this post was submitted on 13 Nov 2024
409 points (98.1% liked)

politics

19120 readers
2593 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] AdamEatsAss@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I agree, I don't think Trump's economic plans will be for people's benefits. If he actually cuts the programs he has said he would it should reduce federal spending and then federal income tax. But I am of the opinion that the amount I would get back in tax savings does not outweigh the benefit of making sure myself and other citizens have access to these programs. But maybe I'm wrong.

[–] oozynozh@lemm.ee 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I believe you can trust your intuition on this one. Assuming he is successful in doing what he promises (which, with Trump, you can never trust anything he says but always have to assume the worst), erasing a century's worth of progress in the administrative state will have disastrous consequences for the most vulnerable members of society who rely on entitlement programs to make ends meet during these late stages of neoliberalism (as one example, but there are others, like the FDA and EPA). but all these cuts will take a few points off the bottom line for the ultra rich, so let the apologists and propagandists sing about how great it will be when that all trickles down (it never does).

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

I'm thinking donvict will have the long-term effect of reversing the decades-long downward trend of crime.

Why?

  1. We have the opportunity to remove more lead from our pipes, thus less lead getting into our bloodstreams. Less lead == less crime. Donvict will likely reverse that.
  2. Restricting/eliminating access to abortion - well, the future of that practically writes itself.
  3. Cutting social spending - what is going to be the natural outcome of that?

It's almost like the qons don't really care about America at all. Seemingly, it's designed for rich broligarchs to stay ensconced in their compounds and gated communities, make more money and throw everyone else to the wolves. They clearly don't give a rat's ass about the people that live in this country that are not billionaires.