this post was submitted on 26 Oct 2023
720 points (97.9% liked)

politics

19145 readers
3226 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
 

In his remarks, not only does Johnson claim Roe “gave constitutional cover to the elective killing of unborn children,” but he rails against the imagined economic detriments of abortion, pushing his caucus’ outlandish claim that by depleting a hypothetical workforce, abortion has defunded social security: “Think about the implications of that on the economy. We’re all struggling here to cover the bases of social security and Medicare and Medicaid and all the rest,” Johnson says. “If we had all those able-bodied workers in the economy we wouldn’t be going upside down and toppling over like this... Roe was a terrible corruption.” Mind you, social security and health care have been gutted in the last several years by Republican lawmakers, not people who choose to end a pregnancy.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] BeautifulMind 24 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Oh, he's concerned about funding social security?

Bullshit. He doesn't give a fuck about that.

The reason Social Security faces solvency problems is that wages (on the low end, at least) have been kept flat for close to 30 years. Wages are the basis for Social Security funding!
Its solvency challenges aren't because the Boomers are retiring, the actuaries were able to see that coming when the Boomers were kids. The thing they didn't see coming was that suppressing wages would become a bipartisan affair.

When Johnson says he's going to fund social security, he's not going to fund social security- he's going to dangle that as bait to get stupid people to support a national ban on abortion in hopes it will soften the backlash against the GOP for its unpopular anti-abortion politics.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This, Pro-Life doesn't mean what it used to back in the 90's

Used to it meant you just wanted some common sense restrictions, now it means you think women should be state mandated broodmares.

At least that's as far as the general public is concerned, the GOP needs to find a new angle if they want to keep this ban a rolling.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What kind of common sense restrictions are you talking about?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

Same that most of Europe has, can't do it in later semesters unless there is something clearly wrong with the baby, or said baby is product of rape or incest.

I'm not a monster I just think we need to be sure that we are doing the right thing when we terminate a human life. Kind of like how you don't euthanize a patient who is expected to get better even if they are in pain.

[–] aidan 1 points 1 year ago

I mean, social security does have a much lower payer to user ratio now