Summary
Former Social Security Commissioner Martin O’Malley warns that staffing and funding cuts under Elon Musk could cause Social Security payments to halt within 30 to 90 days.
The SSA is reducing its workforce and closing offices, prompting concerns from Democrats, who accuse the Trump administration of trying to dismantle the program.
O’Malley predicts a major political backlash if payments are interrupted.
Meanwhile, leadership changes at SSA have added further instability, with no confirmed commissioner in place.
Why would retired old people suddenly riot? They will call their social security rep and wait for hours on hold while they watch Jeopardy and cable news that tells them rioting is bad and only criminals do that.
Anything over 65 is “elderly”, but there are absolutely a lot of people that age able and willing to cause trouble.
Between Social Security Insurance and Supplemental Income, there’s about 70 million recipients (holy wow - just shy of 20% of the U.S. population). Most of them are elderly, sure - but not all, and not all of those elderly will be infirm.
The way I see it is if these checks don’t come in April, we’ll start to see protests as the winter weather fades into spring.
I think a lot of folks feel disempowered by the system. Voting doesn’t work. And even when voting does work, the political parties seem to have their own agenda that is divorced from their purported constituents, their promises, and even reality. (Purported, because we know that voters are just the vehicle, but money is the fuel under our current system. The constituents they claim to have are not the constituents they serve.) Beyond that, they’re slapping felony convictions onto college kids who protested a genocide. Even if you want to soften the language, they were protesting violence in a nonviolent way, and they are going to have their entire lives impacted by criminal charges for expressing their ‘right’ to freedom of speech. Add in that a lot of folks are trapped in media bubbles and don’t even realize there are problems, or if they realize there are problems, they don’t really recognize their severity. And as we’ve repeatedly seen, Trump does not see justice, and there are no advocates for democracy or the rule of law. The only person that a lot of people felt was ‘on their side’ was Luigi Mangione, and failing attempts to paint him as a terrorist, the media has done their best to quash coverage of him to erase him from the national consciousness. The deck is clearly stacked in every which way.
So I mean, the consequences are dire, the impact of Trump’s actions are not yet being felt broadly or acutely enough yet, and it’s frankly kind of shitty outside, so no one wants to go stand in freezing temps, cold rain, or ceaseless winds for no gain, and incredible peril. I hate to serve up excuses, but I think the situation will have to get much worse before people are driven to action.
Oh, we are definitely getting protests. But, will we see riots? Will we see people taking control of their workplaces? Will people start growing their own food and shopping at farmer’s markets instead of grocery chains? The only people who have the ability to dismantle the vestiges of power that control them are the people themselves.
I don’t know specifically about elderly people, but I have heard it said that historically, people who cannot afford to eat have a higher chance of overthrowing their government.
And so it is often in a government’s interest to have some sort of social programs that provide food security.
Historically, there have been riots during the Great Depression where people raided grocery stores. But, hey, homeless people and poor single parents have been doing this for years and are called criminals for doing so.
These people will need to be okay with being considered criminals if they truly wish to riot and change things, but they’ve spent decades voting to put people who do those things in jail.
I think the moral dilemma of knowingly committing crimes is easier when your only source of income is cut.
“When you decide to be something, you can be it. That’s what they don’t tell you in the church. When I was your age they would say we can become cops, or criminals. Today, what I’m saying to you is this: when you’re facing a loaded gun, what’s the difference?”
A lot… Trying to act like none of your life choices matter due to government BS is a sad look at life. Many of the choices you make matter, what you do matters, it can all make a difference.
It’s a quote from The Departed and that’s exactly what the character is saying. The Church and State present the masses with binary choices that they ultimately control. They don’t want us to know about a third choice because then we start wondering about an infinite amount of possible choices which makes the masses harder to control.
In this case, we are taught that you are either a good guy who follows the law or you are a bad guy who breaks the law; abolitionists and runaway slaves were considered criminals but slave catchers were considered “Good Guys”. Today, the lobbyists and lawmakers are trying to make it illegal to criticize the government, protest, etc. to the point where the binary view of justice starts to cave in on itself.
Damn, don’t hate me but I’ve never seen it, so the quote went over my head, my bad. That’s a damn good view on things though. I gotta make time for that one.
The imagery is compelling.
Elderly people slowly starving while watching game shows and calling an anonymous entity in the hope of salvation. Reminds me of a certain movie, though that one wasn’t even about politics, just addiction. One could argue that many people are addicted to outrage, misinformation, fear and hate today - maybe it’s not such a difference in the end.
Okay - but fuck that movie for showing the hospital calling the cops on the addicts at the end.
Massive fucking ethical violation, and it’s not called out for being that. You could watch that movie and come to the impression that it’s not safe to reach out for medical help if you’re an addict.
Because many of their children and grandchildren would pick up the slack.
People are already struggling just to get by. Imagine suddenly having to house, feed, and/or care for an elderly person on top of that.
I think it will be interesting. Seniors who voted for this asking to be taken care of by people who may not have voted for this but have to help you survive your bad decision. My dad has never been much of a, well, father. We chat, but not much. I certainly would not turn my life upside down to support him.
Who am I to stand in the way of them getting what they wanted?
More than one i would bet in a lot of cases. If it 100% dries up between me and my partner we may have to help up to 6 or more people between parents, grandparents, and aunts/uncles.
I mean, I guess if the only people who ever rioted were those personally affected you’d be right. Not really able to see it that way, myself.
Sorry, but you should. Historically, the only people who have ever rioted were people who were directly affected by said issues. If they can successfully be convinced that Daddy Government is going to fix everything while demonizing the actual protestors on the streets, you get decades of stagnation.
I’d love for you show me any counter examples in history.
Really? The only people? Throughout history. Bold claim…
I don’t get why people make these grand statements then push off any burden of proof to those that might disagree, it’s dishonest. But just so everyone else doesn’t fall for this misinformation, here are some:
Many white abolitionists participated in violent riots against slavery, even though they themselves were not enslaved.
Example: The Cincinnati Riots of 1836 involved white and Black abolitionists clashing with pro-slavery mobs.
Many white South Africans and international activists participated in riots and violent protests against apartheid, even though they were not personally subjected to the system’s oppression.
Many young people who were not drafted or eligible for military service still participated in violent protests and riots against the war.
Example: The Days of Rage (1969) in Chicago, led by the Weather Underground, saw middle-class activists riot against U.S. militarism.
Some white activists participated in violent actions alongside Black activists fighting for civil rights, despite not being personally discriminated against.
Example: The Cambridge Riots (1967) saw white activists and Black residents clashing with authorities over segregation and economic inequality.
Many white and non-Black protesters participated in riots and violent clashes with police over racial injustice, even though they were not directly affected by systemic racism.
I can keep going if for some was reason that isn’t enough for you to understand that your statement is wrong. Either way, please stop spreading misinformation.
Hey, you’re not entirely wrong. But, you’re also conflating protests with riots. I never said people do not protest for things that do not affect them— just that they don’t intend to riot unless something directly affects them.
And, in pretty much all of the examples you’ve given for riots, those were sparked by acts of violence perpetrated by white supremacists, union busters, police, etc. which forces the people to obviously defend themselves in a reactionary state. But, this is not the same as the masses mobilizing with the intent to root out and destroy these institutions that are designed to hurt and control us.
Holding signs and singing chants in the streets doesn’t change anything but it can easily be framed as a justification for more police and military spending to “maintain order and peace”. If you consider the elites who actually control the flow of commerce, it’s a net loss for the protestors who only have their jobs to risk and possibly jail time and a fine. In fact, the State applies Deterrence Theory in this way to keep the public from rioting and it has, so far, been extremely affective in the modern era.
Oh, and those hippies who protested the Vietnam War were a small percentage of white middle class youth that went on to be corporate leaders in America, many of whom are the primary antagonists we deal with today.
There is a threshold many people aren’t willing to cross that, in my opinion, is necessary for us to move toward dismantling classism. They have us so firmly put in place that they’re now comfortably passing laws that are erasing constitutional rights, and majority of the elderly in this country voted for him, keep that in mind.
I’ll end my rebuttal simply stating that the examples you’ve mentioned involved people who consciously viewed themselves as interconnected with those they were protesting alongside of. This is something we severely lack in today’s social-political climate; a shared consciousness, which is what a grassroots movement requires.
Well first off, I listed many riots and it only takes one instance of one existing for what you said to be wrong.
Secondly, there were instances I listed of people who rioted for rights they already had, but we’re doing it for others. Full stop. This was done with many rights movements I listed. Who started them and why is irrelevant, they did the thing you said they didn’t do.
I don’t get how this is relevant to our convo… You said people don’t riot unless directly impacted. I showed instances of where they did. Why are we talking about state responses to peaceful protests?
Source for that bold claim?
… So you’ll end by saying the thing you said never happens does in fact happen, but you don’t think it will now. I mean, I agree, but that wasn’t the topic at all. It can happen, and it has happened. Saying it never has is wrong and not only ignores people throughout history who put their lives out there, it also sends a message that it’s not possible. It is. We’ve done it before and we can do it again.
If I mention the Floyd protests are we going to start splitting hairs about what makes a protest vs a riot?
Did the floydd protests/riots get comprehensive justice system reform passed?
It did make some changes in laws and policies. Change isn’t an all or nothing process.
That’s a whole new discussion though, he never said shit about actually changing anything.
Okay, fine, he implied it.