Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
They agree with their dear leader.Look at some of the posts here. They WANT people to suffer, to be as miserable as they are.
All they agree on is Trump is great, about all things.They agree with their dear leader.
Trump on Social Security, Medicare cuts: 'There is a lot you ...
View attachment 916106
The Hill
https://thehill.com › homenews › campaign › 4523816-...
23 hours ago — Former President Trump on Monday argued “there is a lot you can do” when it comes to cutting funding to entitlement programs like Social ...
Oh, sheesh. Really? This yarn again? So you think we can make SS solvent just by once again raising taxes on the rich?Maybe instead of cutting SS to normal people you could for instance increase income by taxing the wealthy more, instead of less?
So once again your "solution" is to just tax, tax, tax, and tax again.Just a thought but if the wealth gap is among the highest of developed nations. It might be a good idea to try to decrease instead of increase that figure? Wealth Inequality by Country 2024 Wealth Inequality by Country 2024
Because the currently promised levels are not sustainable!Why is the best solution to save SS cutting the number? Instead of figuring out how to keep it at current levels?
See, the protection of the rich marches on.Oh, sheesh. Really? This yarn again? So you think we can make SS solvent just by once again raising taxes on the rich?
So once again your "solution" is to just tax, tax, tax, and tax again.
Because the currently promised levels are not sustainable!
How many more times do you want to raise the SS tax? We've raised the SS tax six times since 1972, yet we're still only years away from having a large SS deficit. Did you read the OP? By 2035, in just 11 years, SS taxes will only cover 75% of SS obligations.
How much more of a tax burden do you want to place on American companies, the same companies that you guys are always screaming at to hire more employees? Are you aware that people with an earned income of over $700K per year already pay 37% of their income just in federal taxes?
Republicans ALWAYS try and mess with Social Security. ALWAYS. it may not be perfect but its better than anything REPUBLICANS HAVE PUT FORWARD.Every time someone proposes a sane, rational, sensible reform of Social Security (SS) to make the system solvent for decades to come, Democrats demagogue it, lie about it, and scare seniors into believing they will be left to starve. Will Democrats ever stop lying about badly needed SS reforms before the system is insolvent?
According to the Social Security Administration, "by 2035 taxes will be enough to pay for only 75 percent of scheduled benefits" (Research: The Future Financial Status of the Social Security Program). 2035 is only 11 years away, folks. 11 years. Think about that.
We have overpromised, badly, and we have no foreseeable way to pay for the SS benefits we have promised. Sensible reforms would include the following:
-- Reduce scheduled benefits for people aged 54 and younger by 25%.
-- Lift the restriction on the amount of payroll income subject to the SS tax (i.e., the payroll tax). As of 2024, the SS tax only applies to the first $168,200 of payroll income. Lift that cap and make all payroll income subject to the SS tax.
-- Impose a means test for receiving SS benefits. If your personal retirement income is over $80K per year, you get 30% of your currently scheduled benefit. If your personal retirement income is over $100K per year, you get 10% of your currently scheduled benefit. If your personal retirement income is over $150K per year, you get no SS payment.
In 2005, President George W. Bush actually proposed a sane, rational reform of SS that would have made the system solvent well into the 2060s. His proposal did not touch existing SS recipients, nor did it touch anyone over 55. The SS benefits for current recipients and for people 55 and over would have remained unchanged. But Democrats ignored these facts and lied through their teeth about the proposal.
Bush's proposal would have imposed a reduction of about 25% in SS benefits for people aged 54 and younger, which would have given them many years to plan for the reduction. If you would have received $2,000 per month under the previous benefits schedule, you would get $1,500 under the revised schedule.
Bush's proposal would have also given people aged 54 and under the entirely voluntary option of having part of their SS taxes--not all of their SS taxes, but only part of them--placed in a personal retirement account that they would have owned. The accounts would have been set up by the government and would have consisted of a conservative mix of bond and stock funds. Even during the Great Recession of 2008-2009, conservative bond and stock funds suffered minimal losses and made up those losses within 1-3 years.
To be fair, that was also your solution.So once again your "solution" is to just tax, tax, tax, and tax again.
I think his message is simply no compromise.To be fair, that was also your solution.
Blindly partisan radicals like you are the reason we have not fixed SS.See, the protection of the rich marches on.
Only cuts to benefits can be allowed.
true.while reacut income taxes , mostly on the to tiers, he DOUBLED the most regressive tax that employees pay, the fica.Newsflash for you younger people, Social Security was already fixed. They jacked up the Social Security tax under Reagan, promising to hold those surplus contributions until the boomers retired. Assholes in congress however couldn't keep their hands off the money. Congress 'borrowed' trillions of Social Security contributions, gave us worthless IOU's and screwed us over royally.
the whole "lock box" thing was a hoax. If any country raises taxes and then just somehow just forces banks to "hold" collected taxes ... you have a great recession. The one sure way to get rid of inflation is just to raise taxes and cut spending.true.while reacut income taxes , mostly on the to tiers, he DOUBLED the most regressive tax that employees pay, the fica.
]
removing the cap on fica would be enough, lowering benefits will hurt a lot of old ladies.the whole "lock box" thing was a hoax. If any country raises taxes and then just somehow just forces banks to "hold" collected taxes ... you have a great recession. The one sure way to get rid of inflation is just to raise taxes and cut spending.
But at the time Reagan and the dems pulled this lock box stunt, the deficits weren't so bad. Now the gop is betting that people will willingly give up soc sec to keep the Navy. Not a good bet.
We just need to do it again. Raise revenues and cut benefits so people either work longer or die sooner. (-:
Maybe instead of cutting SS to normal people you could for instance increase income by taxing the wealthy more, instead of less?
Just a thought but if the wealth gap is among the highest of developed nations. It might be a good idea to try to decrease instead of increase that figure? Wealth Inequality by Country 2024
Why is the best solution to save SS cutting the number? Instead of figuring out how to keep it at current levels?
We are $34 trillion in debt. Last year Ole Potatohead added over $2 trillion to the debt. This year the sonofabitch is running up debt at a rate of a trillion every 100 days. He is also wanting a Federal budget of $7.5 trillion next year, which is more than the GDP of all but one other country on earth. The Democrats want a tax increase and increases in taxes always result in a slowing down of the economy.Every time someone proposes a sane, rational, sensible reform of Social Security (SS) to make the system solvent for decades to come, Democrats demagogue it, lie about it, and scare seniors into believing they will be left to starve. Will Democrats ever stop lying about badly needed SS reforms before the system is insolvent?
According to the Social Security Administration, "by 2035 taxes will be enough to pay for only 75 percent of scheduled benefits" (Research: The Future Financial Status of the Social Security Program). 2035 is only 11 years away, folks. 11 years. Think about that.
We have overpromised, badly, and we have no foreseeable way to pay for the SS benefits we have promised. Sensible reforms would include the following:
-- Reduce scheduled benefits for people aged 54 and younger by 25%.
-- Lift the restriction on the amount of payroll income subject to the SS tax (i.e., the payroll tax). As of 2024, the SS tax only applies to the first $168,200 of payroll income. Lift that cap and make all payroll income subject to the SS tax.
-- Impose a means test for receiving SS benefits. If your personal retirement income is over $80K per year, you get 30% of your currently scheduled benefit. If your personal retirement income is over $100K per year, you get 10% of your currently scheduled benefit. If your personal retirement income is over $150K per year, you get no SS payment.
In 2005, President George W. Bush actually proposed a sane, rational reform of SS that would have made the system solvent well into the 2060s. His proposal did not touch existing SS recipients, nor did it touch anyone over 55. The SS benefits for current recipients and for people 55 and over would have remained unchanged. But Democrats ignored these facts and lied through their teeth about the proposal.
Bush's proposal would have imposed a reduction of about 25% in SS benefits for people aged 54 and younger, which would have given them many years to plan for the reduction. If you would have received $2,000 per month under the previous benefits schedule, you would get $1,500 under the revised schedule.
Bush's proposal would have also given people aged 54 and under the entirely voluntary option of having part of their SS taxes--not all of their SS taxes, but only part of them--placed in a personal retirement account that they would have owned. The accounts would have been set up by the government and would have consisted of a conservative mix of bond and stock funds. Even during the Great Recession of 2008-2009, conservative bond and stock funds suffered minimal losses and made up those losses within 1-3 years.
You are going to pay fast food workers 50 dollars an hour in California. Figure it out.All they agree on is Trump is great, about all things.
fast food workers are paying rent and buying gasoline.You are going to pay fast food workers 50 dollars an hour in California. Figure it out.
