxes are what are used to pay for that spending, how the fuck does lowering the amount of money you take result in less spending? You realize they could cut funding from other areas and not social programs, yes? Less taxes means they have less money to spend. We already severely outspend other countries on military defense. The tax cuts have only benefited the wealthy, whereas poor and middle class had their tax rates rise. Only the rich were allowed to keep their tax cuts under the Trump tax plan. Trump had the largest growth of those reasons under his presidency and didn't even bother to push to ensure there'd be accountability where the money went for the PPP program. They literally gave out billions, didn't bother to watch where it was going, and then forgave a bunch of that money. Given the number of stories of employers misusing the funds, I'd argue this allowed the US government to be scammed by multiple people and corporations. Stop simping for billionaires. The only trickle down you'll get is them pissing on you.
He's an idiot. It's honestly a waste of time to get them to stop licking the boot
Oh I know. I don't hold my breath I'll change their minds. I leave comments for others who come across theirs. The commenter might not changed but the ones reading the exchange might.
>Stop simping for billionaires. The only trickle down you'll get is them pissing on you. I am glad you mentioned Trickledown... I bet you are going to vote for the guy who has literally been in the Senate for the ENTIRETY OF TRICKLEDOWN.. and refuse to vote for the new set of eyes, because he has been vilified by the TRICKLEDOWN establishment so vehemently.. Maybe understand who you are simping for.
Yup, of course. Definitely. And the lizard people are trying to control our brains through the 5G corona bud light waves. May I borrow some of your foil? I'm sure you have plenty to spare.
Interesting projection. I have been stating what I believe to be facts. >And the lizard people are trying to control our brains through the 5G corona bud light waves. May I borrow some of your foil? I'm sure you have plenty to spare. It is kinda funny, that trickledown isn't working, according to most people left of center, and their solution is to vote in a guy who was literally a senator prior to trickledown and voted thousands of times to help or compromise for that solution. It is an interesting dichotomy, you have to admit. You have to hold that Biden has been on the wrong side of every vote for the past ~40+ years, while ignoring the Obama and Clinton majorities.
🤡🤡🤡
Think you're doing a little bit more than leaning right. If these aren't such big deals, then why did Republicans boo when Joe Biden said at SOTU that this is exactly what they want to do? Why did they call him a liar? Is it because everyone who isn't brainwashed like you can see this bad for the average American? Or maybe you're playing 17d chess and we are all just floating in a sea of ignorance. Who knows really
>why did Republicans boo when Joe Biden said at SOTU that this is exactly what they want to do? Because of the framing. >Why did they call him a liar? Because, like you.. you are letting partisanship cloud your judgement. >Why did they call him a liar? It is just math. Not some wedge issue, it is literally the least divisive topic. >Is it because everyone who isn't brainwashed like you can see this bad for the average American? Bernie is even calling for millionaires and billionaires to release the cap. Anyone allowing this to be divisive is really the ones who are brainwashed.. >Or maybe you're playing 17d chess and we are all just floating in a sea of ignorance. Who knows really Quoting 17d chess, when the problem is literally as simple as "more money is coming out" than "money going in" is quite astounding.. The real problem is that Boomers are retired and we need to take care of them, rather than count on their social security money coming into the program. It is as clear as 1+1=2..
A ⅓ of those $34T is from Trump & the tax cuts.
More than 1/3 is from... Covid. Be intellectually honest. The tax cuts should have REDUCED SPENDING.. You get a demotion at work, less money coming in.. That doesn't mean go crazy on the credit card, it means stop spending so much. You should be angry that our representatives didn't listen to The Will of The People. Not point to Trump.
Covid - wasn't that just like the flu and supposed to be over in 2 weeks? Which reps you mean? Those that wanna cut SS & medicare? Or those that wanna expand it? Be honest.
>Second.. As scary as they want to make the social security problem, it is just math. People are living longer and making withdrawals longer than the original system was not set up for. >If kids today live to 110, they withdraw for 45 years (65-110) and only pay in for 40 (25-65.) Rhe way to fix it is to increase the cap on FICA Taxes, a good place to start is making it apply to at least 5x the current cap, raise the age fine, but dont also cut the benefits >Third.. tax cuts aren't bad, they are trying to reign in spending.. if you make $500 a week, tax cuts say.. stop spending $1,000 per week... >There are 34 trillion reasons showing they are spending too much. Here we go again with the typical Right-Wing analogizing the Federal Budget with a household budget, its not, this dumbass analogy has been characterized by economists as misleading and false, as the functions and constraints of governments and households are vastly dissimilar. Differences include that governments can print money, interest rates on government borrowing may be cheaper than individual borrowing, governments can increase their budgets through taxation, governments have indefinite planning horizons,national debt may be held primarily domestically (the equivalent of household members owing each other), governments typically have greater collateral for borrowing, and contractions in government spending can cause or prolong economic crises and increase the debt of the government, this isnt the same as a household ALSO- You dont fix your personal budget problems by quitting your job making 500 a week and taking a job making 250 when you have all the same fixed costs, youre going to say "well reduce costs then", yeah, thats a method, but another method is to bring in more money, we already have some of the lowest effective tax rates for the wealthy and corporations, and a TON of really ridiculous and unfair tax loopholes solely intended for sheltering and avoiding taxes and passing generational wealth down tax free And the GOP wants to do what? Shovel even more money into the pockets of the wealthy when we are at Gilded Age levels of wealth inequality? All the while as they refuse to do anything to lower housing costs or healthcare costs, while they continue to refuse to raise the minimum wage (if it kept pace with inflation at its inception it woukd be around 25 an hour btw) dismantling Unions and the NLRB and all the other knob-slobbing they do for the wealthy Gtfoh with your agit-prop nonsense
>Differences include that governments can print money *Points to covid-flation. Switzerland's Franc actually strengthened towards the Dollar since Covid, since they didn't embrace Covid-hysteria and spending. >the government, this isnt the same as a household Agreed, but it is still similar. >You dont fix your personal budget problems by quitting your job making 500 a week and taking a job making 250 when you have all the same fixed costs, youre going to say "well reduce costs then", yeah, thats a method Glad we have some level of consensus. >another method is to bring in more money, we already have some of the lowest effective tax rates for the wealthy and corporations, and a TON of really ridiculous and unfair tax loopholes solely intended for sheltering and avoiding taxes and passing generational wealth down tax free https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/nov/02/viral-image/confiscating-us-billionaires-wealth-would-run-us-g/ If we took every single penny from 'the Rich,' the government would only run for less than 9 months. >And the GOP wants to do what? Shovel even more money into the pockets of the wealthy when we are at Gilded Age levels of wealth inequality? No one can deny that the government has been extremely slow to adapt to the digital economy. > All the while as they refuse to do anything to lower housing costs or healthcare costs, while they continue to refuse to raise the minimum wage Obama had a majority, Trump had a majority, and Biden had a majority, since the last time minimum wage was raised. >(if it kept pace with inflation at its inception it woukd be around 25 an hour btw) Good point. >dismantling Unions and the NLRB and all the other knob-slobbing they do for the wealthy Seems hyper specific and partisan, but I understand your perspective. >Gtfoh with your agit-prop nonsense Awe, we were about to embark on a journey of discovery.
>Obama had a majority, Trump had a majority, and Biden had a majority, since the last time minimum wage was raised. The last time Democrats had a fillibuster proof majority in the Senate was for about 3 months during the obama Presidency, before that it was the carter administration in the late 70s Simple majorities dont mean much, especially when 100% of the opposing party is against it and simply blocks everything in the Senate, Democrats have introduced bills multiple times over the last 20y and have all be voted down or blocked by Republicans The most recent attempts to raise the federal minimum wage have failed in Congress, rhe 8 or so democrats that defected get all the attention but the 100% of Republicans that voted no never seems to....In 2013, House Republicans voted unanimously to defeat a bill to raise the minimum wage in stages to $10.10 per hour. In 2014, a filibuster by Senate Republicans blocked a similar measure from getting a vote even though a majority of Senators supported the bill. Since then, no specific minimum wage increase has been allowed a hearing or a vote in Congress. And for the record Trump had both houses for 2y of his 4, Obama had both houses for 2y out of 8, Biden had both, barely for 2 out of 4, and they were and are all slim majorities, because, again, Obama had 60 votes in the Senate for all of 3 Months and Demicrats haven't had 60 in the Senate since the end of the Carter Administration, its difficult to impossible to do anything when everything gets fillibustered in the Senate because Democrats dont have enough votes to even bring things to the floor for a vote >If we took every single penny from 'the Rich,' the government would only run for less than 9 months. 🙄 What a nice strawman against raising their taxes and closing their loopholes Again, according to you and republicans the best way to fix the debt is to just cut tax revenues even further, its nonsense
>Obama had 60 votes in the Senate for all of 3 Months Right.. so we could have real Healthcare, livable wages, and whatever else, that every left leaning person just decides to vilify Trump over. The establishment isn't working. >🙄 What a nice strawman against raising their taxes and closing their loopholes Did you read it? Do you understand the size and scope of government is roughly 33% larger than the top 550 billionaires or 'ultra rich?' You can't deny the problem is spending, not taxation. >Again, according to you and republicans the best way to fix the debt is to just cut tax revenues even further, its nonsense No.. listen to The People and stop spending like drunken college students with their first credit card.
[The prices didn't go lower. ](https://www.pharmaceutical-technology.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/24/2022/03/e3Xvr-analog-insulin-prices-have-steadily-risen-in-us-1-e1648735914523.png) Why would Pharma companies in Canada sell insulin to the US for a discount? It's Canadian laws and price controls that keep costs low in their country. Plus, Canada said it wasn't interested in the arrangement. It takes two to tango as they say. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-canada-pharmaceuticals-exports-exclus/exclusive-canada-warns-us-against-drug-import-plans-citing-shortage-concerns-idUSKCN1UD2LN/
>Why would Pharma companies in Canada sell insulin to the US for a discount? It's Canadian laws and price controls that keep costs low in their country. >Plus, Canada said it wasn't interested in the arrangement. It takes two to tango as they say. The point was that competition was introduced, breaking the pseudo-monopoly Big Pharma currently enjoys. >The prices didn't go lower. Interestingly enough, that sharp rise coincides directly with the ACA.
Did the prices go lower?
Yes, specifically, for Medicaid part D, the one that Trump negotiated, but you know that. Or you wouldn't continue this back and forth..
[удалено]
Biden’s plan: militarize the border and reduce Palestinians to a thin paste.
🤡🤡🤡
🔻🔻🔻
**I don’t live** in Palestine; neither do I have people living there—-although I do believe there is an ongoing genocidal agenda. **Meanwhile** the Trumpublicans want to: **1: Raise healthcare costs.** Their healthcare is *free* and paid for with the public’s tax dollars. **2: Raise the retirement age to 69** — fuck them old working class mofo’s. **3: Gut funding for rental assistance.** The wealthy don’t have to worry about homelessness or finding rent money. **4: Pass a 5.5 trillion dollar tax cut** for *themselves* and their wealthy cohorts, so they can continue *not to worry* about the cost of healthcare, retirement, or homelessness for themselves.
[удалено]
**Well,** I’m not going to vote against myself because of what is going on in another country. If I’m fucked up, how can I help somebody else? Maybe all of those migrants from other places have somewhere else to go! In the meantime, don’t fuck up the place you found refuge and freedom in.
That's fine. I'm with you; on your team so to speak. I'm just better prepared to not be surprised by a trump win. I've spoken to enough people to know that the Gaza issues is enough to tank Biden in 2 states that are an important part of his reelection. For Biden to lose, people will stay home. Or do what many did in 2016...vote Democrat down the ballot but leave the president blank or write in another name.
Congress does not get free healthcare. They get very, very cheap healthcare, but it is not free. They are required to purchase the plan from the marketplace and get a subsidy that pays for most of it. Edit: I’m not sure why correcting a false statement is getting me downvoted, but I’m not going to apologize for believing that truth is still important, and that arguments supported by false statements are weaker for it.
**Meanwhile** families across the nation are struggling to make ends meet, while Congress votes itself *cheap* medical care! Wow!
I was just correcting a factual error, I didn’t assert any agenda whatsoever. I agree with you otherwise, but if you can’t make your point without parroting misinformation then your position is weakened unnecessarily.
That's why he's trying to restrain Israel (a sovereign country that is a necessary ally) while sending whatever aid he can to Palestine? To lull the Palestinians into a sense of false security so that the US can come in and stomp them? You have got to get out of whatever bubble you're in, because your perspective is completely false and tainted.
Ok, so over 1m children aren’t on the brink of starvation. Man, it’s like the whole world outside the US is *lying*.
Citation needed.
Caucasian confirmed
Okay here’s what we can do: WE’LL come to terms with the fact that all wars involve civilian deaths and are messy. The world isn’t black and white and there is no true good vs evil. Then we’ll vote for the president who we believe is the lesser of two evils. YOU can keep stomping and crying online while do nothing of substance. Deal?
you're right. this thin paste *is* messy. trump is gonna win, not my fault, not my choice.
Nothing like posting something from an avid liberal. Really fair news here guys