6 ms·

Hard to discuss this without getting political and violating all sorts of decorum but, I guess, the system worked here? The original White House tweet: > “S

Hard to discuss this without getting political and violating all sorts of decorum but, I guess, the system worked here? The original White House tweet: > “Seniors are getting the biggest increase in their Social Security checks in 10 years through President Biden’s leadership The reality: Inflation triggered an automatic increase in social security benefits because of a 1972 law that indexes social security checks to cost of living. I guess it's odd claiming you did good thing X, when in reality it was bad thing Y that automatically caused good thing X. But even that's not right, because in inflation-adjusted terms, good thing X actually wasn't good at all, it was just neutral.

snarf21 4y ago
I agree this is weird. I guess it is meant to highlight the other party wants to get rid of social security. It is strange though to take credit for not doing something that someone else says they will do in the future.
- nullc 4y ago
  > is meant to highlight the other party wants to get rid of social security I didn't know if eliminating social security was actually a part of the republican platform, though it seemed very unlikely. I googled and found: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/09/27/false-claim-that-senate-republicans-plan-end-social-security-medicare/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/09/27/false-cla...
  - RunningDroid 4y ago
    Counterpoint from a quick DDG search: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/yes-some-republican-senators-are-talking-openly-about-social-security-cuts-11667576391 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/yes-some-republican-senato... Tl;Dr: cuts, not elimination
    - partiallypro 4y ago
      "Some Republicans" doesn't mean it's the party platform. Some Democrats have advocated nationalization of some social media platforms, that doesn't make it the party platform.
      - BitwiseFool 4y ago
        Indeed, and partisan politicians in safe seats also like to float ideas they know don't have a realistic chance of advancing in order to appeal to their ideological base. Every now and then Ted Cruz tweets about "Abolishing the IRS", a prospect I don't think any GOP policymakers are actually willing to fight for. They'll pay lip service to it, however.
      - alistairSH 4y ago
        The GOP has been against Social Security from the start. Their stated goal has changed variously from privatization, or voluntary enrollment, to simply slashing benefits. Goldwater, Reagan, Bush all wanted to vastly reduce SS or privatize it completely. More recently, the GOP congress at the end of Obama's term pushed him hard to compromise on cuts. In 2016, Trump was unique among GOP presidential candidates in not calling for cuts. In April of this year, Rick Scott (chair of GOP campaign apparatus) called for adding a "kill switch" on SS, Medicare, and MedicAid. Current minority leader (McCarthy) wants to couple the debt ceiling and social programs. The only reason the GOP hasn't killed SS yet is because it's a popular program.
        parineum 4y ago
        > The only reason the GOP hasn't killed SS yet is because it's a popular program. That's the only reason politicians do anything.
        alistairSH 4y ago
        Fair. SS is popular nationally across many socio-economic groupings. It’s almost impossible to touch (unlike something like abortion rights, which are widely supported, yet here we are looking at more bans, effectively the opposite of what the majority wants).
- robomartin 4y ago
  > the other party wants to get rid of social security You should not repeat fake news. This isn't true. Promulgating made-up narratives does not help anyone.
- prepend 4y ago
  What party wants to get rid of social security? I’m not aware of any party with this in its platform or any major candidates running with this position.
  - SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
    I’ve seen this so much with no evidence, that it now reads like a manufactured talking point. I’m looking forward to seeing if there are changes in discourse over the next year. Because if Twitter really does go neutral it’ll be a lot harder to push a narrative on Reddit when it’s countered on Twitter. And etc. Lab leak for example. It was easily to silence that as conspiracy theory when all the players just happen to agree and shut down dissent.
exabrial 4y ago
I mean if we're being fully pedantic, _technically_ it's correct. Biden lead a huge surge in spending, which caused inflation, which caused Social Security checks to increase........ /s because the interenet
peteradio 4y ago
"Through Biden's leadership" Biden had been in the Senate for like 150 years so who knows maybe he did have some impact there.
- kingTug 4y ago
  Ironically Biden's pre-whitehouse career involved a lot of wanting to make cuts to social security.
  - SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
    He caucused with the last remaining (literal) segregationists and got more votes than Obmama… So, nothing makes any sense to me.
ahallock 4y ago
People were saying this exact thing under the tweet. So that's probably why it was deleted.

snarf21 4y ago

I agree this is weird. I guess it is meant to highlight the other party wants to get rid of social security. It is strange though to take credit for not doing something that someone else says they will do in the future.

nullc 4y ago
> is meant to highlight the other party wants to get rid of social security I didn't know if eliminating social security was actually a part of the republican platform, though it seemed very unlikely. I googled and found: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/09/27/false-claim-that-senate-republicans-plan-end-social-security-medicare/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/09/27/false-cla...
- RunningDroid 4y ago
  Counterpoint from a quick DDG search: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/yes-some-republican-senators-are-talking-openly-about-social-security-cuts-11667576391 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/yes-some-republican-senato... Tl;Dr: cuts, not elimination
  - partiallypro 4y ago
    "Some Republicans" doesn't mean it's the party platform. Some Democrats have advocated nationalization of some social media platforms, that doesn't make it the party platform.
    - BitwiseFool 4y ago
      Indeed, and partisan politicians in safe seats also like to float ideas they know don't have a realistic chance of advancing in order to appeal to their ideological base. Every now and then Ted Cruz tweets about "Abolishing the IRS", a prospect I don't think any GOP policymakers are actually willing to fight for. They'll pay lip service to it, however.
    - alistairSH 4y ago
      The GOP has been against Social Security from the start. Their stated goal has changed variously from privatization, or voluntary enrollment, to simply slashing benefits. Goldwater, Reagan, Bush all wanted to vastly reduce SS or privatize it completely. More recently, the GOP congress at the end of Obama's term pushed him hard to compromise on cuts. In 2016, Trump was unique among GOP presidential candidates in not calling for cuts. In April of this year, Rick Scott (chair of GOP campaign apparatus) called for adding a "kill switch" on SS, Medicare, and MedicAid. Current minority leader (McCarthy) wants to couple the debt ceiling and social programs. The only reason the GOP hasn't killed SS yet is because it's a popular program.
      - parineum 4y ago
        > The only reason the GOP hasn't killed SS yet is because it's a popular program. That's the only reason politicians do anything.
        alistairSH 4y ago
        Fair. SS is popular nationally across many socio-economic groupings. It’s almost impossible to touch (unlike something like abortion rights, which are widely supported, yet here we are looking at more bans, effectively the opposite of what the majority wants).
robomartin 4y ago
> the other party wants to get rid of social security You should not repeat fake news. This isn't true. Promulgating made-up narratives does not help anyone.
prepend 4y ago
What party wants to get rid of social security? I’m not aware of any party with this in its platform or any major candidates running with this position.
- SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
  I’ve seen this so much with no evidence, that it now reads like a manufactured talking point. I’m looking forward to seeing if there are changes in discourse over the next year. Because if Twitter really does go neutral it’ll be a lot harder to push a narrative on Reddit when it’s countered on Twitter. And etc. Lab leak for example. It was easily to silence that as conspiracy theory when all the players just happen to agree and shut down dissent.

exabrial 4y ago

I mean if we're being fully pedantic, _technically_ it's correct. Biden lead a huge surge in spending, which caused inflation, which caused Social Security checks to increase........ /s because the interenet

peteradio 4y ago

"Through Biden's leadership" Biden had been in the Senate for like 150 years so who knows maybe he did have some impact there.

kingTug 4y ago
Ironically Biden's pre-whitehouse career involved a lot of wanting to make cuts to social security.
- SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
  He caucused with the last remaining (literal) segregationists and got more votes than Obmama… So, nothing makes any sense to me.

ahallock 4y ago

People were saying this exact thing under the tweet. So that's probably why it was deleted.