this post was submitted on 09 Aug 2024
986 points (98.3% liked)

politics

19144 readers
5938 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
 

The all-American working man demeanor of Tim Walz—Kamala Harris’s new running mate—looks like it’s not just an act.

Financial disclosures show Tim Walz barely has any assets to his name. No stocks, bonds, or even property to call his own. Together with his wife, Gwen, his net worth is $330,000, according to a report by the Wall Street Journal citing financial disclosures from 2019, the year after he became Minnesota governor.

With that kind of meager nest egg, he would be more or less in line with the median figure for Americans his age (he’s 60), and even poorer than the average. One in 15 Americans is a millionaire, a recent UBS wealth report discovered.

Meanwhile, the gross annual income of Walz and his wife, Gwen, amounted to $166,719 before tax in 2022, according to their joint return filed that same year. Walz is even entitled to earn more than the $127,629 salary he receives as state governor, but he has elected not to receive the roughly $22,000 difference.

“Walz represents the stable middle class,” tax lawyer Megan Gorman, who authored a book on the personal finances of U.S. presidents, told the paper.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] tills13@lemmy.world 15 points 2 months ago (6 children)

The argument I've heard from my parents is why should I pay for public healthcare when I can afford my own private healthcare.

Which is so incredibly tone deaf

[–] capital@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago

Not just tone deaf, dumb as fuck.

I've had the same argument with my parents and they still won't admit that they're still "paying for everyone else's healthcare" via insurance but also paying insurance CEO's paychecks on top of that.

[–] Railcar8095@lemm.ee 8 points 2 months ago

"Dad, can you afford to burn $100? Why don't you go it then?"

Not the same of curse, they would probably save more than $100 dollars a month with public healthcare.

[–] prettybunnys@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 months ago

“Why should I take care of my aging parents when I can take care of myself” is the appropriate response to that.

[–] RangerJosie@sffa.community 2 points 2 months ago

That's THE Boomer take of all Boomer takes. Big "fuck you, I got mine" energy. And it's everything that's wrong with this country.

[–] porous_grey_matter@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Because it's cheaper than paying for your own private healthcare

[–] tills13@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

Well healthcare up here in Canada is kinda fucked up unless your issue is critical. Their point was that they want to be able to skip the line because they are wealthy instead of trying to fix the system. Still idiotic.

[–] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

EVERY argument I have heard against public healthcare has been tone deaf, statistically incorrect, and driven by gut feelings over kindergarten levels of economic understanding.

In a world of perfect understanding, public healthcare would be a given.

[–] tills13@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Society is objectively better when everyone is happy and healthy.

[–] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago

Also: regressives have no platform when everything right now is good.

How can they call back to a mythical past when their needs are met better in the present?

[–] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago

Society is objectively better when the needs of the most struggling are addressed first.