COPENHAGEN (The Borowitz Report)—After rebuffing Donald J. Trump's hypothetical proposal to purchase Greenland, the government of Denmark has announced that it would be interested in buying the United States instead.
"As we have stated, Greenland is not for sale," a spokesperson for the Danish government said on Friday. "We have noted, however, that during the Trump regime, pretty much everything in the United States, including its government, has most definitely been for sale."
"Denmark would be interested in purchasing the United States in its entirety, with the exception of its government," the spokesperson added.
A key provision of the purchase offer, the spokesperson said, would be the relocation of Donald Trump to another country "to be determined," with Russia and North Korea cited as possible destinations.
If Denmark's bid for the United States is accepted, the Scandinavian nation has ambitious plans for its new acquisition. "We believe that by giving the U.S. an educational system and national health care, it could be transformed from a vast land mass into a great nation," the spokesperson said.
Attention Denmark: at least our politicians are for sale, regardless of party affiliation, to purchasers both foreign and domestic.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday August 17 2019, @01:29AM (8 children)
And entitlements. 40% roughly of US spending is on that as opposed to about 20% for military spending.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday August 17 2019, @04:23AM (4 children)
(Score: 3, Informative) by barbara hudson on Saturday August 17 2019, @03:35PM (1 child)
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday August 18 2019, @12:30PM
People paid into all kinds of things. For example, people are currently paying so that Chinese military can threaten Hong Kong and perhaps massacre some of the same people who are paying for "social stability" in the near future.
Meaning it wasn't a fund in the first place. Just look at the dynamics of the past 80 years. Part of the money is spent on payouts. The rest is dumped into the general fund of the US government and vanishes - no questions asked. It's always been a pay-as-you-go program. Now, that revenue is less than payouts, we're starting to see a huge sucking on that general fund.
Let us note that present day beneficiaries are getting out more than they put in. The program won't stabilize without a large cut in benefits - which you didn't pay for. And every entitlement is paid by someone whether it's a good idea or not.
Finally, let's remember who made those promises. Voters did. Government is not some neutral party, it's us. Now, you expect young generations to pay for your promises to yourself? You're not going to be around for them to honor those extravagant promises, so why should they be around for you?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 17 2019, @10:48PM (1 child)
One day they will start calling your 401k an "entitlement" and take it away to pay for tax cuts. Then you'll get it.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday August 18 2019, @01:05AM
More likely to pay for Social Security and other out of control entitlements.
You're not going to find tax cuts that amount to 50% (and growing!) share of federal spending.
(Score: 2) by drussell on Saturday August 17 2019, @03:39PM
Yes, that money is spent to actually run those programs, but it is also primarily paid for directly by the collection of premiums to those "insurance" programs as payroll withholdings.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 17 2019, @11:07PM (1 child)
"entitlements"
Get fucked, the vast majority of welfare recipients are NOT fraudulent.
If you don't understand why social services are important for the poor and disadvantaged then you should really go get a degree in world history. Or you can just look at all the 1st world countries that spend less and have better outcomes, that should be a nice clue bat to reboot your head.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday August 18 2019, @01:30AM
I also get why curbing those services is essential to a functioning society.
Well, perhaps we ought to look into that rather than pointlessly accuse me of nonsense when you just made a very important point for my argument? Yes, there are countries (and for that matter, US states) that manage to do much more with less. People seem strangely incurious about that other than to mention it in passing as some sort of imaginary rebuttal.