this post was submitted on 12 Mar 2025
535 points (99.3% liked)

politics

31245 readers
2155 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
 

Summary

The White House scrambled to clarify comments from Elon Musk suggesting cuts to Social Security and Medicare, insisting no such plans exist.

Musk, speaking on Fox Business, criticized entitlement spending, sparking viral backlash. Trump’s administration defended Musk and attacked journalist Jake Sherman for misrepresenting his remarks.

Officials cited reports on fraud and waste but claimed benefits would remain intact. Elon Musk has repeatedly criticized Social Security, labeling it a “Ponzi scheme.”

Critics fear Trump could use fraud reduction efforts as a pretext for cuts despite his assurances otherwise.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] quicklime@lemm.ee 36 points 2 years ago (5 children)

Dammit, Daily Beast, these are not "entitlements". They are programs Americans were forced to pay into with the guarantee that they would receive proportional benefits.

[–] vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works 13 points 2 years ago

Pretty sure that is the literal definition of a government entitlement, I know the profligates have smeared the term for the last 40 years and all but this is one of their stupider ones.

[–] barkbarkbark@lemm.ee 11 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Doesn't that just mean that we're entitled to, or owed a return, on that money?

Is it just an issue with connotation of that word? Or is it actually not an entitlement?

[–] Pacattack57@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago

Exactly. If they cut Social Security, I’m signing a class action lawsuit against the federal government for every penny I’ve put in.

[–] buddascrayon@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Entitlement is literally the term for social security and Medicare because those who've paid into them their whole lives are 100% entitled to receive payments from those programs.

[–] Blum0108@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Gotta keep the right wing framing!

[–] quicklime@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

yeah and ugh. but tbh we see this wording even from outlets surprisingly far to the left. (of a depressingly right-shifted so-called center, but anyway.)

[–] Lyrl@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Using the original meaning of a word and not chasing off on the euphemism treadmill is hardly shifting to the right.

[–] Drusas@fedia.io 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The simple fact of the matter is that the word has become loaded and is now seen as a negative thing.

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

Yeah, much like the term "liberal". Decades of trashing the term and now people often look like they are admitting to some kind of crime when they say they are liberal.