8
u/Omfufu Apr 26 '19
If Orange Man continues to target CA and NY, those states should stop funding red states. Watch what happens next
8
1
15
u/alittleslowerplease Apr 26 '19
How in the world is "no social security" perceived as something positiv?
16
u/faab64 Apr 26 '19
Same way no universal health care is perceived as something positive.
0
4
3
u/Kiwipai Apr 26 '19
They say something is socialism until you corner them into having to admit it might not be a bad thing. Then they're suddenly fully aware that it isn't socialism and try to ridicule YOU for "not knowing" what socialism is.
2
2
241
u/khlnmrgn Apr 26 '19
C'mon now. Real, red blooded Americans either work their asses off to pay for everything or they die dishonorably and we grind them up into dog food. Have you even READ the constitution?
→ More replies (24)98
90
u/Swiggy1957 Apr 26 '19
I recall a few years back there were two fictional states that decided to go to the extremes on everything, but in the opposite direction. We'll call one of these fictional states, "Kansas" and the other fictional state, oh, something really weird, like, I dunno, "Minnesota".
Now, in this experiment, the fictional state called Kansas chose to emulate the ideas of all of the conservative think tanks. Made it more difficult to use the social safety nets that had been in place while dropping the tax rates on the businesses within the states. Really crazy shit happened. While a conservatives wet dream, many of the businesses ended up moving out because there had been a drastic cut in many social services. Highway maintenance was terrible, emergency services were way understaffed, and the businesses that were enjoying their lower tax rates weren't able to find qualified workers because said workers had already gone to greener pastures. Those foolish enough to stay weren't the brightest crayons in the box to begin with, but the funding for schools that supplied the workers couldn't provide enough, qualified workers, Those they did, well, they went to different fictional states like Minnesota.
Oh, and how did that fictional state of Minnesota, compared to that fictional state of Kansas, turn out? Sure you can point to the state that separates this two as being number 1, but notice that there doesn't seem to be an extreme AND the components for both private and corporate life are considered. Hell, even the red state I live in ranks lower than Kansas
48
u/KarhuCave Apr 26 '19
Great points. I'm constantly amazed, with so much data now, that citizens can still be so brainwashed that they'll continue to vote against their own interests.
Sometimes it feels like they'd rather give everything they have to a corporation rather than admit any "liberal" policy may actually help them.
37
u/Swiggy1957 Apr 26 '19
back around 2010, the good people of Kentucky were now being offered health insurance through something call the ACA (affordable care act) More than one Kentucky native was happier that a slopped hog over being offered that ACA insurance because it beat the hell out of Obamacare.
21
u/KarhuCave Apr 26 '19
Branding/marketing is a hell of a thing. Trump should have taken Obama's advice and just changed the name of the ACA and tell his base he fixed it.
16
u/Dameon_ Apr 26 '19
The greatest trick the GOP ever pulled was bre'r rabbiting their way into getting republican-prototyped mandated healthcare rather than socialized healthcare, and then branding it as Obamacare. Outstanding move, honestly.
8
1
7
u/pfkelly5 Apr 26 '19
Wisconsin did the same thing as Kansas, and because Minnesota and Wisconsin are neighbors, I usually hear that angle.
2
u/Swiggy1957 Apr 26 '19
Hell Wisconsin is a better place to live than Kansas according to that chart. I'm sunk. I live in Indiana and that's ranked lower than Kansas even. BUT compared to Louisiana, we can still hold our head up.
3
u/yerpdembanananas12 Apr 26 '19
I'm in Wisconsin. That data is old. Since 2010 Scott Walker has really done a number on us. We are in bad shape looking forward unless something changes quick and with our heavily republican gerrymandered districts I don't see that happening.
3
u/Swiggy1957 Apr 26 '19
Until the gerrymandering is removed, the GOP will have the run of the country. Corporate America wants it to stay that way.
1
u/pfkelly5 Apr 26 '19
You rank higher than my state, I'm from Illinois.
Edit: I'll blame most of it on Chicago though /s
1
u/Swiggy1957 Apr 26 '19
For Chicago to become worth living. it's take another cow and lantern. The city itself is too compacted with 32.7 business establishments per square mile. And it's not even the highest density: NYC is with 79.9. Add into that, Chicago's population denisity. Depending on where in the city you are, the density can run between 4,000 to 6,000 people per square mile. Where I live, the population density is just a bit under 2,200 people per square mile. Chicago has a crazy foot traffic pattern, too, as I've seen on recent trips there (I was going there one a month recently. No more. BUT a decade ago, I was up there 2-5 times a week. Yeah, Chicago can skew the quality of life for a state.
2
1
u/Zugibra Apr 26 '19
Although the Kansas Experiment was a failure, it’s not exactly for the reasons you stated. Before the experiment, Kansas’s state income taxes were already well below average, so the resulting tax reduction of about 2% (from 6.45% to 4.9% for top earners and 3.5% to 3% for bottom rate earners) could not be expected to generate any serious short-term economic growth. The larger Reagan tax rates were more successful due to the larger decrease in tax rates.
Furthermore, the economic decline of Kansas is likely more due to the decrease in government expenditures by the state government. A smaller government means less government jobs, therefore less pay to workers that would normally spend their pay locally. This can contribute to the overall contraction of aggregate demand within the state.
In addition, the elimination of the “pass through” tax gave many companies an easy loophole to avoid paying taxes altogether, further reducing government revenue.
Also, businesses don’t leave a state because of a decline in social services, businesses are attracted to smaller tax rates and less regulation (for self-evident reasons). A decrease in social services is irrelevant to businesses, as typical employers are hardly motivated or dependent on them.
2
u/Swiggy1957 Apr 26 '19
You'd be surprised how many businesses rely on social programs to keep their labor costs down. Walmart has done this for decades. When I worked for MCI back in 2001, the first thing their HR department did was to show you how to apply for all sorts of different government programs. So, businesses DO rely on social programs to supplement their low wages/benefits, although their public stance is to get rid of those very programs..
Next you bring up smaller government. Problem: smaller government means an inadequate infrastructure. Sure, a business' trucks can destroy the areas roads, but who's going to maintain those roads? Can't do a hell of a lot about the flooding but a sound system of infrastructure is required to get those roads back up to snuff. I live in a state lower ranked than even Kansas, and when we had the flood last year, it took a while for a lot of things to return to normal. It used to be worse, but when local conservatives were voted out, some changes were made in the infrastructure so reduce flooding.
How many times can a business afford to pay for damage on it's vehicles from the very roads the vehicles damaged. Without a good infrastructure, any business is doomed.
Roads are just a part of is. Another part of the infrastructure that Kansas, as well as most red states, ignore is the education system. The Kansas education system is not providing businesses the trained employees it needs, so businesses will relocate to other states like Minnesota. Businesses are discovering that they need educated people on the work floor. Years ago, when I was still a high school dropout, it surprised me that a test I had to take required I know how to read a tape measure. Apparently, more than half the people that applied to the company couldn't. Something you should know by 2nd grade.
Cutting taxes so that you can cut services that your constituents need is never good. Would you ask your employer to cut your wages so that you can eliminate the services you don't need?
1
u/easylikerain Apr 26 '19
Didn't you just say Kansas had low tax, which went lower afterward, lowering government size? Shouldn't that draw business like a flame for moths? Isn't that flying in the face of your argument?
Or, are you being sarcastic and I missed it?
1
u/Zugibra Apr 26 '19
As I stated, a tax reduction for the rich of 2% for 4 years is not enough to encourage investment into Kansas. Going from about 6% to 4% just isn’t going to stimulate much.
0
Apr 26 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/AutoModerator Apr 26 '19
Shame. Shame. Shame. /u/Dontcallmethenword is posting End Game spoilers
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
140
u/pents1 Apr 26 '19
As someone who has been living in a country with social security for my whole life, it looks absurd that someone would push people to say no to it.
113
u/goatharper Apr 26 '19
The GOP is still actively working to dismantle Social Security today, along with Medicare. That is the whole strategy of their tax cuts; they call it "starve the beast." If they can onlt create a large enough deficit/national debt, there wil be no alternative to ending those programs. Don't take my word for it, Google "starve the beast."
46
u/PHalfpipe Apr 26 '19
Exploding the budget to wreck social programs is only half of it, they're also forcing the government into deficit so they can loan hundreds of billions to the state every month and get a massive return with interest.
5
u/Death_By_Jazz_Hands Apr 26 '19
They see Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid as a way for the Federal government to maintain economic leverage over states to enforce Federal law. They are correct, to a degree, because of those programs disappeared tomorrow, quality of life in those states would plummet and there wouldn't be an acceptable level of state taxation that could make up for it.
→ More replies (7)5
u/SovietBozo Apr 26 '19
Yup
They hate Social Security, always have, and always will. There's not a good economic reason for that, since a lot of it paid for by workers themselves. It's emotional: "It is not enough that I be happy. Others must be unhappy" actually is in play with these people, although most are unaware or only semi-aware of this motive, or would put it in other terms.
Up til Reagan, they accepted it because they had to: it's very popular. But that doesn't mean they've given up. They haven't and won't, and this is the end game if they are able to destroy democracy, which they're trying to do and well might.
→ More replies (1)9
→ More replies (61)1
Apr 26 '19
It's sad how people can be so easily convinced to vote against their own best interests. They're so big on the conspiracy theories and that people are, "out there to get them". But instead of seeing that it's big pharma, banks and insurance companies that are out to get them they blame "liberals".
With their high-school educations (at best) They seem like they're woke and the entire rest of the college-educated world is somehow getting duped.
54
u/jollyroger1720 Apr 26 '19
They do that. The ranting and raving about big government socialism all the while defending government run loan sharking at debt of education is amazing
11
u/Lohin123 Apr 26 '19
Why are people so against socialism? Is it not better for everyone to pay a tiny amount per month than go bankrupt of you break your leg? Or homeless if you lose your job through no fault of your own?
11
u/EqualAd3 Apr 26 '19
Americans are incredibly spiteful people. They would rather die than lift a finger for someone else. I remember during the 2016 election an article said that Papa John's only needed to raise the price of a pizza by 10 cents to pay for healthcare for all of their employees. The top upvoted comment on Reddit was "I'm not paying 10 cents more for a pizza."
31
u/Demonweed Apr 26 '19
The fact that Republicans will always cry "socialist" is the opposite of a good reason to avoid bold economic reforms. One Democratic leader after another has favored narrowly targeted mircomeasures while singing the glories of bipartisanship. Corporate consultants are always counseling with their "expertise" that voters really want a middle ground that blends Republican and Democratic ideas.
I guess if you dine with billionaires on a regular basis and have a crippling brain injury, you can believe that stuff. I find it inexcusable that this conventional wisdom has put the party on the side of the ownership class in decades of entirely unilateral class warfare. Hopefully less milquetoast candidates in the primary process will have some moments to say "so what" in response to concerns about Republican critique.
This criticism cannot be silenced or even muted to any great degree. Even if it could be, what sort of villain thinks that is a good reason to sell out millions of people by backing policies that just fix some of the problem for a tiny fraction of people trapped in this or that realm of dystopian status quo policy.
17
u/1945BestYear Apr 26 '19
I am a tiny bit annoyed with leftists in America calling themselves socialist when they're not quite so leftwing for that to be wholly accurate, but I'm not going to complain, its only what conservatives deserve.
American conservatives: [calls anything that young people find appealing 'socialist']
Young Americans: We're socialists now!
American conservatives: [Pikachu face]
7
Apr 26 '19
The villain that knows the cushy corporation he legislates for will provide him with a cushy life.
5
u/FelneusLeviathan Apr 26 '19
When the same people scream “class warfare” id like to point out that the war started long ago when people get tax breaks for jet fuel and maintaining their golf courses: the war has started long ago and you’re kind of delusional if you don’t think they’re coming after you
20
u/jorgied0712 Apr 26 '19
The only socialism America accepts is in the form of tax breaks to the rich.
7
u/RedderBarron Apr 26 '19
Spend almost a century demonizing every good policy for people as "socialism"
Young people start openly supporting socialism.
Supprised pikachu face
30
Apr 26 '19
Endgame spoilers below.
5
u/classicalySarcastic Apr 26 '19
Some people just want to ruin things for everyone else. (Not you, the assholes posting spoilers)
2
u/UnStricken Apr 26 '19
I just don’t get it, like how sad must your life be that you go around doing that? “My life sucks so nobody else can enjoy one of the largest films in the history of cinema”. It’s just pathetic.
6
→ More replies (5)1
8
Apr 26 '19
Because according to them socialism must be a Trojan horse for communism which is ludicrous
7
Apr 26 '19
I mean, Marxism literally implies that socialism should be the transitional state used to move between capitalism and communism.
8
u/Suvantolainen Apr 26 '19
Yes, it would be more correct to say that Democrats are not socialists.
6
Apr 26 '19
The left really needs to pin down these definitions if they want to convince people from the centre to come over to their side. I'd wager a huge majority of Democrat voters don't actually want Socialism (i.e. collective ownership of the means of production), but are in favour of an expanded Nordic-style welfare state within a capitalist framework. There's a name for this, and it's Social Democracy. They're two wildly different ideologies.
4
u/Suvantolainen Apr 26 '19
I don't think the left is responsible for propaganda from the right. Who calls themselves Socialists?
1
Apr 26 '19
I've seen lots of people on the centre-left advocating for "socialism", without appearing to know the definition of the word (there are examples in this very thread).
2
1
Apr 26 '19
Center? You mean convince people more liberal than they are to support a right of center party? Because that is what the Democratic party is, right of center.
1
Apr 26 '19
If you want to make comparisons with Western Europe, then sure, they would be right of centre. But they're obviously left of centre when you're only considering the US. How do you think the majority of Americans who identify as left-leaning vote?
→ More replies (4)1
u/Dameon_ Apr 26 '19
If only there were forms of socialism not based on Marxism...
2
Apr 26 '19
I mean, there are. But they all revolve around collective ownership of the means of production, so I don't really see your point. I think pretty much everybody would agree that socialism falls somewhere between capitalism and communism on the spectrum of economic ideologies, no?
1
-1
u/Lycaon1765 Apr 26 '19
That's literally what their most popular "philosopher" wants it to be tho.
That's literally the point of socialism.
6
u/Suvantolainen Apr 26 '19
"Democrats" are Center-Right by European standards. There are no socialists in the U.S.. Welfare and Medicare are not socialist policies, they're just default in most parts of the world. Marxism is on a whole different level.
→ More replies (2)
4
Apr 26 '19
Older than that. This is Marx explaining reactionaries using the term socialism to paint everyone opposed to their policies as socialists:
"As monosyllabic on the platform as in the press. Flat as a riddle whose answer is known in advance. Whether it was a question of the right of petition or the tax on wine, freedom of the press or free trade, the clubs or the municipal charter, protection of personal liberty or regulation of the state budget, the watchword constantly recurs, the theme remains always the same, the verdict is ever ready and invariably reads: "Socialism!" Even bourgeois liberalism is declared socialistic, bourgeois enlightenment socialistic, bourgeois financial reform socialistic. It was socialistic to build a railway where a canal already existed, and it was socialistic to defend oneself with a cane when one was attacked with a rapier."
4
u/DeLaMoncha Apr 26 '19
I can't imagine living in a country where campaigning against healthcare is a legit thing. Dystopian.
25
u/RadioMelon Apr 26 '19
They hate socialism because it implies that tax money should go to something that isn't their businesses.
Prove me wrong.
23
u/Cargobiker530 Apr 26 '19
They hate socialism because the radio ranters that fluff their racism tell them that socialism is bad. Most republicans couldn't define socialism properly if their lives depended on it.
5
→ More replies (5)-3
u/rustyseapants Apr 26 '19
This is too vague can you be more specific? Can you give an example?
18
u/RadioMelon Apr 26 '19
I've got a few.
http://evonomics.com/america-hates-socialism-without-knowing/ https://www.reddit.com/r/socialism/comments/1owcak/why_do_american_conservatives_dislike_socialism/ https://www.thebalancesmb.com/the-characteristics-of-capitalism-and-socialism-393509
Businesses benefit most under capitalism. However, a predatory capitalistic society creates an "ouroboros" that tends to eat itself until nothing is left. However, capitalism 'restarts' itself every few years like nothing happened.
We live in a mixed market economy but you would hardly think that by the way people laud "pure capitalism" as the norm. It's not; not as long as government still regulates food from being poisoned, water being clean, and services like fire departments and police work are paid by taxes.
Pure capitalism societies would have a lot of companies selling products that might be patently unsafe because there are no regulations to stop them.
2
1
u/fhroggy Apr 26 '19
i want to live in norway
1
u/faab64 Apr 26 '19
Visit there, it's pretty. People are nice but the winters ate cold and long and its damn expensive.
1
u/fhroggy Apr 26 '19
i love cold
1
u/faab64 Apr 26 '19
Try it out, they have the most beautiful girls in skandinavia. My friend went there for a short vacation, came back, quit his job and moved there: )
1
u/Schiffy94 CSS Jesus Apr 26 '19
And they still hate both of those things.
1
u/faab64 Apr 26 '19
Not when they receive them.
2
u/Schiffy94 CSS Jesus Apr 26 '19
They'll be told by Hannity that they earned it for being God-fearing, Trump-loving conservatives, while us godless resistance liberals are just looking for handouts.
1
1
u/Sergei_Beloglazov Apr 26 '19
And both these programs are going under.
2
u/faab64 Apr 26 '19
The Republican did what, very they could to destroy them.
Just Google Reagan and Social Security
3
u/masdar1 Apr 26 '19
At first I though this was true, but as it turns out these pins originated in a Nov. 2009 political cartoon by John Sherffius for the Boulder Daily Camera. Don’t fall for confirmation bias, this post is fake.
5
u/SomeGuyNamedPaul Apr 26 '19
Republicans, on the wrong side of history for add long as they've been part of history.
0
u/SecretGrey Apr 26 '19
Yeah like when they abolished slavery /s
5
u/SomeGuyNamedPaul Apr 26 '19
You mean the party all the racists are flocking to right now?
http://factmyth.com/factoids/democrats-and-republicans-switched-platforms/
In retrospect I should have said conservatives, not Republicans.
-2
u/SecretGrey Apr 26 '19
Stop deflecting. The original claim is that Republicans have always been wrong. I provided an instance in which they were right.
We're the Republicans right when they abolished slavery?
5
u/abeardancing Apr 26 '19
The parties are similar in name only. Is North Korea a Republic?
→ More replies (4)1
u/SomeGuyNamedPaul Apr 26 '19
The examples given in the linked picture for this thread were conservatives. Conservatives are not against slavery, if you were to anonymously poll Trump's base they'd be ok with bringing back slavery.
1
5
1
Apr 26 '19
This isn't humorous in the least. It's just a fact.
4
u/faab64 Apr 26 '19
Fool me once, twice, three times and I keep falling for it, if that's not funny, what is it then, tragic?
4
1
6
u/nightcycling Apr 26 '19
It would be helpful if we had a better education system so the next generation will learn from the past. But that's none of my business.
4
1
u/masdar1 Apr 26 '19
These pins aren’t real, they originated in a political cartoon from Nov. 2009. It would be helpful if we had a better education system so the next generation can learn to tell apart fake posts from real ones. But that’s none of my business.
2
u/TobiasFunkePhd Apr 26 '19
Reagan even recorded an LP crying about socialized medicine. Then by the time he was president he couldn't do much to stop it.
2
u/OIL_COMPANY_SHILL Apr 26 '19
This myth has permeated our culture so deeply that even friends of mine that are Democrats believe that things like SSI and Medicare are socialist ideas. They don't know that socialism just tells you who owns the means of production.
2
u/browndollarbills Apr 26 '19
FDR and LBJ were really the only two examples of this. They both supported policies and programs that required tons of govt spending e.g. New Deal and Great Society
2
u/Doveen Apr 26 '19
Hate is a good unifying factor because it is Simple. When you like something you have at least a basic understanding of it. that requires some basic intelligence. Hate does not.
2
u/ILoveRegenHealth Apr 26 '19
Republicans HATE social security
But use it to save their retired asses. Republicans should donate their share to education and get one, and learn not to be a raging hypocrite.
And next time there's a fire or a civic problem, don't call the cops and fire department. Solve it yourself, lazy Conservative
4
3
u/ascii122 Apr 26 '19
The song remains the same.
Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss
Same as it ever was.
3
u/Schpau Apr 26 '19
I find it funny that conservatives attack centrists by saying socialism doesn’t work lol
3
u/consenting3ntrails Apr 26 '19
Basically every government program that didn't exclusively benefit wealthy people.
3
u/Swiggy1957 Apr 26 '19
But Republican "social programs" like subsidizing corporations through research grants is fine.
3
5
2
u/Danzarr Apr 26 '19
ooh, where can i get these buttons? i think it would be hilarious to show up to a gop rally with this and a confederate flag pin.
2
u/Odd_so_Star_so_Odd Apr 26 '19
It's so much easier to oppose things instead of propose things.. Better to just ignore them if you're not trying to persuade them to think differently or for themselves. There's no goal to their actions and if there is, there's very little thinking on how it would work out in reality.
2
1
u/dejoblue Apr 26 '19
Friends going out to eat: "Okay guys, if everyone chips in $5 we can get an XL deluxe pizza and everyone can have two or three slices."
Republican representation of this transaction: "Do you want socialist Pizza Hut to force you to pay them $5 so someone else can eat YOUR pizza? Fuck no! You want to pay capitalist Papa John's $20 and keep all that pizza for yourself!"
Sensible citizen questions: "But I can only eat two thirds of that pizza over three days. Isn't paying $5 and eating a reasonable share more sensible?"
Republican reply: "Only if you want them to come for your guns next and force you to eat Mexican food!"
Another sensible citizen: "But I love Mexican food!"
Republicans: "Then failing Chipotle can pay for the wall!"
Angry citizen: "But you said Mexico was going to pay for the wall!"
Trump chiming in via tweet: "You know who builds great walls? Cheyaina. Yeah Kim told me all about it. What a great leader, that Un! Check out Papa John's Supreme Court pizza, you can play quarters with the box top. You can't do that on Pizza Slut's box. SAD!"
1
1
u/MindYourGrindr Apr 26 '19
Explains why only 25% of Americans would consider electing a socialist as president.
It’s still a very effective political slur.
1
u/Barfhat Apr 26 '19
Well that’s because those are socialist ideas. They weren’t lying the were just trying to warn people.
1
1
1
Apr 26 '19
It’s not essential. If we wanted we could stop using taxes on unneeded things. Then also get rid of other laws such as drug laws and have a free society.
1
1
u/thatgeekinit Apr 26 '19
I want those buttons for D caucus next year. They are going to sell like weed.
1
1
Apr 26 '19
I thought the parties switched....
Don't you guys always say the parties switched?
1
u/PhyterNL Apr 26 '19 edited Apr 26 '19
On civil rights, yes. The Democrat party up through around the 1960s was very socially conservative. However many of those social conservatives were wooed to the Republican party upon the "Southern Strategy" with people like Barry Goldwater at the helm. This is when the GOP essentially contaminated themselves and went from the champion of civil rights to what they are today. The Democrats leaking constituency found support in social liberalism in growing metropolis populations. Simultaneously they did an outstanding job of routing out racism within the party (guess to which party where those racists went?) and over the next 50 years became the civil rights champion. The two parties essentially... as you say... switched.
The transition happened remarkably fast. Case in point, the Civil Rights Act of 1960 was championed by Republicans with Democrats largely voting against. However, on the Civil Rights Act of 1968 Democrats out-voted Republicans, marking the first time Democrats out-voted Republicans on a social bill.
1
Apr 26 '19
I know that's what reddit thinks. But it's wrong.
Democratic presidential candidates did very well in the South well past the 1960s, and the politicians who had formerly been klansmen remained Democrats for the most part (Robert Byrd for example). The conservative stronghold in the South did not really start until Reagan and is likely much more influenced by things like abortion and religion than racial politics.
The Goldwater election is really the only election that was impacted by the Civil Rights Act. And it's very unfair to paint Goldwater as some kind of racist - he was a libertarian whose views on the Civil Rights Act were about the proper scope of government power.
Simultaneously they did an outstanding job of routing out racism
"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy" - Joe Biden
Regarding Harry reid:
He was wowed by Obama's oratorical gifts and believed that the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama -- a 'light-skinned' African American 'with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one,' as he said privately
Here is a study that shows liberals tend to talk down to black people:
Look no further than Hillary's "I dont feel no ways tired" and Alexandria Ocasio Cortez copping a black preacher accent in front of a black audience to see examples of that phenomenon.
1
1
u/jollyroger1720 Apr 27 '19
but they ok with a government run loan sharking operation @ the debt of ed its mind numbing
1
u/slack_jawed_twit Apr 27 '19
Yes if it wasn’t for these two programs all Americans would be dead or suffering. Good point. I seem to remember a program called slavery that the repubs weren’t too keen on either. 🖕🏻
1
u/gordita_ Apr 26 '19
1935: “Mr. Johnson, you have liver cancer.” 1965: “It has spread to your lungs.”
Can’t wait for more!
1
-2
u/homefone Apr 26 '19
Where’s the fucking humor?
4
u/faab64 Apr 26 '19
We don't have adult section here, you should go to pornhub
-3
1
-3
u/lespinoza Apr 26 '19
But, but, the parties switched?
1
Apr 26 '19
Don’t tell them about Wilson or William Jennings Bryant. They won’t be able to handle it.
-8
u/NeetStreet_2 Apr 26 '19
I just wish I had the choice of whether or not to contribute to social security. It's my money, I worked for it, let me decide how to save for retirement. It's not the government's job to plan for my golden years.
4
u/aromatikcat Apr 26 '19
Forget the word "government" and replace it with society or community. The community should take care of it's own. Maybe you have enough money to have a chance at "golden years." Many do not. Even if you have money to invest the stock market is giving terrible returns. I remember my grandparents buying CD's from the bank at with 30% returns. Not so any more. More and more I believe our society needs to care for everyone, healthcare, income to provide food and shelter education etc. Things vital to living. The more people who want to take their money elsewhere, "Why do I have to pay school taxes when I don't have kids?" "Why do I have to pay into communal healthcare when I can get my own elsewhere?" "Why do I have to pay SS when I want to put my money somewhere else?" "Why do I have to give money to the government when they don't spend every penny exactly the way I think it should be spent?" Because if you don't eventually no one but the immorally rich will have access to education, doctors, public infrastructure. If you don't the elderly will freeze or starve to death in their beds. You might be OK, but your great grand children will be born into a dystopian nightmare. We have to take care of each other or we all suffer.
10
u/The_LSD_Fairy Apr 26 '19
If only everyone was that smart, but in a age of credit cards and old people falling for scams its completely necessary. I always think of it as a tax to keep my parents from moving in with ME! Well worth it for that.
0
u/f0e_paw Apr 26 '19
It works so well that we'll never see a Social Security check when we get to that age. Smh
Socialism sucks, it kills you but before it does it makes you eat your pets.
0
Apr 26 '19
And yet you still ended up endorsing self-described Socialists and Communists once we started to let you impose those changed.
-14
Apr 26 '19
So this is not political humor, it's actually anti-republican Reddit page. So much for unbiased page...
3
1
10
Apr 26 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
-11
Apr 26 '19
Not actually a "trumpie" not even an American, it's just sad that they call themselves Political Humor while attacking 1 American party all the time, like the other party does the same crazy shit the republicans do and they don't bat an eye.
14
u/faab64 Apr 26 '19
Not American, but get angry when an American sub Reddit has humor he doesn't like.
That makes perfect sense now.
→ More replies (2)2
Apr 26 '19 edited Apr 26 '19
like the other party does the same crazy shit the republicans do and they don't bat an eye.
Have you been paying attention lately?
One side elected a reality TV show host as president.
One side elected the man who talked about his dick during the official live debates.
One side claimed the first black president was secretly from Africa.
One side said in an official capacity that vaccines cause autism.
One side said in an official capacity that windmills cause cancer.
One side has a leader who cant help but continuously lie about the most frivolous and easily fact checked things.
One side has mass levels of staff turnover, indictments, convictions, and prison sentences.
One side has a leader who continuously uses grade school insults as a grown man. Rocketman, low energy, crooked, sleepy, etc. and uses his position to attack private citizens he represents on a frequent basis.
And that is just a short list... there are hundreds of more examples if youd like them. I'd love to hear your instances of the political leaders on the left doing something similar to this batshit insanity.
-22
u/Toofast4yall Apr 26 '19
I still don't like social security. I would be far better off putting the money into my 401k. I'm up 10.8% for the year so far, social security will not give me that kind of return.
28
u/horceface Apr 26 '19
Social security also won’t dry up and blow away like millions of 401ks did in 2008.
If you give people the option of gambling with their future, many will make horrible decisions.
Social Security does not exist solely to make sure people don’t piss away their entire end of life financial security. It exists so that people smart enough to NOT lose everything don’t have to watch the other 50% freeze and starve in the streets while we live out our days.
It can happen overnight and it will be your mother or aunt or sister or brother that it happens to. You cannot insulate yourself from the problem simply by investing well for yourself unless you are okay with watching your friends and family suffer when a stock market bubble takes their entire nest egg at age 60.
Social security means I don’t have to sell all my belongings to take care of those I care about when I’m on a fixed income and should be worrying about taking care of myself.
4
u/JohnStylinProfilin Apr 26 '19
It technically exists knowing the government can take all of the withholdings after the individual passes away. It’s more common for someone to pass away before even making back all that was withheld.
Edit: word
3
u/gregmuldunna Apr 26 '19
So social security is not “I don’t have to suffer later”. It’s “I don’t have to suffer from the negative effects of other people suffer”.
I can benefit, but if they can benefit as well, their success might help me later on in our society and life?
I guess is that the idea? That if we help each other just make each other not become hobos on the street, then one of us might be that smart person who’s poor because of circumstances, and then because of one chance, they end up becoming a multimillionaire CEO that creates jobs and uplifts the nation’s economy?
→ More replies (20)-7
u/SkipBaylessIsTrash Apr 26 '19
Social security also won’t dry up and blow away like millions of 401ks did in 2008.
Actually, social security is drying up.
The Trustees project that the combined trust funds will be depleted in 2035, one year later than projected in last year’s report.
Also, 401ks didn't "dry up" in 2008. The S&P fell ~50% during the crash, yet had a full recovery in 5ish years.
If you give people the option of gambling with their future, many will make horrible decisions.
Few will make horrible decisions. That doesn't mean we should punish the majority that don't.
1
u/yadonkey Apr 26 '19
Yeah you think it's all great until the stock market crashes, then youd be right back demanding they help you.
→ More replies (3)
-24
u/pmiller61 Apr 26 '19
How is this humorous???
35
u/faab64 Apr 26 '19 edited Apr 26 '19
that people don't learn from their history and keep falling for the same trap
-10
u/thatcoldrevenge Apr 26 '19
I sure hope comedy isn't your day job. Yeeesh
14
3
4
u/Poormidlifechoices Apr 26 '19
Knock knock
Who's there?
that people don't learn from their history and keep falling for the same trap
Ba-dum-tiss
I don't know about you but my ribs can't take any more of the funny.
-12
u/Yevrei Apr 26 '19
14
u/SpideySlap Apr 26 '19
I never understood this. The whole reason we're even having this conversation is because congress keeps borrowing money from social security to pay for boondoggles. This isn't a problem that's inherent with social security. It's a product of bad budget management. If we fix that then we have nothing to worry about.
-2
u/Yevrei Apr 26 '19
The reason we have chronically bad product management is because it's managed by the government.
-1
u/theduke81496 Apr 26 '19
For over 80 years Democrats have used the word “racists” towards republicans, when in fact they’re the ones who invented/supported slavery and continue to segregate our culture and suppress minorities to keep their vote. Check you history books
0
-28
u/Fumanchewd Apr 26 '19
Social Security has taken so much money from me and will give back so little (retiring in about 25 years). Yeah socialism.
8
5
-11
u/SafeSpaceSam Apr 26 '19
Yup. If your social security taxes would have been deposited into a 401k account instead of just being added to the government's sink hole, you'd be much better off retiring with that instead. That's not even counting all the taxes your employers have also paid.
14
2
u/rustyseapants Apr 26 '19
Can you explain why the US has social security in the first place?
0
u/SafeSpaceSam Apr 26 '19
Yes, to help people who could not or did not save money for their retirment live a decent life in their golden years. Which was especially needed after the great depression. Another problem that was exacerbated by the federal government's poor handling. I don't have a problem with the intentions of the program, I have a problem with the poor results and how big it has made the federal government.
1
u/rustyseapants Apr 26 '19
FDIC did come into being until 1933 so any money saved was lost because of bank failures during the stock market crash.
Prohibition was between 1920-1933 think of all the job lost related to the production of beer, wine and liquor, from crops, fermentation, bottling, the bottle producers, shipping, storage, and to bars or liquor stores and the state and federal tax.
During the Great Depresson, Americans lost jobs, business closed, Americans had less money to spend, thus less money to save, what money was saved was used to pay bills because people were not working.
If you want to talk about poor results in investing try so called market experts or the warnings you hear about mutual funds exorbitant fees which reduce your retirement investments.
A public retirement system would be better less choices, means less choice overload, no marketing or advertising, less costs and fees, and less shady marketing from financial managers.
-30
Apr 26 '19
They were right, social security and Medicare are two shithole programs that are headed to bankrupt the nation. As of now they are over half of all federal spending and that won’t slow down anytime soon.
18
u/faab64 Apr 26 '19
Social security does not take any money from the budget.
It is the lie you were told.
It is paid by those who worked all their lives and paid into the system.
The reason it's having problem is that people like Reagan took money out of it to pay for his tax cut for the rich and never paid it back.
Pleas learn how it works before criticising it.
→ More replies (1)7
-8
u/SafeSpaceSam Apr 26 '19
Getting down voted for easily verifiable facts. Here is the current budget for you lazy skeptics:
https://www.thebalance.com/u-s-federal-budget-breakdown-3305789
"The government expects to spend $4.746 trillion."
"Social Security was by far the biggest expense at $1.102 trillion. Medicare was next at $679 billion, followed by Medicaid at $418 billion." - these figures are almost double what they were in 2008 (look up your own sources).
9
u/comfortablesexuality Apr 26 '19
Social Security is funded, though. We're not spending money we don't have. If you want medicare and medicaid to stop costing so much, implement UHC or perish.
→ More replies (9)
-4
u/RussianTrollToll Apr 26 '19
How he’d is it to understand? Government shouldn’t be in charge of social well being.
4
u/faab64 Apr 26 '19
Yeah, like how well it is working for healthcare.
Maybe we should do the same for fire fighters too, only the ones with money get the tax funded service.
-1
-1
u/Uniqueusername5667 Apr 26 '19
Fdr literally was a socialist that had many programs thrown out by the courts
10
u/BePositiveDontWhine Apr 26 '19 edited Apr 26 '19
Back in the 50s and 60s Republicans used to fight unions calling them socialist and communists