Topic: So the Republicans really are cutting Medicaid and Social Security
Anonymous A started this discussion 3 days ago #125,621
Fuck those villains.
boof joined in and replied with this 3 days ago, 11 minutes later[^] [v] #1,360,449
there was a time when the USA seniors would survive lean times with a cat food diet. well not at today's prices
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 3 days ago, 40 minutes later, 51 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,360,457
No they aren't. The left keeps repeating this line over and over but social security is still here.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 days ago, 11 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,360,458
Oatmeal Fucker !BYUc1TwJMU joined in and replied with this 3 days ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,360,459
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 3 days ago, 14 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,360,461
thats pretty cool if they actually managed it, but at the same time im gonna just press X, because you niggers have an obsessive tendency to lie about the dumbest most mundane shit.boof replied with this 3 days ago, 1 hour later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,360,466
@previous (F)
listen to yourself. for us niggers to be lying about what was long said and written by the people in the Republican party would have to mean that the party was lying about their intent and that we niggers somehow have knowledge about this being a lie. are we magic?
listen to yourself. for us niggers to be lying about what was long said and written by the people in the Republican party would have to mean that the party was lying about their intent and that we niggers somehow have knowledge about this being a lie. are we magic?
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 3 days ago, 1 hour later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,360,470
“The president has made absolutely clear many times, as we have as well, that we’re going to protect Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, for people who are legally beneficiaries of those programs” - Mike Johnson
How do you interpret this as "The Repulicans are cutting Medicaid and Social Security"?
You appear to have have extremely poor comprehension skills.
How do you interpret this as "The Repulicans are cutting Medicaid and Social Security"?
You appear to have have extremely poor comprehension skills.
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 3 days ago, 10 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,360,471
Funny you keep repeating yourself, but never provide a link to it.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 3 days ago, 14 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,360,474
@1,360,470 (G)
They are cutting 88 billion dollars a year from Medicaid. I will bet you 5 dollars that results in cuts to Medicaid services provided to US citizens.
They are cutting 88 billion dollars a year from Medicaid. I will bet you 5 dollars that results in cuts to Medicaid services provided to US citizens.
Anonymous G replied with this 3 days ago, 2 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,360,475
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
*880 billion (88 x 10 per year for 10 years)
*880 billion (88 x 10 per year for 10 years)
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 3 days ago, 9 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,360,476
Anonymous C replied with this 3 days ago, 10 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,360,477
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 3 days ago, 4 hours later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,360,492
boof replied with this 3 days ago, 1 hour later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,360,506
here is an explanation of how the 880 figure is arrived at.
quoate:
For Budget Reconciliation to lower tax revenues by the targeted $4.5 trillion amount, cuts must exceed, by $500 billion, the specific savings targets assigned to all committees. If those extra cuts are spread proportionately among all committees, HEC would need to cut spending by $1.17 trillion. If, as seems likely, HEC would take more than 75% of that amount from Medicaid, rather than Medicare and other programs, Medicaid cuts will exceed $880 billion.
quoate:
For Budget Reconciliation to lower tax revenues by the targeted $4.5 trillion amount, cuts must exceed, by $500 billion, the specific savings targets assigned to all committees. If those extra cuts are spread proportionately among all committees, HEC would need to cut spending by $1.17 trillion. If, as seems likely, HEC would take more than 75% of that amount from Medicaid, rather than Medicare and other programs, Medicaid cuts will exceed $880 billion.
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 3 days ago, 53 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,360,512
So then OPenis will lose his free healthcare paid by taxpayers, and have to find a job.
Anonymous C replied with this 3 days ago, 14 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,360,513
@1,360,492 (J)
Yes, unfortunately leftists reject democracy when it doesn't go their way.
Remember the "save democracy" protests where they wanted the democratically elected, popular vote winner to step down.
Yes, unfortunately leftists reject democracy when it doesn't go their way.
Remember the "save democracy" protests where they wanted the democratically elected, popular vote winner to step down.
boof replied with this 3 days ago, 38 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,360,516
@previous (C)
you ass, why is this horseshit a fun hobby for you when there is so much the world has outside of your walls
you ass, why is this horseshit a fun hobby for you when there is so much the world has outside of your walls
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 3 days ago, 1 minute later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,360,520
@1,360,513 (C)
The overwhelming majority of Democrats both voted for Biden and wanted him to step down lol.
The overwhelming majority of Democrats both voted for Biden and wanted him to step down lol.
Meta joined in and replied with this 3 days ago, 1 hour later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,360,538
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Why didn't Pelosi and Co. pull out the knives sooner? Or drop increasingly unsubtle hints to Joe like a year earlier that his leadership was to be of a strictly transitional nature.
Though they still would have ended up with Kamala as the nominee (I don't see how Dems could not nominate the first black and/or asian woman presidential candidate) but she would have had more time to come into her own and develop her public image/"brand" more. Also maybe to articulate at least one or two things she would change from Biden. They don't even have to be big things but at least a thing would have been helpful I think.
Why didn't Pelosi and Co. pull out the knives sooner? Or drop increasingly unsubtle hints to Joe like a year earlier that his leadership was to be of a strictly transitional nature.
Though they still would have ended up with Kamala as the nominee (I don't see how Dems could not nominate the first black and/or asian woman presidential candidate) but she would have had more time to come into her own and develop her public image/"brand" more. Also maybe to articulate at least one or two things she would change from Biden. They don't even have to be big things but at least a thing would have been helpful I think.
Meta double-posted this 3 days ago, 3 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,360,539
@OP
Is this really going to happen or is going to be like the tariffs where it's on-again off-again and ends up in some kind of quantum superposition state where measuring it changes the result?
Is this really going to happen or is going to be like the tariffs where it's on-again off-again and ends up in some kind of quantum superposition state where measuring it changes the result?
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 3 days ago, 3 hours later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,360,548
@1,360,538 (Meta)
I mean the most parsimonious explanation is that they didn't know how bad Joe's condition was until the debate, or maybe a little bit before at most. I haven't read whatever the tell-all books are/will be but my understanding is that Joe's aides were extremely unwilling to have him meet with people 1-on-1 for extended periods of time. I'm not sure what the end goal of that strategy was since eventually he would be campaigning and debating, but I guess they thought he could stumble his way though that and win narrowly again?
I mean the most parsimonious explanation is that they didn't know how bad Joe's condition was until the debate, or maybe a little bit before at most. I haven't read whatever the tell-all books are/will be but my understanding is that Joe's aides were extremely unwilling to have him meet with people 1-on-1 for extended periods of time. I'm not sure what the end goal of that strategy was since eventually he would be campaigning and debating, but I guess they thought he could stumble his way though that and win narrowly again?
Anonymous C replied with this 2 days ago, 4 hours later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,360,614
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 2 days ago, 6 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,360,672
@previous (C)
Oh that's because they think destroying the US economy and the post-war liberal order so we can cut funding for cancer researchers and have them sew buttons onto coats instead is the wrong policy. In other words, Orange Man Bad.
Also Trump supporters insisted in 2016 and 2020 that winning the popular vote was meaningless and totally irrelevant to democracy. I'm not sure I believe that they suddenly have a principled stand about respecting the sanctity of the popular vote now.
Oh that's because they think destroying the US economy and the post-war liberal order so we can cut funding for cancer researchers and have them sew buttons onto coats instead is the wrong policy. In other words, Orange Man Bad.
Also Trump supporters insisted in 2016 and 2020 that winning the popular vote was meaningless and totally irrelevant to democracy. I'm not sure I believe that they suddenly have a principled stand about respecting the sanctity of the popular vote now.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 days ago, 3 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,360,691
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
> Oh that's because they think destroying the US economy
The economy was already destroyed. The Biden admin and MSM ignored all the significant decreases in standard of living, used the stock market as the indicator of good/bad (even though 90% of stocks are owned by 10%, and the regular folks are the ones getting exploited to pay for it) and kept insisting that regular people were too stupid to understand their own life.
Offshoring jobs and importing desperate workers isn't a sustainable solution, neoliberalism is what laid the groundwork for fascism.
> and the post-war liberal order so we can cut funding for cancer researchers and have them sew buttons onto coats instead is the wrong policy. In other words, Orange Man Bad.
Gradual reform isn't viable, he has 4 years and the annual deficit has grown by trillions in the years preceding him.
> Also Trump supporters insisted in 2016 and 2020 that winning the popular vote was meaningless and totally irrelevant to democracy. I'm not sure I believe that they suddenly have a principled stand about respecting the sanctity of the popular vote now.
The actual criticism was of transparent voter fraud.
Any citizen needs an ID any time they buy a beer or talk to a bureaucrat, but democrats make it out like going to the DMV is some impossible hurdle for voters. The only rational explanation is they know their voters aren't real citizens.
> Oh that's because they think destroying the US economy
The economy was already destroyed. The Biden admin and MSM ignored all the significant decreases in standard of living, used the stock market as the indicator of good/bad (even though 90% of stocks are owned by 10%, and the regular folks are the ones getting exploited to pay for it) and kept insisting that regular people were too stupid to understand their own life.
Offshoring jobs and importing desperate workers isn't a sustainable solution, neoliberalism is what laid the groundwork for fascism.
> and the post-war liberal order so we can cut funding for cancer researchers and have them sew buttons onto coats instead is the wrong policy. In other words, Orange Man Bad.
Gradual reform isn't viable, he has 4 years and the annual deficit has grown by trillions in the years preceding him.
> Also Trump supporters insisted in 2016 and 2020 that winning the popular vote was meaningless and totally irrelevant to democracy. I'm not sure I believe that they suddenly have a principled stand about respecting the sanctity of the popular vote now.
The actual criticism was of transparent voter fraud.
Any citizen needs an ID any time they buy a beer or talk to a bureaucrat, but democrats make it out like going to the DMV is some impossible hurdle for voters. The only rational explanation is they know their voters aren't real citizens.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 2 days ago, 30 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,360,692
@previous (C)
The economy was not destroyed you are hyperbolic. There was high inflation and high housing costs. If you lived through 2008-2012 you would know what an actual destroyed economy looks like: 401ks halved, people liquidating their houses or offices at a loss just to have cash because credit was frozen, people with Phds. in math from MIT applying to work at McDonalds just to have some kind of income, etc. This was not that.
The deficit also grew every year he was in office the first time and will grow every year he is in office this time. It will grow by more than it did under Biden and Obama specifically because he wants to cut taxes and not pay for it like every Republican president.
And no, sorry. In 2016 if you pointed out that Clinton won the popular vote you were told "Akshuslly we have 51 separate elections the popular vote is meaningless. It's like having more yards in football but fewer points." When Biden won it was both pointing out how narrow his win in the swing states was (a few thousand votes in GA, etc.) while also whining about fake voter fraud that Trump never proved in court and will not prove now that he is president. The most you will get is a political show trial of like Chris Krebs that Trump will lose handily because this literally only exists in his mind as a coping mechanism for losing 1 out of his three elections.
The economy was not destroyed you are hyperbolic. There was high inflation and high housing costs. If you lived through 2008-2012 you would know what an actual destroyed economy looks like: 401ks halved, people liquidating their houses or offices at a loss just to have cash because credit was frozen, people with Phds. in math from MIT applying to work at McDonalds just to have some kind of income, etc. This was not that.
The deficit also grew every year he was in office the first time and will grow every year he is in office this time. It will grow by more than it did under Biden and Obama specifically because he wants to cut taxes and not pay for it like every Republican president.
And no, sorry. In 2016 if you pointed out that Clinton won the popular vote you were told "Akshuslly we have 51 separate elections the popular vote is meaningless. It's like having more yards in football but fewer points." When Biden won it was both pointing out how narrow his win in the swing states was (a few thousand votes in GA, etc.) while also whining about fake voter fraud that Trump never proved in court and will not prove now that he is president. The most you will get is a political show trial of like Chris Krebs that Trump will lose handily because this literally only exists in his mind as a coping mechanism for losing 1 out of his three elections.
(Edited 5 minutes later.)
Anonymous C replied with this 2 days ago, 3 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,360,784
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
> The economy was not destroyed you are hyperbolic.
You're living in a different world than the people voting for Trump, the struggles represented in the media are of upper-middle class people who were born on 3rd.
> If you lived through 2008-2012 you would know what an actual destroyed economy looks like:
> 401ks halved
Again, you aren't even trying to understand the perspective of the majority who simply don't have stocks.
Nominally they might have a few hundred or thousand in an account, but the main effect they experience is paying for those stock increases in the form of stagnant wages.
> people liquidating their houses or offices at a loss just to have cash because credit was frozen, people with Phds. in math from MIT applying to work at McDonalds just to have some kind of income, etc. This was not that.
What of the people who don't own homes or offices to begin with, and who don't even have the basic resources to get to a university or the free time to dedicate to academics?
> The deficit also grew every year he was in office the first time and will grow every year he is in office this time. It will grow by more than it did under Biden and Obama specifically because he wants to cut taxes and not pay for it like every Republican president.
The democrats keep telling us that Trump is gutting everything in the federal government. How can it be both?
> And no, sorry. In 2016 if you pointed out that Clinton won the popular vote you were told "Akshuslly we have 51 separate elections the popular vote is meaningless. It's like having more yards in football but fewer points." When Biden won it was both pointing out how narrow his win in the swing states was (a few thousand votes in GA, etc.) while also whining about fake voter fraud that Trump never proved in court and will not prove now that he is president. The most you will get is a political show trial of like Chris Krebs that Trump will lose handily because this literally only exists in his mind as a coping mechanism for losing 1 out of his three elections.
I'm sure you can find hypocrites in the republican party, but it doesn't change the fact that the left-wing "save democracy" protests that just happened were pressuring the democratically elected leader to leave.
> The economy was not destroyed you are hyperbolic.
You're living in a different world than the people voting for Trump, the struggles represented in the media are of upper-middle class people who were born on 3rd.
> If you lived through 2008-2012 you would know what an actual destroyed economy looks like:
> 401ks halved
Again, you aren't even trying to understand the perspective of the majority who simply don't have stocks.
Nominally they might have a few hundred or thousand in an account, but the main effect they experience is paying for those stock increases in the form of stagnant wages.
> people liquidating their houses or offices at a loss just to have cash because credit was frozen, people with Phds. in math from MIT applying to work at McDonalds just to have some kind of income, etc. This was not that.
What of the people who don't own homes or offices to begin with, and who don't even have the basic resources to get to a university or the free time to dedicate to academics?
> The deficit also grew every year he was in office the first time and will grow every year he is in office this time. It will grow by more than it did under Biden and Obama specifically because he wants to cut taxes and not pay for it like every Republican president.
The democrats keep telling us that Trump is gutting everything in the federal government. How can it be both?
> And no, sorry. In 2016 if you pointed out that Clinton won the popular vote you were told "Akshuslly we have 51 separate elections the popular vote is meaningless. It's like having more yards in football but fewer points." When Biden won it was both pointing out how narrow his win in the swing states was (a few thousand votes in GA, etc.) while also whining about fake voter fraud that Trump never proved in court and will not prove now that he is president. The most you will get is a political show trial of like Chris Krebs that Trump will lose handily because this literally only exists in his mind as a coping mechanism for losing 1 out of his three elections.
I'm sure you can find hypocrites in the republican party, but it doesn't change the fact that the left-wing "save democracy" protests that just happened were pressuring the democratically elected leader to leave.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 2 days ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,360,828
@previous (C)
> Again, you aren't even trying to understand the perspective of the majority who simply don't have stocks.
This is flatly untrue and has never been true for likely your entire adult life.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/266807/percentage-americans-owns-stock.aspx
At no point in the last 25 years has stock ownership dropped under 50%. Most people own some kind of stock which is why people get upset when the market goes down.
> Nominally they might have a few hundred or thousand in an account, but the main effect they experience is paying for those stock increases in the form of stagnant wages
Higher stock prices do not lead to stagnant wages. Stagnant wages are a product of non-wage compensation increasing. Most of the wage gains workers would get have been eaten by health insurance premiums increasing.
> What of the people who don't own homes or offices to begin with, and who don't even have the basic resources to get to a university or the free time to dedicate to academics?
Those people were competing with the graduate degree holders and former business owners for jobs and losing out to them, leading to a 10 percent unemployment rate and a large drop in labor force participation rate overall. The unemployment rate in November of this year was 4%. The largest wage gains in the last 4 year went to people earning the lowest quartile of wages (i.e. the poorest people got the largest proportional raises). That is not what happens in a destroyed economy.
> The democrats keep telling us that Trump is gutting everything in the federal government. How can it be both?
Because he is gutting discretionary spending like science funding and weather research not the actual largest 4 drivers of the deficit: social security, Medicare, the military and debt interest payments. The one thing he is cutting is Medicaid - money that goes to the poorest members of society. Everything else that he's cutting besides Medicaid is peanuts compared to the things he isn't cutting.
> I'm sure you can find hypocrites in the republican party, but it doesn't change the fact that the left-wing "save democracy" protests that just happened were pressuring the democratically elected leader to leave.
No it was literally, without exaggeration, every single trump supporter I have ever spoken to about politics online or in person. One of the features of democracy is you can criticize the person who won the election and call for them to resign even if they won the popular vote. This happened with Obama and Biden and it happened with Trump and Bush.
> Again, you aren't even trying to understand the perspective of the majority who simply don't have stocks.
This is flatly untrue and has never been true for likely your entire adult life.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/266807/percentage-americans-owns-stock.aspx
At no point in the last 25 years has stock ownership dropped under 50%. Most people own some kind of stock which is why people get upset when the market goes down.
> Nominally they might have a few hundred or thousand in an account, but the main effect they experience is paying for those stock increases in the form of stagnant wages
Higher stock prices do not lead to stagnant wages. Stagnant wages are a product of non-wage compensation increasing. Most of the wage gains workers would get have been eaten by health insurance premiums increasing.
> What of the people who don't own homes or offices to begin with, and who don't even have the basic resources to get to a university or the free time to dedicate to academics?
Those people were competing with the graduate degree holders and former business owners for jobs and losing out to them, leading to a 10 percent unemployment rate and a large drop in labor force participation rate overall. The unemployment rate in November of this year was 4%. The largest wage gains in the last 4 year went to people earning the lowest quartile of wages (i.e. the poorest people got the largest proportional raises). That is not what happens in a destroyed economy.
> The democrats keep telling us that Trump is gutting everything in the federal government. How can it be both?
Because he is gutting discretionary spending like science funding and weather research not the actual largest 4 drivers of the deficit: social security, Medicare, the military and debt interest payments. The one thing he is cutting is Medicaid - money that goes to the poorest members of society. Everything else that he's cutting besides Medicaid is peanuts compared to the things he isn't cutting.
> I'm sure you can find hypocrites in the republican party, but it doesn't change the fact that the left-wing "save democracy" protests that just happened were pressuring the democratically elected leader to leave.
No it was literally, without exaggeration, every single trump supporter I have ever spoken to about politics online or in person. One of the features of democracy is you can criticize the person who won the election and call for them to resign even if they won the popular vote. This happened with Obama and Biden and it happened with Trump and Bush.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 days ago, 25 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,360,845
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
> >Again, you aren't even trying to understand the perspective of the majority who simply don't have stocks.
> This is flatly untrue and has never been true for likely your entire adult life.
>
> https://news.gallup.com/poll/266807/percentage-americans-owns-stock.aspx
>
> At no point in the last 25 years has stock ownership dropped under 50%. Most people own some kind of stock which is why people get upset when the market goes down.
Anyone can download an app and get a free $1 in stocks and be one of those people.
The same people who are suffering from stagnant wages and price gouging, both of which push up stock prices.
Take $100 from someone to boost stocks, and then give them back $1 because they own some stocks and you can disingenuously say that they benefited from that stock. It's only true if you don't look at the net result.
> >Nominally they might have a few hundred or thousand in an account, but the main effect they experience is paying for those stock increases in the form of stagnant wages
>
> Higher stock prices do not lead to stagnant wages.
The other way around. Stagnant wages lead to higher stock prices.
Workers today have significantly less purchasing power for necessities. Where did the money go? GDP per capita is up, so it's not as if there is less money to go around.
The money was moved to corporate profits, AKA stock value.
> Stagnant wages are a product of non-wage compensation increasing.
Non-wage compensation is inflated services many employees don't use, inflated health costs (AKA increased corporate profits), and so on.
Most of the wage gains workers would get have been eaten by health insurance premiums increasing.
> >What of the people who don't own homes or offices to begin with, and who don't even have the basic resources to get to a university or the free time to dedicate to academics?
> Those people were competing with the graduate degree holders and former business owners for jobs and losing out to them, leading to a 10 percent unemployment rate and a large drop in labor force participation rate overall. The unemployment rate in November of this year was 4%. The largest wage gains in the last 4 year went to people earning the lowest quartile of wages (i.e. the poorest people got the largest proportional raises). That is not what happens in a destroyed economy.
Gen Z has the highest NEET rate of any generation, even compared to previous generations at the same age.
NEETs are not included in unemployment statistics because they aren't looking.
This is hardly a personal choice, working a job pays less than ever when you consider what those wages actually buy.
> >The democrats keep telling us that Trump is gutting everything in the federal government. How can it be both?
> Because he is gutting discretionary spending like science funding and weather research not the actual largest 4 drivers of the deficit: social security, Medicare
Why do democrats keep warning he is about to cut those two programs?
> the military
Trump is against starting new military conflicts, while the democrats want to spend more on Ukraine, and members of his own party are pushing for war with Iran.
A well-funded military at peace is much cheaper than a war of any sort.
> and debt interest payments.
The republicans are at least talking about this issue, while the democrats are either ignoring it or saying it doesn't matter.
> >I'm sure you can find hypocrites in the republican party, but it doesn't change the fact that the left-wing "save democracy" protests that just happened were pressuring the democratically elected leader to leave.
> No it was literally, without exaggeration, every single trump supporter I have ever spoken to about politics online or in person. One of the features of democracy is you can criticize the person who won the election and call for them to resign even if they won the popular vote. This happened with Obama and Biden and it happened with Trump and Bush.
The elector system isn't ideal, but those are the rules of the game.
Democrats are still insisting we need to remove the democratically elected leader to save democracy. They also use "populism" as a pejorative term for any candidate that can actually get votes whether that is Trump on the right, or Bernie-style leftists.
> >Again, you aren't even trying to understand the perspective of the majority who simply don't have stocks.
> This is flatly untrue and has never been true for likely your entire adult life.
>
> https://news.gallup.com/poll/266807/percentage-americans-owns-stock.aspx
>
> At no point in the last 25 years has stock ownership dropped under 50%. Most people own some kind of stock which is why people get upset when the market goes down.
Anyone can download an app and get a free $1 in stocks and be one of those people.
The same people who are suffering from stagnant wages and price gouging, both of which push up stock prices.
Take $100 from someone to boost stocks, and then give them back $1 because they own some stocks and you can disingenuously say that they benefited from that stock. It's only true if you don't look at the net result.
> >Nominally they might have a few hundred or thousand in an account, but the main effect they experience is paying for those stock increases in the form of stagnant wages
>
> Higher stock prices do not lead to stagnant wages.
The other way around. Stagnant wages lead to higher stock prices.
Workers today have significantly less purchasing power for necessities. Where did the money go? GDP per capita is up, so it's not as if there is less money to go around.
The money was moved to corporate profits, AKA stock value.
> Stagnant wages are a product of non-wage compensation increasing.
Non-wage compensation is inflated services many employees don't use, inflated health costs (AKA increased corporate profits), and so on.
Most of the wage gains workers would get have been eaten by health insurance premiums increasing.
> >What of the people who don't own homes or offices to begin with, and who don't even have the basic resources to get to a university or the free time to dedicate to academics?
> Those people were competing with the graduate degree holders and former business owners for jobs and losing out to them, leading to a 10 percent unemployment rate and a large drop in labor force participation rate overall. The unemployment rate in November of this year was 4%. The largest wage gains in the last 4 year went to people earning the lowest quartile of wages (i.e. the poorest people got the largest proportional raises). That is not what happens in a destroyed economy.
Gen Z has the highest NEET rate of any generation, even compared to previous generations at the same age.
NEETs are not included in unemployment statistics because they aren't looking.
This is hardly a personal choice, working a job pays less than ever when you consider what those wages actually buy.
> >The democrats keep telling us that Trump is gutting everything in the federal government. How can it be both?
> Because he is gutting discretionary spending like science funding and weather research not the actual largest 4 drivers of the deficit: social security, Medicare
Why do democrats keep warning he is about to cut those two programs?
> the military
Trump is against starting new military conflicts, while the democrats want to spend more on Ukraine, and members of his own party are pushing for war with Iran.
A well-funded military at peace is much cheaper than a war of any sort.
> and debt interest payments.
The republicans are at least talking about this issue, while the democrats are either ignoring it or saying it doesn't matter.
> >I'm sure you can find hypocrites in the republican party, but it doesn't change the fact that the left-wing "save democracy" protests that just happened were pressuring the democratically elected leader to leave.
> No it was literally, without exaggeration, every single trump supporter I have ever spoken to about politics online or in person. One of the features of democracy is you can criticize the person who won the election and call for them to resign even if they won the popular vote. This happened with Obama and Biden and it happened with Trump and Bush.
The elector system isn't ideal, but those are the rules of the game.
Democrats are still insisting we need to remove the democratically elected leader to save democracy. They also use "populism" as a pejorative term for any candidate that can actually get votes whether that is Trump on the right, or Bernie-style leftists.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Captain obvious joined in and replied with this 2 days ago, 13 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,360,847
I’m just gonna point out right here right now, that China’s gonna win.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 2 days ago, 11 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,360,853
> Anyone can download an app and get a free $1 in stocks and be one of those people.
That is a very recent phenomenon and doesn't explain away a majority of Americans owning stocks for three decades.
> Gen Z has the highest NEET rate of any generation, even compared to previous generations at the same age.
> NEETs are not included in unemployment statistics because they aren't looking.
You can find statistics on % of people not looking for work too. You will not find any unemployment statistics that says the economy in 2024 was worse than 2009 or anywhere close to it because it wasn't.
> Why do democrats keep warning he is about to cut those two programs?
Because Republicans said they want to cut trillions of dollars of government spending and the only way to get there is to cut some combination of those things. Trump is also firing a ton of people from SSA which will not save money on any meaningful sense but may save money by having so few people working there SS payments don't go out on time which would be cataclysmically bad but would technically reduce government outlays.
> Trump is against starting new military conflicts, while the democrats want to spend more on Ukraine, and members of his own party are pushing for war with Iran.
Spending more on Ukraine isn't starting a new anything. War with Iran would be horrendous but Trump has a decent shot of starting it anyway because he's a moron.
> The republicans are at least talking about this issue, while the democrats are either ignoring it or saying it doesn't matter.
Their solution to it is to let Trump cause so much economic carnage that it raises 10yr bond rates right as trillions in treasuries come due. This is the exact opposite of a solution obviously but no Republican is saying that Trump is actively making the debt situation significantly worse and they are making the deficit situation significantly worse even though both are indisputable. Because they are lying amoral cowards.
> Democrats are still insisting we need to remove the democratically elected leader to save democracy
If the democratically elected leader is leading the country to economic, diplomatic, and political ruin that seems sensible enough to me. We elected Presidents not emperors or kings.
That is a very recent phenomenon and doesn't explain away a majority of Americans owning stocks for three decades.
> Gen Z has the highest NEET rate of any generation, even compared to previous generations at the same age.
> NEETs are not included in unemployment statistics because they aren't looking.
You can find statistics on % of people not looking for work too. You will not find any unemployment statistics that says the economy in 2024 was worse than 2009 or anywhere close to it because it wasn't.
> Why do democrats keep warning he is about to cut those two programs?
Because Republicans said they want to cut trillions of dollars of government spending and the only way to get there is to cut some combination of those things. Trump is also firing a ton of people from SSA which will not save money on any meaningful sense but may save money by having so few people working there SS payments don't go out on time which would be cataclysmically bad but would technically reduce government outlays.
> Trump is against starting new military conflicts, while the democrats want to spend more on Ukraine, and members of his own party are pushing for war with Iran.
Spending more on Ukraine isn't starting a new anything. War with Iran would be horrendous but Trump has a decent shot of starting it anyway because he's a moron.
> The republicans are at least talking about this issue, while the democrats are either ignoring it or saying it doesn't matter.
Their solution to it is to let Trump cause so much economic carnage that it raises 10yr bond rates right as trillions in treasuries come due. This is the exact opposite of a solution obviously but no Republican is saying that Trump is actively making the debt situation significantly worse and they are making the deficit situation significantly worse even though both are indisputable. Because they are lying amoral cowards.
> Democrats are still insisting we need to remove the democratically elected leader to save democracy
If the democratically elected leader is leading the country to economic, diplomatic, and political ruin that seems sensible enough to me. We elected Presidents not emperors or kings.
(Edited 25 seconds later.)
Anonymous C replied with this 2 days ago, 50 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,360,872
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
> >Anyone can download an app and get a free $1 in stocks and be one of those people.
> That is a very recent phenomenon and doesn't explain away a majority of Americans owning stocks for three decades.
Opting into (or not opting out) of a 401k can easily put someone into that category.
Owning some stocks does not mean that person has interests aligned with the capitalist class, even though they are technically owners of some capital.
> >Gen Z has the highest NEET rate of any generation, even compared to previous generations at the same age.
>
> >NEETs are not included in unemployment statistics because they aren't looking.
>
> You can find statistics on % of people not looking for work too. You will not find any unemployment statistics that says the economy in 2024 was worse than 2009 or anywhere close to it because it wasn't.
Not making any comparison between the two. Housing hit records for being unaffordable in 2024, and the Biden admin and liberal media had a campaign to gaslight people into thinking the economy was good because of the stock market.
> >Why do democrats keep warning he is about to cut those two programs?
> Because Republicans said they want to cut trillions of dollars of government spending and the only way to get there is to cut some combination of those things. Trump is also firing a ton of people from SSA which will not save money on any meaningful sense but may save money by having so few people working there SS payments don't go out on time which would be cataclysmically bad but would technically reduce government outlays.
If the plan is to keep gutting social security, then it's not fair to say he's ignoring that part of the budget.
It's removing some people from the SSA database and firing some SSA workers today, but more changes will come to reduce this in the future.
>
> >Trump is against starting new military conflicts, while the democrats want to spend more on Ukraine, and members of his own party are pushing for war with Iran.
> Spending more on Ukraine isn't starting a new anything.
Cutting aid to Ukraine is new, and constitutes one form of reducing the military budget.
> >The republicans are at least talking about this issue, while the democrats are either ignoring it or saying it doesn't matter.
> Their solution to it is to let Trump cause so much economic carnage that it raises 10yr bond rates right as trillions in treasuries come due. This is the exact opposite of a solution obviously but no Republican is saying that Trump is actively making the debt situation significantly worse and they are making the deficit situation significantly worse even though both are indisputable. Because they are lying amoral cowards.
If there's only one plan, a plan from Republicans, that's probably the plan we'll get.
Maybe the democrats should have acknowledged the issue, and created their own plan.
> >Democrats are still insisting we need to remove the democratically elected leader to save democracy
> If the democratically elected leader is leading the country to economic, diplomatic, and political ruin that seems sensible enough to me. We elected Presidents not emperors or kings.
They didn't march saying we need to ignore democratic elections to be sensible, they said we need to ignore democratic election for democracy.
Democratic messaging is so plainly contradictory that it comes off as controlled opposition.
> >Anyone can download an app and get a free $1 in stocks and be one of those people.
> That is a very recent phenomenon and doesn't explain away a majority of Americans owning stocks for three decades.
Opting into (or not opting out) of a 401k can easily put someone into that category.
Owning some stocks does not mean that person has interests aligned with the capitalist class, even though they are technically owners of some capital.
> >Gen Z has the highest NEET rate of any generation, even compared to previous generations at the same age.
>
> >NEETs are not included in unemployment statistics because they aren't looking.
>
> You can find statistics on % of people not looking for work too. You will not find any unemployment statistics that says the economy in 2024 was worse than 2009 or anywhere close to it because it wasn't.
Not making any comparison between the two. Housing hit records for being unaffordable in 2024, and the Biden admin and liberal media had a campaign to gaslight people into thinking the economy was good because of the stock market.
> >Why do democrats keep warning he is about to cut those two programs?
> Because Republicans said they want to cut trillions of dollars of government spending and the only way to get there is to cut some combination of those things. Trump is also firing a ton of people from SSA which will not save money on any meaningful sense but may save money by having so few people working there SS payments don't go out on time which would be cataclysmically bad but would technically reduce government outlays.
If the plan is to keep gutting social security, then it's not fair to say he's ignoring that part of the budget.
It's removing some people from the SSA database and firing some SSA workers today, but more changes will come to reduce this in the future.
>
> >Trump is against starting new military conflicts, while the democrats want to spend more on Ukraine, and members of his own party are pushing for war with Iran.
> Spending more on Ukraine isn't starting a new anything.
Cutting aid to Ukraine is new, and constitutes one form of reducing the military budget.
> >The republicans are at least talking about this issue, while the democrats are either ignoring it or saying it doesn't matter.
> Their solution to it is to let Trump cause so much economic carnage that it raises 10yr bond rates right as trillions in treasuries come due. This is the exact opposite of a solution obviously but no Republican is saying that Trump is actively making the debt situation significantly worse and they are making the deficit situation significantly worse even though both are indisputable. Because they are lying amoral cowards.
If there's only one plan, a plan from Republicans, that's probably the plan we'll get.
Maybe the democrats should have acknowledged the issue, and created their own plan.
> >Democrats are still insisting we need to remove the democratically elected leader to save democracy
> If the democratically elected leader is leading the country to economic, diplomatic, and political ruin that seems sensible enough to me. We elected Presidents not emperors or kings.
They didn't march saying we need to ignore democratic elections to be sensible, they said we need to ignore democratic election for democracy.
Democratic messaging is so plainly contradictory that it comes off as controlled opposition.
tteh !MemesToDNA joined in and replied with this 2 days ago, 15 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,360,874
My cat's breath smells like cat food.
Anonymous O joined in and replied with this 1 day ago, 9 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,361,002
@1,360,516 (boof)
like getting arrested for memes while sandniggers run trucks through crowds?
yeah no thanks, you lads can keep your garbage
like getting arrested for memes while sandniggers run trucks through crowds?
yeah no thanks, you lads can keep your garbage
Oatmeal Fucker !BYUc1TwJMU replied with this 9 hours ago, 1 day later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,361,446
boof replied with this 7 hours ago, 2 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,361,487
Anonymous H replied with this 5 hours ago, 1 hour later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,361,500
Still waiting on OPenis to provide a link....