this post was submitted on 04 Aug 2025

268 points (99.6% liked)

politics

25168 readers

2202 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

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:

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.
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.
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.
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.
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 2 years ago

MODERATORS

outrageousmatter@lemmy.world

aidan@lemmy.world

jordanlund@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

Theonetheycall1845@lemmy.world

JuBe@lemmy.world

Lasherz12@lemmy.world

268

The vast majority of US adults are stressed about grocery costs, an AP-NORC poll finds (apnews.com)

submitted 1 week ago by Redditsux@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

47 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 47 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world 11 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Should have thought about that when every Democrat was telling you that Trump and his tariff plans and project 25 was going to screw the average American at the grocery store.

Sorry but Americans, including myself, get what we collectively voted for.

[–] Catoblepas@piefed.blahaj.zone 4 points 6 days ago

Please love yourself enough to realize that you don’t deserve collective punishment.

[–] mrgoosmoos@lemmy.ca 10 points 6 days ago (1 children)

the vast majority of US adults didn't vote against Trump

curious

[–] guyoverthere123@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 6 days ago (1 children)

They're getting what they voted for.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 3 points 6 days ago

Unless they didn't and the tech billionaires got their money's worth.

[–] FunnyUsername@lemmy.world 4 points 6 days ago

i got 2 bags of groceries at cub yesterday and it was 180$.

there was meat in there. sure. but like....damn.

[–] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 6 days ago

Haha not me!

I'm old-money poor, grew up broke.

This is just a reversion to the mean.

All these fools thought they weren't poor this whole time, blew out the backs of their credit card balances with endless hot loads of usless garbage purchases... tch tch tch, not how you do it, doesn't end well.

[–] Harbinger01173430@lemmy.world 4 points 6 days ago

Come to south america. Food is cheap af.

But just the girls. Don't send us astronauts, engineers, doctors and other stuff like the venezuelans did.

[–] SlartyBartFast@sh.itjust.works 3 points 6 days ago

i would recommend just stop eating

[–] OutlierBlue@lemmy.ca 66 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Eat the rich. This solves two problems.

Food
Now the rich are gone you can redistribute the wealth and start fixing this shitty system.

[–] OrteilGenou@lemmy.world 22 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Sounds modest

[–] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago

I like this proposal.

[–] Red0ctober@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

Sensible, even

[+] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca -21 points 1 week ago (1 children)

As much as I enjoy the "eat the rich" sentiment, it's not really a fix to the issues.

The median net worth in the US is around $200,000.

If you took ALL the money in the US, from every single person and distributed it equally, it would only bring that number up to around $500,000.

Sure that's a decent bump, but if you only targeted billionaires and high millionaires, it would be a hell of a lot less. The vast majority of that bump actually comes from random boomers having a million dollars each saved up.

[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 14 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The top .1% of US households hold over $20 trillion dollars in worth, and you're talking about going after the million in retirement savings accounts that were built up to provide an income for the elderly (because social security alone isn't enough, like it was supposed to be)? And 1M may not be enough if they live long enough or have serious medical issues because that's another problem that we don't dare fix with better distribution of resources.

[–] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

$20 trillion divided by the US population is only $60,000 each, that's well under a years worth of the median family income. As a one time transfer, that's not doing almost anything to the economy long term.

The amount per year that these wealthy people generate is significantly less, so taxing them to prevent it in the future also wouldn't really give other people that much money.

I'm wasn't talking about going after anything, I was just pointing out that the rich don't actually hold that much money in the grand scheme of things, and removing them won't actually fix the issues we're seeing.

[–] aesthelete@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

That's dividing by every woman, man, and child. It almost certainly wouldn't be done that way. You absolutely wouldn't give children $60,000 checks. And why are you comparing your $60k number to household incomes (which are pooled values)?

Even if it were done this way nominally, you'd have a household with two parents and two kids receiving $240k in a one-off payment, and then presumably you'd correct the tax structure so as to not wind up with the same equality gap so they'd pay less in taxes.

I don't know what you think the average US household looks like, but nearly a quarter million dollar direct cash infusion would change a hell of a lot about most people's lives.

EDIT: I think if we weren't talking in complete hypotheticals here too, you'd do it by taxing the rich rather than eating them and directly redistributing their money. Even $10 trillion would be enough to fund a lot of government programs that could get to work fixing things for the people.

[–] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca -1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

You could take out all the people under 18 and it ]would still only be $76,000.

Humans are terrible at understanding large numbers. 20 trillion sounds like a lot, but to 262 million people it's STILL less than the median family income per year.

And that $20 trillion isn't how much these rich people make per year, in fact, it's not even really money. That's almost all the value of the shares these people own in companies, which you can't just convert to cash at the market value when you're talking about that quantity. If you took all these shares and sold them off, you wouldn't get that price, who's going to be able to afford that? There isn't enough available cash with other people for $20 trillion worth of shares all hitting the market at the same time to value them at $20 trillion.

If instead you gave each person you're splitting it to part of the shares, they wouldn't be able to eat them, they wouldn't be able to live in them, and if they all decided to sell them off... same problem as before, significantly less value. They would all get bought up by the remaining wealthy people who actually have excess cash available, for much cheaper than they're worth and then you have the same problem you had originally except now instead of the top 0.1% you've got the top 4% or something.

At the end of the day, there are far better options for improving the lives of people than just taking all the money from the 0.1% and giving it directly to everyone else. Don't get me wrong, I don't care about these people at all, eat them if you want. Just don't believe it's going to make your life measurably better, because it won't.

[–] aesthelete@lemmy.world 6 points 6 days ago (1 children)

So now because I debunked your bad math, we're going from "it's not enough money to make a difference" to "it's not liquid".

I agree, it isn't all liquid, and you can't eat stock shares. But I'm sure you could do an awful lot to solve the "housing crisis" if you took over all of Blackrock's real estate holdings and handed them out to people that were looking to live their lives in a house instead of trying to squeeze money out of a crisis for their own profit.

That's just a first, easy example of good that could come out of a hypothetical redistribution of resources. There are countless others.

[–] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca -1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

You didn't de-bunk shit. It's still not enough money to matter if you ignore children and it isn't even money, both are valid criticisms of your idea.

Bringing up BlackRock is just stupid. Blackrock is an investment management Corp, they don't just manage the wealth of a few billionaires. You can go buy into their products right now starting at around $100 for ETFs if you want, and there's plenty of non-rich people who are part of that $11 billion that they manage. Suggesting you can just go take all their real estate holdings is the same as saying you're going to go take the money of grandma and grandpa, and while I'm not saying that's necessarily bad it's not in line with your "eat the rich" proposal.

The housing crisis is NOT being caused by corporations buying up houses. The housing crisis is being caused by the fact that our system allows ANYONE to invest in houses at all. The vast majority of houses in the US are owned by the family that lives in them, and those people benefit from houses appreciating just as much as wealthy people do. Until we stop houses being an investment for EVERYONE (which does include corporations) the housing market will continue to get worse. If you block companies from owning homes, and even if you block people from owning more than one or two homes, you will still have house prices go up because people still want houses. If they continue to go up faster than wages increase, they will always become increasingly unaffordable.

To fix this, houses MUST lose money. You must never make money off simply living somewhere because the value of the land went up around you as the population grew and new amenities attract more people.

[–] aesthelete@lemmy.world 2 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

You can go buy into their products right now starting at around $100 for ETFs if you want, and there’s plenty of non-rich people who are part of that $11 billion that they manage.

Who cares? So some people have their share price drop a bit for retirement savings or something enabling many others to live a much better life. Any restructuring of the economy is going to make some people unhappy.

Suggesting you can just go take all their real estate holdings is the same as saying you’re going to go take the money of grandma and grandpa

Nope, it's saying I'm going to take assets from an asset holding company and give them to people that can actually use the assets. But nice try at misdirection.

The housing crisis is NOT being caused by corporations buying up houses.

Didn't say it was, but it certainly is exacerbated by them.

The housing crisis is being caused by the fact that our system allows ANYONE to invest in houses at all.

LOL, alright. So we cannot take Blackrock's real estate holdings in even a hypothetical situation and redistribute them, but there would be no problem just completely obliterating the concept of private ownership of real estate? I guess no grandma or grandpa has a reverse mortgage they're using, or we went from giving a shit about their hypothetical, minor stakeholdings in a hedge fund being affected in one paragraph to completely forgetting they exist at all in the next.

Are you a random argument generator or something?

[–] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 0 points 6 days ago (1 children)

You jump to so many conclusions it's like watching someone's mind do parkour.

I didn't say we shouldn't make some people unhappy restructuring the economy. In fact, I'm totally on-board with doing just that. My focus in this has always been that the issue isn't just the top 0.1%, or even the top 10%, the biggest problem with the housing market is the 100 million+-ish home owners, ALL of them (including me)

I also didn't say eliminate private ownership of real estate. People own cars and they depreciate. You just need to remove the part of housing that appreciates from the equation via government regulation. Buildings depreciate it's the land values that are the problem. It could be solved as simply as a 100% capital gains tax on land value (not property value, because that includes buildings) or introduce a land value tax value so high that you can pay for a universal basic income, making it impossible to profit from simply owning land. Both of these would crash the economy if done overnight, so they would need to be introduced over time, but they would both end up with housing prices being entirely based on their value as living spaces, rather than as economic vehicles to invest in.

Your ideas of grabbing everything from Blackrock helps... who? the 60-70k people who would get one of Blackrock's homes? How would you even figure out who to give them to, a lottery for poor people? What about the other 100 million people who are struggling with housing costs? You could grab every house owned by a corporation and it wouldn't even come close addressing the scale of the issue.

https://luckboxmagazine.com/topics/is-blackrock-really-buying-up-homes/ - Source for 60-70k single family homes owned by Blackrock

[–] aesthelete@lemmy.world 0 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I also didn’t say eliminate private ownership of real estate. People own cars and they depreciate.

Cars naturally depreciate for multiple reasons but it's largely because the cost of maintenance for old cars goes up as the parts wear down. In addition, cars are dealt in the US by a form of cartel that artificially inflates the price of new cars.

Land remains land, and to a large extent, a well-built house is still a well-built house. That is why it appreciates in value.

It could be solved as simply as a 100% capital gains tax on land value (not property value, because that includes buildings) or introduce a land value tax value so high that you can pay for a universal basic income, making it impossible to profit from simply owning land.

Capital gains aren't realized until a property is sold. That's not "simply owning land". It's fucking selling it. Land value taxes sound meh, fine, to me as an idea. But having them so high that you can "pay for a universal basic income" is fully ridiculous. You're talking about taxing grandma and grandpa out of their house and probably destroying their net worth, but somehow always find a way to shed a tear for poor blackrock and their investors who "only" own 60-70k houses.

https://www.sfgate.com/realestate/article/investors-majority-homes-some-calif-counties-20780941.php

It ain't just blackrock, buddy oh pal, there are plenty of corporate real estate investors and there would be plenty more than 60-70k houses to seize from them.

Separately, owner occupants are not a major contributor to the housing crisis, and taxing them will not net the government anywhere near the funds needed to have a UBI.

[–] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca -1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

You’re talking about taxing grandma and grandpa out of their house and probably destroying their net worth You're oh so close to understanding the real problem happening.

It is literally impossible for us to both preserve grandma and grandpa's current home value AND have affordable housing at the same time.

Anything we do to lower prices will destroy their net worth, and without lower prices we can't have affordable housing.

Grandma and Grandpa own at least 65% of ALL residential properties, it could be more because that statistic only includes primary residences so it's quite possible that after including cottages and lake houses, second homes that they rent out, and with their investments in real estate trusts through Blackrock, Grandma and Grandpa actually own 75-85% of all residential properties.

The last estimate for Corporation owned homes in the US was on the order of 2-3% by the way.

Which number is bigger? 65% or 3%?

[–] aesthelete@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

It is literally impossible for us to both preserve grandma and grandpa’s current home value AND have affordable housing at the same time.

It literally isn't. You rezone areas for multifamily units, you build newer, denser structures in populated areas, you setup public transit so that commute distances can allow for more sprawl, etc etc etc. I'm also not talking about preserving their home value either. I'm talking about allowing them to continue to live there rather than taxing them into the old folks home.

You just want to self-flaggelate because you're an owner occupant, and this exchange is extremely boring and not even very related to the original topic. You just like to argue and be contrarian, and looking at your name again I feel like we've already done this before and this is just the line of bullshit you always want to pull out regardless of actual topic.

Edit: I mean what in the name of fuck does any of this have to do with grocery prices?

[–] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 0 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I literally quoted you saying "probably destroying their net worth" as an argument against it, so yes you are talking about preserving their home value.

We cannot build our way out of this situation. It's literally impossible, builders will not build while prices are actively dropping. They don't even like doing it when prices are flat like we're seeing in some places now.

And why the fuck should grandma and grandpa be allowed to stay in a 5 bedroom home that they bought to raise children in 50 years ago but has been empty other than 2 occupants for the last 30? That is the worst kind of greed and waste. Fuck them, they should downsize and free up that place for a family.

The fact that you don't understand how housing prices affect grocery prices is part of the reason why you aren't qualified to be discussing this. Housing prices affect everything very directly.

Grocery prices are made up of 3 primary components, real estate cost for the store, labour costs for the workers, and the cost of the underlying goods from wholesalers. The cost of labour is made up of real estate cost for the worker, food costs, and transportation costs (the three biggest factors anyways). The cost of the underlying goods from wholesalers is made up of the real estate cost for the warehouses, labour, transportation, and the underlying costs for the grocery items. The cost of the grocery items (lets just say it's from a farm for now to make it simply) is made up of.... real estate costs for the property, labour, and the farming inputs (tractors, fertilizer, seeds, fuel, etc)

Do you see how many times "real estate costs" show up in that breakdown? When housing prices go up, the price of everything goes up quite significantly.

Think of it this way, how much money would someone need to make to keep the same quality of life if their rent cost went down 80%? For a lot of workers, earning say $60,000 and spending $3000 a month on rent, if their rent went down to $600, they would only need to earn $31,200 a year to keep the same quality of life, that's a 48% reduction in potential labour costs.

So now your grocery store is saving 80% on their property rent, 48% on labour, and the same things are happening downstream as well so their goods cost goes down too.

Except now we've created a loop. The same quality of life isn't accurate, because now that housing is cheaper, your groceries got cheaper too, so you either have a better quality of life, or you could take even less money.

All value created goes somewhere. Right now, a large majority of it is accruing to landowners. Until that changes, these problems will continue.

[–] aesthelete@lemmy.world 0 points 5 days ago

I ain't reading all of that, especially not when the first thing you did in this reply is take a phrase out of a sentence and tried to pretend that was the entire thought when it clearly wasn't.

How are you going to get grocery prices down? Through georgism and ubi? Lord knows we cannot tax rich people who have all of the money nor look at any systemic factors because we're 🙈🙉🙊 when it comes to them.

You're just a crank. Go crank it on someone else's finite time.

[–] PP_BOY_@lemmy.world 47 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Whaaa-? But i thought over half yall voted for Trump because he would for sure lower grocery prices??

[–] redsand@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 6 days ago

Only half vote so more like 20%

https://thiswillhold.substack.com/p/ex-cia-whistleblower-the-nsa-audited

Maybe 23%

[–] Lucky_777@lemmy.world 29 points 1 week ago

Trump even said it himself. "We won on groceries". Seems like he only cares about cheating at golf and saving pedophiles

[–] TommySoda@lemmy.world 36 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I pay between $75 - $150 a week for groceries as a single dude that only shops for himself. On a monthly basis that's my highest expense besides rent at about $300 - $400. That's how much my parents used to spend to shop for a family of 7 back in like 2010. The federal minimum wage back then was $7.25 an hour and even then it was still a struggle. And here we are 15 years later and the federal minimum wage is still $7.25 an hour.

[–] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I am in roughly the same boat.

$600 for rent + utils, cheapest, roach tier studio I could find, but I somehow lucked out and got a management team that, though they're not exactly flush with cash, they do genuinely give a damn about the stuff they can actually afford to handle, throw out the dipshit trouble maker types pretty quick.

So, slightly higher rent, but I manage to get my food costs down to roughly $250 a month, so its about the same total monthly spend.

But, yeah, holy fuck, if the min wage had kept up with housing costs, so an FT min wagie could afford a studio, 1/3 rent to income rule?

It'd be between $30 and $35 an hour.

That's how fucked this all is, the US median wage is roughly what the minimum wage should be, if you want a ... basically functioning society where 2/3rds (thats about the paycheck to paycheck % now) of people are not one disaster away from becoming homeless.

So, of course, instead, its now literally illegal to be homeless, and Trump wants to build concentration camps.

People are either gonna let this happen, or they're gonna ... perform an executive override on the situation.

[–] hunter@sh.itjust.works 4 points 6 days ago (1 children)

If I may ask, where are you that rent is 600? Or is this a roomate situation?

[–] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Hahaha...ha.

Hah.

...

Short answer: South Dakota.

Long answer:

Following a uh, calvacade of compounding catastrophes, several years ago now, I ended up homeless, roughed it for a good long while, got the shit kicked out of me in one way or another on roughly a biweekly basis, got held hostage by a fentanyl addict for a week once, barely escaped that alive, almost froze to death, almost died of heat stroke...

... eventually got SSDI to kick in, after continuously struggling to stop having all my ids and paperwork stolen from me...

...and I correctly deduced that Trump would win, and the big west coast city I used to live in would soon be cracking down hard on the homeless, as well as Oops! no more funding for homeless shelters that are already at max capacity...

So, when the SSDI kicked in, I got on a bus and headed as far as my those bus wheels and my broken body could carry me, which ended up being South Dakota.

Pretty fucking low CoL, and I am still just full time doing PT to recover from all my injuries, so... not like I'm missing much by not living somewhere else.

Immensely ironically, this shit ass roach motel, that was literally a roach motel and now just... does 6 month, year, month to month leases?

Only place I have ever lived in my entire life that just came with an AC unit.

My 'long term' plan is somewhere in Minnesota... by every study and composite map I can see, its basically the best combo of a decently blue state, with decent CoL, and lots of fresh water, and a pretty low expected increase in climate disasters.

In summary: God Bless America.

[–] ToastedRavioli@midwest.social 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Back when the federal minimum was raised to $7.25 you could still feed 3 people well at a cheaper restaurant for $15. Now I dont think you could feed one person well for $15 at any of the same kind of restaurant

A few days ago I saw a story of a woman making $3 an hour plus tips at waffle house, where the average tip is probably like $2 a person. In 2025. How the fuck is that woman surviving whatsoever? The amount of normal everyday hardworking people who will be impacted by the SNAP cuts is going to be enormous. Especially with everything quickly becoming 2x what it cost 6 months ago

[–] GlendatheGayWitch@lemmy.world 2 points 6 days ago

Yeah, it's crazy working as a server now. $2.15/hour plus tips. You have to be somewhere that makes good tips. The law only guarantees that you will make at least $7.25/hour and the restaurant is supposed to pay you to that average only if tips don't get you to minimum wage.

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 29 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Eggs are back at $7-10/dz in the Boston metro area :D

What’s your eggscuse this time, orangeboi

[–] InvalidName2@lemmy.zip 11 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Almost literally, the moment Trump was sworn in as president, the same exact folks who spent the prior 8 months of their lives blaming Biden for the high cost of eggs suddenly had an epiphany that the president does not directly control the price of eggs. And then when the president DID specifically and directly affect the price of groceries as a result of tariffs, those same people suddenly insist that grocery prices are based on complex and rapidly changing global socioeconomic phenomenon that cannot be predicted nor controlled and besides this is still Biden's economy because it was so broken that Trump hasn't been able to fix it yet (even though he promised to have it all sorted out in a timeline of days).

They live in a separate reality, void of fact and logic, and I honestly have not figured out a way to reason with that. As wiser folks have said much more eloquently than I could, you cannot reason people out of something they did not reason themselves into.

[–] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Its a death cult.

Just, full stop, MAGA is a death cult, same as Jim Jones or Heaven's Gate.

Big death cult? Popular death cult, takes over the government?

Fascism.

For all the sociological, political, economic complexities and nuance...

It really does basically just boil down to those being pretty much the same thing, at different scales.

Good luck reasoning with or expecting reason from death cult members.

They are the zombie apocalpyse, fucking broken brains, really only fully functional at the limbic level, the rest of the brain is a confused mush of near infinite levels of reality denial, motivated reasoning, and cognitive dissonance.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago

"Liberal California is making egg prices higher."

I wish I were kidding.

https://apnews.com/article/egg-prices-california-animal-welfare-trump-48296b0149580e5620d6bcdcdcce89d7

[–] Carvex@lemmy.world 14 points 1 week ago (1 children)

His excuse is he couldn’t give less of a fuck about you or any of the other poors. Somehow a billionaire supposedly cares about the same things we do

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Oh I know. I am just curious how the cult is going to somehow spin this into being the fault of the “communist democrat an-tee-fuh Nazis”, because I’m sure they will try to.

[–] Formfiller@lemmy.world 18 points 1 week ago

This has been going on for years. Keeps getting worse like everything else we depend on for a decent stable life but not to worry the White House is building a 200 million dollar ballroom.

[–] Bebopalouie@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Gettin tired posting the surprised pika face meme. Think I will take a break.

[–] BeardedGingerWonder@feddit.uk 4 points 6 days ago

The plan is working

[–] CircaV@lemmy.ca -1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Murikkkans: you made your bed now lie in it.

Signed: the Rest of the world

[–] quetzaldilla@lemmy.world 13 points 1 week ago

I guarantee you this is happening wherever you live, just in a different flavor.

The billionaires are parasites on the entire planet, not just the US.