Donald Trump warned Tuesday that if the Democrats don't approve funding, there are dangers to the future of Social Security and Medicare.

Trump said at a press conference that when he asked Democrats for feedback on the funding bills, one said, "It means death."

"There's nothing about death," Trump said. "Theirs is death because they're going to lose Medicaid, they're going to lose Social Security, they're going to lose Medicare, all of those things are going to be gone because the whole country would be bankrupt, and you're not going to have any kind of medical insurance."

top 100 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 198 points 1 year ago (1 child)

He's planning on getting rid of those anyway, so he can continue to fuck right off.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 97 points 1 year ago

    I heard Epstein’s island is lovely this time of year.

  • source
  • [–] 83 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    This is pitiful reporting by Newsweek. They're happy to state what each side is saying about the situation, and they fail to do even the most basic research to fact check any of the statements.

    The article cites Republicans as saying that Democrats "want to provide free health care to illegal aliens". The heavy implication is that without the budget Reps are trying to push, we will be paying for that or that Dems wouldn't approve a budget that didn't - which is just patently untrue.

    Ignoring that hospitals will, of course, provide emergency care to anyone (not for free, mind), and focusing on the idea of major U.S. benefits programs providing help to undocumented immigrants... they just don't. They go to Americans and qualifying resident non-citizens, i.e. green-card holders, etc. who have been here 5+ years (Medicare) or have paid enough into the relevant taxes (Social Security). Medicaid is similar.

    This is stuff I was previously familiar with and was able to verify in minutes using basic internet resources.

    Republicans say or imply benefit money will go to undocumented immigrants unless this budget is passed, which is patently untrue and easy to check on. That Newsweek gives Republicans voice throughout the article to their claims, some false and some unfounded, but only gives one Democrat a quote - one that focuses on the shutdown itself more than the funding/benefit claims - is bullshit.

    I'm not saying it's wrong Newsweek didn't give equal "time" to each side. I'm saying it's wrong they spend so much of the article quoting misinformation from Republicans without any clear fact-checking.

    There's a quote, one with various forms and attributions, that posits to journalists:

    If one person claims it's raining and another says the sun is shining, the media's job isn't to quote both—it's to look out the window and report the truth.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • Our media is bought and paid for by wealthy interests who want all this.

    It's actually ironic that MAGA were right that a lot of mainstream media couldn't be trusted... Just for the wrong fucking reasons and instead of being skeptical and thoughtful they just started listening to random asshats on the internet.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 74 points 1 year ago (19 children)

    Hypothetically, let’s say the administration cancels social security. What happens to all of my money I’ve already paid into the system? I’m not at retirement age yet. Are they just going to steal my investment?

  • source
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 1 year ago

    What happens to all of my money I’ve already paid into the system? I’m not at retirement age yet. Are they just going to steal my investment?

    The Reupublicans stole that money a long time ago.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    It's not like it's sitting there waiting for you to use. Every dollar you pay into SS just goes into the pocket of someone drawing SS. It's a good system but not good if you plan to cut the program. Meaning millions will have paid in for nothing.

    It will also destroy old people, since most need it to survive.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    We didn't "pay for nothing," we contributed toward the well being of people in our communities that cannot work.

    Jesus Christ people, it's not always about you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    We did pay for nothing if the program gets cut. Sure we took care of old people, now what? I could have used that money for my own retirement. If the system is still in place then it wasn't for nothing and you'll be using the younger generations tax dollars for your retirement. So it's not all about me, but if I don't get the same benefit why pay in?

    That's the whole point of social security. Not social security for a certain generation tax

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    You paid for "social security". It's literally just right there in the name.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Yeah someone else's. If the program gets cut then who is paying my social security? Oh yeah. No one. So it's social security for a certain generation. I could have used that money for my own retirement, but if the programs cut it was social security for boomers and then alone lol.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago*

    It's not "someone else's," it's social security. It's for the entire society.

    Like you realize that the old lady down the road isn't literally getting the exact same money that you put in, right? They are just numbers on paper. You pay into a fund that is used to benefit all of society. And it does.

    Stop looking at it so selfishly and read about why FDR introduced it in the first place.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    It will also destroy old people, since most need it to survive.

    I wonder if this is partly why I see so much efforts whipping up one generation against the other. If you get zoomers all pissed off at some caricature of the boomers, they just might cheer at fucking over the old people (and their own future selves, too, but the anger will override the cognitive functions).

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)

    Every dollar you pay into SS just goes into the pocket of someone drawing SS.

    Gee, that sounds like a Ponzi scheme. Which I guess works fine as long as the population keeps growing and is forced to pay in.

    Edit: not sure why I’m getting downvoted. I wasn’t saying it IS a Ponzi scheme. Just that it sounds like one. We often talk about social security as something we pay into to then get back later, but that’s not what it is. And the government has been spending the social security money like other revenue for a few decades. It’s just another tax now, like any other. And because population growth is slowing, I probably won’t get to benefit from it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 34 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    That's the great misconception and lie of Social Security. People think it's like a government run 401k, that you're "investing' in some retirement account every paycheck. That's not at all how it actually functions though. Social Security is two entirely independent things. First it's a benefits program like SNAPP or Medicaid. In that regard Congress votes every year on how much budget they're going to allocate towards paying people Social Security. Literally everyone receiving Social Security cheques in the following year are reliant on Congress deciding to allocate enough money to make sure those cheques don't bounce. Secondly it's an income tax. The two are not connected in any way. The amount of Social Security income tax that the federal government collects each year has absolutely no bearing on the amount of funding that Congress allocates for Social Security in the coming year.

    Let that sink in.

    Social Security is the world's biggest Ponzi scheme. Always has been. That's a huge part of why a lot of Republicans, particularly older ones (like ones around retirement age) are hand wringing about falling birth rates. Social Security always counted on the idea that there would be more people working and paying into Social Security than the number of people currently collecting Social Security. In a country with a positive population growth that would always be true. It ceases to be true the moment you have a negative population growth rate though.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 81 points 1 year ago*

    Social Security is the world’s biggest Ponzi scheme. Always has been.

    No, it's a big insurance scheme, but its finances have been fucked with. The original intent was that the money went into a trust fund isolated from other government finances. It didn't take long for some scumbag to realize that the trust fund could be used as collateral for loans, or "lent" directly from the trust fund to other government activities.

    Also, even if it's funded year-to-year, if the cap on contributions were lifted, the system could be self-funding, or nearly so. But the Republicans (and some conservative Democrats) have been trying to kill it since FDR started it, and the specious argument is always that it's not affordable.

    The US in 1935 could afford it. The only difference now is a matter of priorities and who's in charge.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 64 points 1 year ago

    They cap it at 160k a year. So if you make 3m a year, you'll only pay on what is due on the 160k.

    Getting rid of that, along with taxing the rich, would fix that problem. If 8 people have more wealth than like 4 billion people, it's really not a "we need more people to keep this ponzi scheme" problem, it's more of a France in the 1790s problem.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 68 points 1 year ago (18 children)

    Social security has been withdrawn frim my paycheck for 40 years.... shit better be there for me when its my turn.

    Whats more dangerous than a starving, homeless man with nothing more to lose.

  • source
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 51 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    25 million staving homeless men with a purpose

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 36 points 1 year ago (6 children)
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    There are YouTube videos on how to build one of these.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    I'm pretty sure a few people could just figure one out from memory. Thats like early game minecraft type shit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (2 children)

    The trick is to put a weight on the blade. I watched multiple videos.

    The weight helps the blade stay on the track with out straying, which causes friction and less force.

    A straight blade is more likely to have issues coming down off track. But cuts best if weighted.

    The angled blade was not the best choice based on the videos I saw that tested a bunch of different blade designs.

    But weight. Add like 20lbs to the blade. Or make a hydraulics one. There is also a video where some one made one. But the simple one will do the job.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -11 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Who knows what the future holds, but anyway the people over the past 40 years receiving social security direct deposited into their bank accounts every month thank you for your obligatory contributions. They couldn't be living large without you 😜

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Many retirees ain't 'living large' as you seem to think. Many need to continue to work to afford groceries, pay rent, and buy medications. So many medications. And medicare doesn't cover everything you need when your old. You pay for the Part B medicare, a minimum of $150 per month and the cost goes up if you have more money. But you STILL nee to buy extra supplemental insurance to cover the things medicare doesn't cover. So several $100's more a month for insurance. And do this while on a fixed income........

    If you weren't living large before you retired, you ain't living large after you retire.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    This is a casual discussion forum, sorry you didn't see I was exaggerating. Any amount of money put into one's bank account with no effort is "living large" (slight exaggeration) in my opinion. Hey I'm struggling too. Life is not easy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    The idea behind social security is that the recipients already put in a career's worth of effort. They paid social security taxes for however many years, and now they are ENTITLED to the payments they receive in their retirement. It's their money.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I understand but when we had to wait 50 years to get back that money we put into the pot, it's retirement time and we are literally relaxing, not working anymore. The money appears in our bank accounts while we spend our last few years on vacation.

    I'm so sorry you feel like you need to explain the concept of social security to me.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    Yes, but the money you get isnt enough to live on when retired. You need huge savings and possibly keep on working into yoyr 70s and 80s

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 61 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    The president added of Democrats, "We will not be extorted on this crazy part of this. They've never done this before. Nobody has. You always vote for an extension."

    JFC. Republicans do this every single time Democrats have control of Congress. And, every single time...Democrats give them what they want, in order to get a deal made. Now that Democrats are finally following the Republicans example, they fuckin' lose their shit, and everything falls apart.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 45 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Why can't we have a no confidence vote and get rid of the party in charge?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 44 points 1 year ago

    Gone to funding ballrooms and Argentinian farms

  • source
  • [–] 38 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    "Surrender or it's your fault that I kill you!"... Fucking cartoon character

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 35 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    They are just emulating their favorite diety.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    A supporter of the poor and sick, an ancient middle east faith healer grifter and magician, and a real supply side thirst trap

    Jesus on the cross but he's ripped with goofy muscles and broke the t part of the cross, completely missing the point of the myths about him but who reads books these days I mean right

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -15 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Same message Democrats communicated when people demanded a viable non-genocidal candidate who doesn't thank Dick Chaney for his "service", surrender or is your fault.

    The illusion that Democrats are fighting on your behalf is just that. Two sides of one fascist coin, only one side is rustier.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago

    I don't disagree that Democrats are problematic and have much to improve. But that "both sides" is some tart kool-aid to drink, to think that things would be the same or even worse had Trump lost. I'd like less rust, please. Also, that definition of fascist is a very broad and loose one if Harris falls into it. Must be the one that Trump used, where it's combined with "communist", "socialist", and other words he has no understanding of.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Yeah dude Kamala Harris was genocidal. Right

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    The fuck? We're just straight up whitewashing her stance now?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 36 points 1 year ago

    Don't worry, the money will not be gone. It will go to the rich instead in order to trickle down...

  • source
  • [–] 35 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    You all better give a shit, because I fore sure don't, I can let endless number of people suffer and die without caring the least bit about it, can you?
    -Trump the Anti Christ

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 32 points 1 year ago (10 children)
  • [–] 30 points 1 year ago

    Bro, the US has been a 3rd world country masquerading as a 1st world country a lot longer than Trump. The US propaganda machine is top tier, fooling American citizens that theyre greatest enemy is each other, as well as promoting individualism at the cost of the individual.

    Richest nation on earth yet the majority are 1 health emergency away from bankruptcy, to people skipping doctor visits due to how expensive our Healthcare is while the rest of the world gets to enjoy free healthcare. Wake the fuck up, "entering" like thanks for the depressing ass chuckle this morning.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    There are almost 800,000 homeless in the US, you could have an entire city of just homeless people. US is already a 3rd world country. Has been for a long time now. ICE won’t even round them up cause even ICE doesn’t want to deal with them incarcerated.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (4 children)

    US has less homeless per capita than Sweden, Germany, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, France, the UK. And others. You understand the US has 340+ million people right?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    It’s also the richest country in the world with the biggest economy yet it has almost 1,000,000 homeless. Enough to populate a good sized city. That’s some cope.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Oh that's right, America bad, I almost forgot.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    The richest country on earth with the largest military, both by a large margin, should be able to have solved problems other countries haven't.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Then again those clowns voted in a failed gameshow host with incontinence and dementia TWICE to their country’s highest office. He demo’d their White House and commits crimes on a daily basis and yet - tens of millions love him. So yeah:

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Not to be that guy, but the first, second, third world naming scheme stems from racism and isn't based on any real statistics.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    It's actually from the Cold War.

    1st world = USA, NATO, and their allies. 2nd world = USSR, the Eastern Bloc and their allies (the 2nd world doesn't really exist anymore). 3rd world = anyone not in the 1st or 2nd categories.

    You are right though it's not about any real statistics. It's about political alignment.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 30 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    That's not a warning, it's a threat.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 58 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Anyone else remembers the Cheeto proclaiming that in just two weeks he'd have a healthcare bill that would be better than Medicare?

    Pepperidge farm remembers

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] -14 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    I cannot wait for the "pepperidge farm" stupid fucking Family Guy meme to just die off.

    You don't need to constantly parrot 20 year old memes. No one is reading that and going "haha, oh man so funny, like from the Family Guy show?? Lmao"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 56 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    To be clear, the day SS is gone is the day I'm willing to pick up a gun and get this party started.

    And I know I'm not alone.

    This society doesn't need to continue functioning the day SS stops functioning. So the treasonous Republican party can go ahead and do that and find out what happens next.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago

    The sad thing is, most of us (Americans on Lemmy/Piefed) are probably not going to see why we need social security.

    It's basically a government ran pension plan if you can't work. Most of us can work and are. So we don't see why we invented it during the great depression to aid in a social safety net when shit goes south.

    And Trump is most likely going to continue plummeting shit into an economy as bad as the Great Depression. Some already had the question of "Do I eat today or do I save up to pay for rent this month?" And Trump isn't the person to solve it, only make it worse.

    Most of us probably don't claim the funds from it, and go "Oh this is just for the elderly, not for me. I'm 20 to 30 something and able bodied, this is for when I'm 60 something and walking with a cane."

    When Trump guts it and if we have any resemblance of the federal government when we need Social Security, this will probably have lasting effects when we need to claim our benefits.

    And the even sadder part, all of his voting base will just nod along. "The gubberment took money from muh paycheck, says so here in muh paystub, fucking woke commie Democrats. Da woke took muh $100 a month, I had to spend that on Trump hats!"

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 24 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    My president! exactly what I voted for!. Now my taxes are going to be lower, right? /s

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Instructions unclear: we raised taxes to buy more private jets for the administration

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 22 points 1 year ago* (4 children)
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I honestly don't think he had much to pay tax on until his second presidency. He is probably making more in bribes from this tax policy than he is saving in taxes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    I think that has less to do with the amount of taxes (he basically openly admitted to avoiding taxes in 2016) and more to do with the simple fact that your average everyday real estate accountant could probably compare his tax filings with other submissions he has had to make over the years and find clear evidence of fraud and crimes committed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    That basically happened already, which is why he has 34 felonies for lying on the value of his assets depending on if he's trying to get a loan for his failing businesses, or show a huge loss to avoid paying taxes.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 22 points 1 year ago

    Does that mean I can stop paying taxes on it too?

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›