Funny how Bloomberg didn’t run this article when Trump was giving away the store. It’s always Democrats who have to pay for Republican spending.
this post was submitted on 27 Jul 2024
-11 points (33.3% liked)
News
23310 readers
5230 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Spending on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid could reach 10.3% of gross domestic product in 2024, according to projections from the Office of Management and Budget. That compares with an 8.2% average between 1984 and 2023.
This kind of nonsense pisses me off. Of course these costs are rising. More and more of our population is getting elderly so we need to spend more and more money in these areas. Population growth has also slowed substantially. This means that a larger fraction of our population is older and more in need of medical care and social security. Naturally, these costs are growing as a fraction of GDP since the working population is declining as a fraction of the total population.
President Joe Biden did propose increasing income taxes for those making over $400,000 to raise revenue and boosting the payroll tax to bolster Social Security. But he has rejected making any structural changes to Social Security, a stance that many Democrats share.
And he fucking well should. People spend their lives putting money into social security and now, after Republicans have followed Reagan's starve-the-beast strategy for decades, they want to cut payments to all these people rather than getting rid of their stupid tax cuts that only benefit those hoarding all the nations wealth.
And he fucking well should. People spend their lives putting money into social security
I've always been confused why ANYONE would support any sort of cuts to social security after paying into it for, in some cases, literal decades.
I mean, it's not "free money", it's my fucking money, that I've paid into every paycheck I've ever gotten. Of course I feel "entitled" to it, because, well, I am?
The republicans want to do a rugpull that'd make a crypto bro blush in how fucking brazen it is, and we're supposed to be happy about it?
I pay more for social security than state and federal taxes combined knowing full well it'll probably be long gone before I'm old enough to collect it.
Most of those people I’ve met think the cuts will only affect OTHER people…
Some just refuse to think about it while others like my parents are at least honest and expect it to just have an age cutoff that fucks their kids over. Doesn’t matter long as they get theirs basically.
I don't get that either.
I'm not a parent and strongly unlikely to be one, but if I had kids I'd damn well do anything I had to do to make sure their life was better than mine was, not steal anything not nailed down then yank the ladder out from under them.
Especially since the solution is 'stop letting rich people not pay their fair share'. And like, that's not some random talking point for the non americans here: after $168,000 in income we just... don't tax you for social security anymore. If we left the exact same rate in place, but just taxed ALL of everyone's income, we'd not only be solvent, we'd have a fucking scrooge mcduck style moneybin to ensure future generations were taken care of, too.
National debt is imaginary numbers. It doesn't matter
As long as sovereign debt can be serviced, we're good.
And it’s not getting much attention from the contenders for the White House.
Well, reducing debt means one or both of:
-
Spending less.
-
Taxing more.
Neither are likely very popular points to sell yourself on.
Harris is on record supporting higher taxes. Hell, Biden is too. It's not out of step with the populace either.
Only for people who make over $400,000 a year, and only the amount over 400,000.
Third option, but it is somewhat risky, which is to create an investment GSE with the objective of reducing the national debt.
Good thing we have history to examine, eh? Republicans always exacerbate the debt, and Democrats always lessen it.
Meeting adjourned.
There's a whole other perspective on government 'debt:'
While emphasizing that “debt matters,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) recently noted, “we need to rethink our system in a way that is genuinely about investments that pay off over tgrab?
FUUUUUUUUUUUHHHHCK YOU, CUNT. Try making an honest fuckin trade once in your life before lecturing anyone on fiscal responsibility you stupid bitch. The fuckin audacity these asshole politicians have is disgusting.
Good. It's unimportant.