Spyke

New House Speaker Mike Johnson Wants Women to Pop Out 'Able-Bodied Workers' to Fund Social Security

In his remarks, not only does Johnson claim Roe “gave constitutional cover to the elective killing of unborn children,” but he rails against the imagined economic detriments of abortion, pushing his caucus’ outlandish claim that by depleting a hypothetical workforce, abortion has defunded social security: “Think about the implications of that on the economy. We’re all struggling here to cover the bases of social security and Medicare and Medicaid and all the rest,” Johnson says. “If we had all those able-bodied workers in the economy we wouldn’t be going upside down and toppling over like this... Roe was a terrible corruption.” Mind you, social security and health care have been gutted in the last several years by Republican lawmakers, not people who choose to end a pregnancy.

New House Speaker Mike Johnson Wants Women to Pop Out 'Able-Bodied Workers' to Fund Social Securityhttps://jezebel.com/new-house-speaker-mike-johnson-wants-women-to-pop-out-a-1850958311Open linkView original on lemmy.world
lemmy.world

I love how they don't realize these unaborted kids are likely going to be unwanted, unloved, impoverished, lack education...and instead of turning into "able bodies workers" they will turn into the criminals Republicans think lurk around every corner ready to shoot them

141
lemmy.ca

I prefer the Carlin take: "They want live babies so they can turn them into dead soldiers"

100
ourobreply
discuss.tchncs.de

Oh they are fully aware. More criminals means more prisoners, which means more money for the prison industrial complex and super cheap (basically slave) labor.

46

It's not basically slave labor. It is slave labor. The US Constitution still has codified slavery as long as you're a prisoner.

17
kbin.social

All hail the glorious Economy! That which makes all actions moral with the magic words “It’s not personal, it’s just business.”

16

Duh, greed justifies everything. Don't believe me? Here's $1000. How about now?

3
Restaldtreply
lemmy.world

Thats exactly what they want.

They need poor uneducated voters to stay in power.

They need poor uneducated criminals to hate lest they focus on themselves and tear themselves apart.

17

I don't think they're unaware of that at all. Until those kids become criminals, most of them will have to survive somehow. Given their presumed lack of education and prospects, that means meat to throw in the "entry level" grinder.

10
lemmy.world

They need live births so they can grow up to be dead soldiers. Those are their favorite constituents because neither one votes.

3

And also because the Republicans can project their views on those groups.

"If the 'unborn baby' or dead soldier could talk, they'd say that we should absolutely overturn this election result and name Trump President again. After all, he will protect the unborn (unless they happen to reside in his mistress) and what did those soldiers die for if not President For Life Trump?!!!"

3

More "leeches on society" that they also pretend are the single source of all Americas budget problems

3

Well, if you think about it, in order to take over in a democracy, you have to break the democracy first. This is simply a necessary first step towards accomplishing the given goal. There would be no other method that might work here, since military coups are particularly difficult when we make our whole army swear an oath to defend a specific piece of paper from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

34

You're not allowed to offer the correct solutions on lemmy, mods will remove your comment.

1
lemmy.world

We’re all struggling here to cover the bases of social security and Medicare and Medicaid

Yeah and a bunch of extra kids surely won't increase costs of Medicaid.

74

This was the take I was going to comment. If Republicans are so into running the government like a business, the per unit net income of each additional human would have to be positive for this argument to work. And if that were the case the programs he seems so worried about wouldn't have a problem to begin with. It's not like there are flat costs that, through volume alone, will make the program profitable.

17

This guy isn't planning past his own lifetime. Those kids will be someone eases problem. He just wants to make sure that he gets every penny he is due and that means they need more wage slaves.

9
lemmy.world

He doesn't want more of those type of people. He wants the sort of person that has a name like "Mike Johnson."

56
lemmy.world

Mike Johsons dating profile would read:

Looking for smart, white, christian, gun lover.

Racist is a strong plus.

Loose morals otherwise are acceptable.

14
kbin.social

Immigrants are usually pretty conservative. If they could drop the xenophobia they’d have a pretty reliable and growing voter base. We’re lucky racists are dumb.

4
Franklinreply
lemmy.world

Ah a troll account, as you were everyone, nothing to see here.

1

In his remarks, (...) he rails against the imagined economic detriments of abortion, pushing his caucus’ outlandish claim that by depleting a hypothetical workforce, abortion has defunded social security: (...)

If abortion truly defunded social security, shouldn't small-government Republicans support it?

44
lemmy.world

Newsflash: people aren't having kids because the cost of living is too expensive and the elite are strangling poor families, not because of abortion rights.

Sometimes I look at US politics and question how a country can be terminally stupid enough to elect Republicans...

42
lemmy.world

My friend, there are a lot of stupid fucking morons that live in this country.

10

there are a lot of stupid fucking morons that live in this country.

They are trained to be that way.

1

If he really cared about funding for social security, maybe he should just have a closer look at tax evasion and creative accounting by the rich and the larger companies. Or at the numerous pork barrels on his parties list.

39
NateNate60reply
lemmy.world

That's because at every stage, children will be put through a social selection process whereby every year, the bottom quartile of children will be culled in order to improve the gene pool.

This idea is (C) 2023 the US Republican Party, US patents pending, you may not use it for dystopian novels and films without payment

11
lemmy.world

Heil Hitler Mark Johnson

This guy is pure evil. History just took a dark turn.

32
lemmings.world

Trump was going to be the last one you could laugh at. Now he's only paid lipservice, the void will be filled. From now on forward things are going to get serious.

12
lemmy.world

For all of Trump's fascism and corruption he was at least so amazingly incompetent at it. His actions brought to light a lot of shortcomings and vulnerabilities in the system we can now more effectively watch for as his slightly smarter cohorts try and exploit them.

Too bad half the time "watch in horror" is about all we end up doing.

6
Auxreply
lemmy.world

Trump is not a fascist, he's an idiot. Saying that he's a fascist really does downplay actual fascism.

0

I don't think that calling Trump a fascist is undermining anything. All fascists have been, and are, very bad at actually being political. Politics is not on the mind of a fascist it's in the way of the fascist. The dumb things Trump did were dumb politically speaking. But he absolutely killed it in the ideology department.

1

I mean, I feel like he's being overt about the motivations the GOP has held for decades. It's just that this is a time where their despicable desires about how our society should evolve are showcased.

1
kbin.social

45 approved is the only reason they Voted for him. He is just another of the wack job MAGAts.

32
djsoren19reply
yiffit.net

Russia approved is why they voted for him, unless you think all those mysterious "campaign contributions" from a law firm run by three Russian nationals the night before the vote are just a coincidence.

1

Also pretty sure I saw a headline that Russia is pleased with the new speaker (think it was from a 'news' source there). Though Russia is the number one shit disturber so who knows, they'd say whatever causes more chaos in the nations they're against. The new speaker seems like their kinda guy though.

1
lemmy.world

That's them saying the quiet bit out loud. They see population growth stagnating to dangerous levels and they need more poor people to feed thier capitalism machine, while not acknowledging that low population growth is occurring because they've starved people of the necessary resources to keep a child alive and enjoy / be able to afford parenting. The choice was provide adequate resources or force people to have babies without resources.

31
NateNate60reply
lemmy.world

There are really only two ways to fix demographic decline:

  • Increase fertility rate
  • Replace dying people with people from elsewhere (i.e. immigration)

The first requires social spending at levels that the Republican Party absolutely refuses to consider. Subsidies for childcare! Bigger tax breaks for poor and middle-class parents! Free preschool education! Mandatory paid parental leave! Higher wages for family breadwinners! Oh, the horror!

The second requires admitting brown people into the country! Oh, the other horror!

24
masquenoxreply
lemmy.world

demographic decline

What "demographic decline"?

Sounds to be more a case that the parasite class is worried that the "surplus labor" (ie, impoverished people) might not be all that surplus for much longer.

8

"Demographic decline" is when the population of an area shrinks because more people are dying off than being born. From an economic standpoint, this is bad for a few reasons (regardless of the underlying economic system)—

  • You could lose economies of scale with things like public infrastructure. If you have millions of people contributing to the upkeep of, say, a metro line via the fruits of their labour (directly or through taxation), then that's all fine, but if your population suddenly shrinks to half of what it was, the cost of upkeeping the metro line hasn't halved, but the amount of total wealth in the area has halved, as now there are only half as many people contributing to the communal wealth.
  • The labour pool has shrunk. This is important because some things have a fixed amount of labour required and do not scale well. For example, a train always needs exactly one conductor regardless of how long it is, but now you only have half the number of conductors available. Again, it doesn't matter whether we're looking at a communist or a capitalist system, it's easy to see how this is bad in both systems.
  • People tend to get poorer because the vast majority of economic activity (and therefore wealth) is generated through people interacting with each other. This also results in a reduction of government budgets because revenue is generally tied to group wealth and economic activity. This happens at a disproportionate rate compared to the actual percentage of population loss, meaning the amount of revenue per capita goes down as well.

Some countries are already experiencing demographic decline. It's bad for everyone, but it's much worse for rich people than for poor people (in absolute terms), at least in capitalist countries, because rich people have much more direct exposure to the macroeconomic forces that result from it. Additionally, a lot of rich people's wealth is tied to growth. Infinite exponential growth is impossible; it's not a sustainable model for wealth. But they have a lot to gain from at least postponing the pyramid's collapse until after they die.

6
lemm.ee

Judging by what happens in Japan and Europe, I think you actually need to bribe women to have kids. Which I'm all for.

I think the first two kids should include all expenses paid Disneyland vacations annually, free diaper service, free childcare, schools etc. Min 2 years aid maternity leave.

Third kid? Congrats, you're a hero, you get a free house and a million bucks.

However, applicants must hold a college degree. I'd rather not have a bunch of idiots continue to reproduce.

0

Maybe not a million dollars, but something like a $50,000 cash bonus per child successfully raised to adulthood and has graduated school without being expelled would motivate a good number of parents. The $50,000 is a paltry amount compared to the economic activity that a person generates throughout their lives so it's a great deal for the Government, even when combined with things like childcare subsidies, etc.

The second condition would encourage parents to deal with delinquent behaviour and keep their kids in school. If the kid gets expelled, you lose the $50K.

2

Don't forget about loneliness. If people don't engage with one another in the first place, then abortion isn't even needed, let alone any parental care or accomodations.

Thanks American individualism for that.

3

They look at Europe and get scared. Don't let America turn into no-go zones! 🤦🏾🤷‍♀️

/s

1
aidanreply
lemmy.world

Birthrates decline as populations become richer though? The poorest populations have done of the highest birthrates.

1

Which is the only rational explanation for Republicans excuse of their shitty policies. Keep people poor to maintain the supply of infants. They do it for selfish reasons however.

0
lemdro.id

Ah, so this is how The Handmaid's Tale starts.

30

As if we aren't already smack dab in the middle of it

9

Plenty of them think this though unfortunately. A few years ago, I talked to a bank teller who was a middle aged white woman who said the same thing about abortion being the reason why Medicare and Social Security are underfunded.

3
lemmy.world

The Handmaid's Tale is fast becoming a reality in the 21st century. 😱

28

Forced impregnation fantasies are pretty common kink for conservatives, particularly of the best incestual flavor.

6

In that thumbnail, boebs is looking at him like she wants to take him to beetlejuice

26
TechyDadreply
lemmy.world

You think he wants women to have jobs? He wants women to keep popping out babies. That would be their job if he got his way.

Edit: Oops. I just realized you meant the babies, not the women. I'm going to keep this comment here though because I still think it applies to Johnson.

18
remotelovereply
lemmy.ca

He wants the babies to keep popping out babies and women to get jobs? That seems on-point for them, except for the women and jobs thing.

4

No, the women pop out the babies and the babies get the jobs. Well, the Republicans will graciously allow the babies to grow up just enough so that they can walk. After that, though, it's "get into the factories and stick your tiny fingers into those meat grinders!"

4

Oh, he's concerned about funding social security?

Bullshit. He doesn't give a fuck about that.

The reason Social Security faces solvency problems is that wages (on the low end, at least) have been kept flat for close to 30 years. Wages are the basis for Social Security funding!
Its solvency challenges aren't because the Boomers are retiring, the actuaries were able to see that coming when the Boomers were kids. The thing they didn't see coming was that suppressing wages would become a bipartisan affair.

When Johnson says he's going to fund social security, he's not going to fund social security- he's going to dangle that as bait to get stupid people to support a national ban on abortion in hopes it will soften the backlash against the GOP for its unpopular anti-abortion politics.

24
lemm.ee

This, Pro-Life doesn't mean what it used to back in the 90's

Used to it meant you just wanted some common sense restrictions, now it means you think women should be state mandated broodmares.

At least that's as far as the general public is concerned, the GOP needs to find a new angle if they want to keep this ban a rolling.

2

Same that most of Europe has, can't do it in later semesters unless there is something clearly wrong with the baby, or said baby is product of rape or incest.

I'm not a monster I just think we need to be sure that we are doing the right thing when we terminate a human life. Kind of like how you don't euthanize a patient who is expected to get better even if they are in pain.

0

I mean, social security does have a much lower payer to user ratio now

1
lemmy.world

That thumbnail...

"Give em that old Razzle Dazzle," minus of any of it.

What a pathetic hairball the GOP was forced to cough up at the last minute.

Daily reminder to please vote responsibly in 2024.

21

Yes, but what if, bear with me here:

What if, in between now and the election, something comes out about the Democrats that shows that they're not absolutely perfect angels?

For example, what if one of them used a private e-mail server?

And for the sake of "balance" the media spends the same amount of time on this as the 10,000 felonies of Donald Trump.

Doesn't that mean they're both the same, and I don't have to think or vote or bother, and therefore it doesn't matter if the totalitarian fascists get into government, "suspend" the constitution, and topple representative government?

-3

I know they've been screaming the quiet part, but that's just... fucking hell....

19

Should probably make it so people can afford to do that and subsidize gay reproduction.

Also, funny how he blames that and not 50+ years where tax cuts were considered sacred and proposing raising taxes was a profane abomination. Well we’re right back where we were before those taxes were raised.

18

Very bold move considering how much voters are furious about Roe.

There's articles every now and again about how some Republican or PAC is going to fix the issue for Republicans by going moderate, and this is exactly why it won't work. Unless you have utter chaos like in the House or are a radical, the #1 rule is to not criticize your fellow Republicans.

How's a Republican moderate going to do that while also advocating for a moderate policy? They'd have to say the Speaker and their other colleagues are wrong, and they don't want to do that. But if they don't say it, then they can't advocate for a moderate policy, people are seeing right through it. The true believers are making it impossible for the party to stop hemorrhaging.

Republicans wanted to overturn Roe, so let them reap the consequences.

18

Considering the number of "Single Issue Voters" who only vote republican because they sincerely believed Planned Parenthood was cutting up live babies, repealing Roe was the dumbest fucking thing they could have done.

6

I am convinced that a black and white filter needs to be used on every media photograph of the GOP.

I would show how much these guys look just like the NAZIs in photos.

18
rbhfdreply
lemmy.world

You don't recognise them by how they look, but by their actions.

5
lemmy.nz

Wants Women to Pop Out 'Able-Bodied Workers' to Fund Social Security

Translation: Wants women to pop out more white babies who (they assume) will vote Republican.

17
NateNate60reply
lemmy.world

The two most reliable voting blocks for the GOP are the stupid and the rich. Anyone who would listen to this guy falls squarely in the former category, so of course encouraging them to reproduce is an excellent strategy.

8

I don't think he's encouraging Republicans to reproduce so much as he's trying to justify forcing all the other women to give birth against their will. All of those children of rape and incest, those kids whose parents aren't emotionally or financially equipped to raise them, those kids whose high-risk births might cause their moms to die in labor, those kids who have congenital heart defects, or who will be DOA when they're born. Moms aren't allowed to speak for those fetuses, or have a say over their own health and safety. Because every baby that Republicans can force to be born is another new taxpayer to fill our coffers. Obviously.

7

Could also be a dog whistle to the replacement theory they seem to be obsessed with.

1
yiffit.net

Why are Republicans still banging this drum? They packed a court shitty enough to strike down Roe and people across the country fucking hated it. All the states ran by functioning governments immediately put protections in place to allow abortions, and all the shitholes run by Republicans immediately enacted extremist bans that nearly half their constituency disagrees with. Is the next goal to try working towards a national ban? Are they stupid enough to not realize that would be political suicide?

15

Is the next goal to try working towards a national ban?

Yes.

Are they stupid enough to not realize that would be political suicide?

Yes.

Some have expressed an interest in targeting contraception next. Keep in mind, many believe in replacement theory and want to restrict immigration (of people of color), which is the only thing currently keeping our replacement rate positive. So the fulfillment of their dream to eliminate immigration without also tanking our future economy is basically by forcing people to have babies. Ideally white babies, but they're probably not too picky on who is picking crops, flipping burgers, and building cars, because they can also keep gerrymandering the shit out of states to keep minorities from gaining proportional voting power.

10

able-bodied

Oh he wants everyone to hate him, huh? Us disabled folk who've been working, disabled, don't contribute at all I see.

15
lemmy.world

or we could just allow more people immigrate legally who are going to be productive working middle class members of society

I thought we had too many people though..

13

I just see this as one more revolution. Not the good kind, just the "neutral" kind that the great George Carlin talked about, as we continue to circle the drain as a species...

13

You, along with all your slimy fellows that voted for you, are doing the EXACT opposite of struggling. You are struggling with the will of the American people and the direction of this country, but that’s about the only thing you are struggling with.

12
kbin.social

i kinda get the feeling that this nutjob is payback for booting mccarthy and nixing jordan.

5
NABDadreply
lemmy.world

Payback for who? The people who wanted this nutjob are the same folks who booted McCarthy.

6
lemmy.world

Yeah the shift on McCarthy was when he interrogated a soldier and an army lawyer called him the fuck out “at long last have you no sense of decency?”

Nixon was a bipartisan boot as well.

That said yeah this is revenge for them. Not from republicans but from their right flank. The contingent that wanted McCarthy to be able to torment anyone to stop communists and homosexuals. The contingent that swore to never let something like watergate result in a presidential resignation. The contingent that looked at Goldwater and thought that he wasn’t quite bigoted enough. They had a kid with the moral majority and are hell bent on making everyone’s life hell

3
NABDadreply
lemmy.world

While there's no question that the far right wants to stick it to pretty much everyone else, in this case I'm not talking about Senator Joseph McCarthy, but rather Representative (and briefly Speaker) Kevin McCarthy.

If you're going to look to the past for the source for our troubles, or at least for a major moment when we lost the chance to actually get the US to live up to the ideals we claim to represent, I think you'd need to look at Andrew Johnson as the shitbag who enabled the traitorous pre-fascist scum to remain in power in the country.

The trouble started long before the US existed, but there was a moment, bought with tremendous amounts of blood and suffering, that could have led to actual freedom if Andrew Johnson had not become president.

4
Wilibusreply
lemmy.world

And I kinda wonder just how many backup christofascists the GOP has.

5

A lot. The past decade has been a “get in line or get out of the way” primarying purge. Add in the effects of project redmap and gerrymandering and yeah it’s bad

4
lemmy.world

Considering everything about the Colbert Report was making fun of conservatives, I'd think it means Colbert knocked it out of the park.

5

Scarier still when you realize that Colbert's impersonation was so good he actually kept getting invited to Republican Dinners and Events because they didn't know it was satire.

He claims to this day he still gets people asking him to bring back the Colbert show because of a "Lack of conservative figures on liberal media."

5