US Elections (& Politics) :)

Trump is running a pay-to-play extortion scam for pardons out of the White House...

 
  • Angry
Reactions: Amgclk65 and johnfitz
He's laughing his ass off at Cult supporters.... you MAGA geniuses should send him money directly. Just write him a check :p:rofl::winktongue:

 
  • Sad
Reactions: johnfitz
Of course he doesn't. They're writing it into law inside the NDAA where it can be hidden




 
  • Sad
Reactions: johnfitz
Its pretty much done now.

Our country has been sold. Have fun celebrating the 4th of July and the death of America suckers


 
  • Haha
  • Sad
Reactions: Arjun and johnfitz
bigredfish said:
They will cut benefits, and likely raise the age.

But why would you not first legislate that everyone must pay regardless of income? And yes that would mean a graduated higher payout for those who pay more
Click to expand...
I'm declining to answer that personally because it's just one part of a complex system that I don't fully know, much less understand, but I'll answer it generically. Some people think SS is a retirement system where what you pay in is held in Al Gore's "lockbox", to be paid back to you after retirement (kinda sorta like a 401k). Others think it's an income redistribution welfare system where the rich people pay more and the less rich people receive the same, or even more, benefit than the rich people. For those who think it's a welfare system, it's likely that they'd like the income cap removed. For those that think it's a simple retirement system, they may or may not favor removing the income cap depending on how they view the actuarial and social issues.

At first glance removing the income cap would indeed help the finances since above the second bend point, eligible earnings are credited at 15%, vs. 90% below the first bend point. On the other hand, I wonder if there would be unintended side effects such as moving the bend points higher, resulting in higher across-the-board benefit increases? I don't know about that.

In the original SS act, it was a combination of retirement fund and welfare, with the lower earnings counted more than the higher earnings. Benefits were only for the wage earner. Since then it has moved closer to a welfare program, adding spouse, children, and survivor benefits. COLAs were added, minimum age reduced to 62, taxation added, and the earnings test was added. WEP came and went. Since the original legislation, the program has become less of a retirement fund and more of a welfare program, though not totally either one.

I can see how people with different philosophies view removing the income cap issue differently, depending how they view what the purpose of the program is or what they think it should be. Whatever the case, it's not a president thing, it's a congress thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bigredfish, johnfitz and Arjun
tigerwillow1 said:
I'm declining to answer that personally because it's just one part of a complex system that I don't fully know, much less understand, but I'll answer it generically. Some people think SS is a retirement system where what you pay in is held in Al Gore's "lockbox", to be paid back to you after retirement (kinda sorta like a 401k). Others think it's an income redistribution welfare system where the rich people pay more and the less rich people receive the same, or even more, benefit than the rich people. For those who think it's a welfare system, it's likely that they'd like the income cap removed. For those that think it's a simple retirement system, they may or may not favor removing the income cap depending on how they view the actuarial and social issues.

At first glance removing the income cap would indeed help the finances since above the second bend point, eligible earnings are credited at 15%, vs. 90% below the first bend point. On the other hand, I wonder if there would be unintended side effects such as moving the bend points higher, resulting in higher across-the-board benefit increases? I don't know about that.

In the original SS act, it was a combination of retirement fund and welfare, with the lower earnings counted more than the higher earnings. Benefits were only for the wage earner. Since then it has moved closer to a welfare program, adding spouse, children, and survivor benefits. COLAs were added, minimum age reduced to 62, taxation added, and the earnings test was added. WEP came and went. Since the original legislation, the program has become less of a retirement fund and more of a welfare program, though not totally either one.

I can see how people with different philosophies view removing the income cap issue differently, depending how they view what the purpose of the program is or what they think it should be. Whatever the case, it's not a president thing, it's a congress thing.
Click to expand...

Understood. And yes it’s a Congress thing, unfortunately we don’t have one any longer.

One can call it whatever one likes. One can argue the original “intent” (at the end of the day it’s part of the social safety net) But everyone working is forced to fund it from their paycheck.
I know people who dont qualify because they didn’t for various reasons.

I’m sorry but given the astronomical fraud and abuse by our government ($1.6 Trillion for Defense, $1 Billion for a Ballroom, Hundreds of $$Billions for other countries wars? Etc etc ) the thought that a large portion of the population that has retired and living modestly and worse, should be the target of CUTS is some twisted rationalizing.

 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: tigerwillow1 and johnfitz
Trump Boo'd bigly and falls asleep at NBA game in NYC





 
  • Wow
Reactions: johnfitz
I'm going to just set this to replay all day.....warms the heart............... can I turn it into ringtone?...


 
  • Wow
  • Haha
Reactions: johnfitz and Arjun
bigredfish said:
I'm going to just set this to replay all day.....warms the heart............... can I turn it into ringtone?...


Click to expand...

The problem is that these are uneducated Knicks fans; not all are uneducated, but a good chunk of them have an average or below-grade IQ - they were wrecking the city last night after their loss to the San Antonio Spurs. There's no problem being a Knicks fan, but a good chunk of them are dumb and only see things either left or right, self-centered, narcissistic, expressing animalistic traits :rofl: That's why it is taking them 50+ years to finally "potentially" win a title and that too due to a really unchallenging season where there were only 2-3 decent teams in the Eastern Conference that were decently performing despite a crapload of injuries. I'm sure @johnfitz agrees with me on this statement :rofl: The Western Conference has been and will likely always be dominant. Time to be a Texan. :lol:

Only a dumb Knicks fan will blame Trump's presence for their loss in yesterday's game. Superstitious fans thinking that Knicks won "13" in a row - and now the team is cursed again indefinitely. :lmao:
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: Oceanslider and johnfitz
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom