this post was submitted on 22 May 2025
724 points (99.2% liked)

politics

23600 readers
2984 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. 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 another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. 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.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple 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.

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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] breecher@sh.itjust.works 20 points 1 day ago

Considering the entire history of the US is one big upwards transfer of wealth, that is really saying something.

[–] Sunschein@lemmy.world 196 points 1 day ago (5 children)

And it's behind a paywall. Chef's kiss.

[–] takeda@lemm.ee 113 points 1 day ago (11 children)

The Largest Upward Transfer of Wealth in American History

House Republicans voted to advance a bill that would offer lavish tax cuts for the rich while slashing benefits for the poor. By Jonathan Chait House Speaker Mike Johnson Kevin Dietsch / Getty May 22, 2025, 9:21 AM ET

House Republicans worked through the night to advance a massive piece of legislation that might, if enacted, carry out the largest upward transfer of wealth in American history.

That is not a side effect of the legislation, but its central purpose. The “big, beautiful bill” would pair huge cuts to food assistance and health insurance for low-income Americans with even larger tax cuts for affluent ones.

Hakeem Jeffries, the House minority leader, warned that the bill’s passage, by a 215–214 margin, would mark the moment the Republicans ensured the loss of their majority in the midterm elections. That may be so. But the Republicans have not pursued this bill for political reasons. They are employing a majority that they suspect is temporary to enact deep changes to the social compact.

The minority party always complains that the majority is “jamming through” major legislation, however deliberate the process may be. (During the year-long debate over the Affordable Care Act, Republicans farcically bemoaned the “rushed” process that consumed months of public hearings.) In this case, however, the indictment is undeniable. The House cemented the bill’s majority support with a series of last-minute changes whose effects have not been digested. The Congressional Budget Office has not even had time to calculate how many millions of Americans would lose health insurance, nor by how many trillions of dollars the deficit would increase.

The heedlessness of the process is an indication of its underlying fanaticism. The members of the Republican majority are behaving not like traditional conservatives but like revolutionaries who, having seized power, believe they must smash up the old order as quickly as possible before the country recognizes what is happening.

House Republicans are fully aware of the political and economic risks of this endeavor. Cutting taxes for the affluent is unpopular, and cutting Medicaid is even more so. That is why, instead of proudly proclaiming what the bill will accomplish, they are pretending it will do neither. House Republicans spent months warning of the political dangers of cutting Medicaid, a program that many of their own constituents rely on. The party’s response is to fall back on wordplay, pretending that their scheme of imposing complex work requirements, which are designed to cull eligible recipients who cannot navigate the paperwork burden, will not throw people off the program—when that is precisely the effect they are counting on to produce the necessary savings.

The less predictable dangers of their plan are macroeconomic. The bill spikes the deficit, largely because it devotes more money to lining the pockets of lawyers and CEOs than it saves by immiserating fast-food employees and ride-share drivers. Massive deficit spending is not always bad, and in some circumstances (emergencies, or recessions) it can be smart and responsible. In the middle of an economic expansion, with a large structural deficit already built into the budget, it is deeply irresponsible.

In recent years, deficit spending has been a political free ride. With interest rates high and rising, the situation has changed. Higher deficits oblige Washington to borrow more money, which can force it to pay investors higher interest rates to take on its debt, which in turn increases the deficit even more, as interest payments (now approaching $1 trillion a year) swell. The market could absorb a new equilibrium with a higher deficit, but that resolution is hardly assured. The compounding effect of higher debt leading to higher interest rates leading to higher debt can spin out of control.

House Republicans have made clear they are aware of both the political and the economic dangers of their plan, because in the recent past, they have repeatedly warned about both. Their willingness to take them on is a measure of their profound commitment.

And while the content of their beliefs can be questioned, the seriousness of their purpose cannot. Congressional Republicans are willing to endanger their hold on power to enact policy changes they believe in. And what they believe—what has been the party’s core moral foundation for decades—is that the government takes too much from the rich, and gives too much to the poor.

load more comments (11 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] conditional_soup@lemm.ee 58 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

I really want this to be it. I want a big enough mass of freak conservative boomers to die off of old age and for the republicans to finally push everyone else hard enough that this country finally fucking snaps and swings left so hard that Reagan's grave belches black smoke for a month. I hope we swing left so hard that all the Fox News assholes run bawling off to Russia, all the neoliberal dickheads move to their neoliberal paradise of [some offshore oil rig], and we end up fixing all kinds of shit that's been broken for basically my entire life.

I know it won't; we'll just get a bunch of working class republicans standing around the wreckage and mumbling "can you imagine how much worse it would have been under Biden?" to each other.

[–] captainWhatsHisName@lemm.ee 4 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Apparently young people aren’t going to save us. Young men are farther right than the previous generation. Boomers aren’t listening to Joe Rogan.

[–] conditional_soup@lemm.ee 6 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago)

Idk, it's easy to get depressed about it, but I think that there's another interpretation. It shows that Gen Z recognizes how fucked everything is, and recognize the urgent need for drastic change, which is what Donald promises, even if he's a colossal piece of shit and the changes he promises are pure grift. Yeah, they've been taken in by the right, but only because the right has seized on the populist moment while the institutional left is still fretting about decorum, rank, seniority, process, and literally anything else before results. If the left gets out there and starts swinging for the fences, I think we can turn things around. So, of course, the democrats are preparing to rise to the occasion by offering Gavin Newsom and his plan to build the biggest bulldozers on earth for bulldozing the homeless.

I think this is part of why Bernie was yelling at people to run for office. We need more options, more people who are willing to turn their back on the establishment, on the left.

[–] leadore@lemmy.world 28 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (4 children)

I want a big enough mass of freak conservative boomers to die off of old age and for the republicans to finally push everyone else hard enough that this country finally fucking snaps and swings left so hard that Reagan’s grave belches black smoke for a month.

Look at Mike Johnson's face--he's not dying for a long long time. Get over the idea that evil people are all old and you just need to wait for them to die, it's not going to happen. New evil ones are born every day, they exist in every generation, they've been with us forever and will be with us forever.

[–] CitizenKong@lemmy.world 12 points 1 day ago

J.D. Vance is only 40.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Gen X voted for Trump in greater numbers than the Boomers, who on average voted for Trump less than Gen Z males.

[–] conditional_soup@lemm.ee 4 points 23 hours ago

Brb, putting anime speed lines around Ben Affleck smoking

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] blakenong@lemmings.world 63 points 1 day ago (33 children)

And yet we get banned for talking about the solution.

load more comments (33 replies)
[–] Archangel1313@lemm.ee 14 points 1 day ago (2 children)

That's what they said about his last tax bill.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 1 day ago

And it was true then too

[–] HK65@sopuli.xyz 11 points 1 day ago

The largest upward transfer of wealth so far...

[–] Sanctus@lemmy.world 112 points 1 day ago (5 children)

Our country is being robbed, our futures stolen

[–] malin@thelemmy.club 2 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

That's okay.

We'll take the futures from their offspring.

This will not go unpunished.

[–] Sanctus@lemmy.world 1 points 17 hours ago

These faceless devils have finally sent the scale crashing down on us. That overstep is going to need a correction. Destroy corporate property every where you go. Burn it all down until the flames reach the heights of Musk and Buffet. A civilized future requires us to band against the oligarchs now.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›