this post was submitted on 09 Nov 2026

129 points (100.0% liked)

politics

31806 readers

3315 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

outrageousmatter@lemmy.world

aidan@lemmy.world

jordanlund@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

Theonetheycall1845@lemmy.world

JuBe@lemmy.world

Lasherz12@lemmy.world

129

Bernie Sanders: Increasing Social Security Payments by $2400 Next Year a Top Priority (www.commondreams.org)

submitted 4 hours ago by inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

33 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said Saturday that one of his top priorities, once he takes control of the chamber’s Social Security Subcommittee in January, will be to lift the cap on taxable income that funds the program and increase benefit payments by at least $2400 per year.

top 33 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] foggy@lemmy.world 5 points 1 hour ago

If your assets total more than $10M, you need to contribute 1% of that to social security annually.

More than solves our problems. And if you really wanted 2 yachts and this gets in the way of that, news flash, you're too poor for a second yacht. Complain less and go be that rock star capitalist we all know you are and snow us that this doesn't change your lifestyle.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 33 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Top priority should be removing the cap on deductions so it's funded.

Then once the wealthy are paying into it, increase payments.

[–] YourBestFriend@quokk.au 12 points 4 hours ago (2 children)

We could probably spend less money on the baby killing machine that makes psychopath soldiers.

[–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 11 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

What!? And let our military shrink to only 600% the size of the next largest military ?

[–] YourBestFriend@quokk.au 3 points 3 hours ago

It’s funny how some people, (not you frisbird) who claim to be lefties and say they hate Trump, go ape shit the moment you touch the military budget.

Fucking posers.

“I needed education in my shitty country so I killed people but that makes me okay because my country is shitty! I’m innocent”

Why is there no guillotine emoji?

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago (2 children)

We can obviously spend less on the military, but that's not how OASDI is funded...

You also don't know anything about the military apparently

[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 3 points 3 hours ago

They can free up that money and allocate it elsewhere.

ETA Pentagon never passed an audit.

[–] YourBestFriend@quokk.au -2 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

The military industrial complex is not complex if you have half a brain.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 2 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (1 children)

I really need to start checking account ages...

https://lemmy.world/post/54084389/26765695

You're running around saying:

No I think Dems need to kill a few people. They won’t of course and this comment will be moderated to keep Americans from rising up! ;)

And calling other people psychopaths

[–] YourBestFriend@quokk.au -4 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

I always check account ages. Anything your age is suspiciously part of the problem.

Enjoy the country you definitely fought to make like this.

🚫

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

Enjoy the country you definitely fought to make like this.

So now I fought against the American military?

[–] schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works 9 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (6 children)

Yes, let's make seniors, the most coddled generation in history, our first priority.

Edit: I'm not saying we shouldn't do this. I'm saying it's obvious that boomer seniors, as a generation, are the most privileged people in this country's history, both because of economic environment and by government benefits across their life span.

Don't shoot the messenger.

[–] Aqivex@fedinsfw.app 1 points 40 minutes ago

Have you ever heard of selfish altruism?

There are so so so many of these seniors. They made so many of 'em back in the day, the birth chart boomed with goddamn babies!

It is in the best interest of everyone in society south of 55 years old, that the 65+ year olds are taken care of by the State's (if we must have a State, I guess...) social nets, and that they are robust.

Not just because time comes for us all, but because the rest of the system's bullshit would prevent communities from caring for their own seniors without the younger members going destitute and burnt out on their now third job.

[–] inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world 13 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (1 children)

That's certainly a take I suppose.

But yeah, let's not shore up Social Security for all Americans including future generations to be able to not go homeless after they suffer a disability or worked until their bodies are broken and just keep the future generations working until they die at work.

Sounds like a great plan there, let's be short sighted to be a petty bitch.

[–] Juniper@piefed.zip 8 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Young people receive social security benefits too, like SSDI and survivor payments. I've been on SSDI myself since before I was 30 years old.

[–] schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works -4 points 2 hours ago (2 children)

I've been on, too. But why are people with plenty of assistance already the first priority? Just seems weird and indicative of leadership ignoring younger generation's problems and prioritizing boomers, but I'm not against it, of course.

[–] Juniper@piefed.zip 7 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Honestly $200 extra a month might help ease the burden on our loved ones, that's only two weeks of groceries for a lot of households right now. Just a personal example, the entirety of my grandmother's benefits goes to her housing (high cola). My uncle pays her medical bills, and he's the only one who has any money to spare. My sibling buys her groceries. I buy her clothing and other necessities as I can, but I'm essentially in the same financial situation she is. The rest of her family is dead, and in 3-5 years she may only have my sibling left to help her.

So, yes, Bernie might be slapping a bandaid on this elderly poverty problem with a possibly easy win, but it's a starting point for further taxing the billionaires. And if we're lucky the momentum from that will also fix education, medical access, housing, and the rest of what we know we need as a healthy society

[–] schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works -4 points 2 hours ago

It's not really taxing billionaires since SS taxes income on labor, but I agree, it's necessary to do, along with a long list of other things that need more involved legislative scaffolding.

[–] daychilde@lemmy.world 3 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

plenty of assistance

Well, you clearly don't know what social security pays. Please do a little googling and educate yourself.

[–] schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works -3 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

All the other forms of assistance seniors qualify for, including low-cost transportation, low-cost housing options, food delivery, tax relief, not to mention medicare, etc.

20-somethings struggling to find work have much fewer supports.

Please educate yourself.

[–] daychilde@lemmy.world 3 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Willful ignorance is such a sad thing to see. Good-bye.

[–] schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

https://aging.ca.gov/Programs_and_Services/

People are so fucking stupid when they get tribal.

[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 10 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

You realize a substantial portion are poor?

[–] schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works -5 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

I'll be one of them in not too long. Right now I'm just poor.

[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 8 points 3 hours ago

Then you should know better. Keep the ~~TAC~~ tax on social security income, for payments over a certain amount.

Crappy Auto-Incorrect

[–] Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 2 hours ago

Crab bucket crab bucket 🦀🦀🦀

[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 3 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

We could do this and all the other things at the same time. If this is one thing on a laundry list of fixes, would you object to it just because you aren't getting social security yet? Singling out an aid for people to not get because of who they are and/or because you won't get that benefit is what we complain about with MAGA.

I put this next to the quote from veterans who say "I don't agree with what you say, but I fought for your rights to say it." I'm right with you on blaming Boomers for where we are and why, but I'll still support making sure old people don't have to decide between rent, meds, or food. Even if some of them are hypocrites who made the world this way after being handed everything.

[–] schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works -1 points 2 hours ago

I'm onboard, too, just wondering what it means that it's the first priority. I hope it's just that it's the easiest way to help the most people in the least time.