this post was submitted on 09 Nov 2026
49 points (100.0% liked)

politics

31805 readers
3488 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 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.
  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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 hour ago (4 children)

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

[–] Juniper@piefed.zip 2 points 14 minutes 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 0 points 10 minutes ago

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.

[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 4 points 29 minutes ago (1 children)

You realize a substantial portion are poor?

[–] schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works 0 points 26 minutes ago (1 children)

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

[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 4 points 23 minutes 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 1 points 2 minutes ago

Crab bucket crab bucket 🦀🦀🦀

[–] inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world 3 points 4 minutes ago* (last edited 3 minutes ago)

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.