Fogbow

Let them sue, and then let the case drag out for 22 months.

I'm just done with these phuckwaddles.

A top House Republican just admitted that Republicans might cut Medicare and Social Security for people who are more than a few years out from getting it.

https://mastodon.social/@aravosis/109729799550309037

Lani wrote: ↑Sun Jan 22, 2023 3:45 am A top House Republican just admitted that Republicans might cut Medicare and Social Security for people who are more than a few years out from getting it.

https://mastodon.social/@aravosis/109729799550309037

Democrats and advocates for the elderly need to pound the table about this for the next 2 years. The AARP needs this to be their cover page headline every month.

Why do they want to cut SS? Is it really to have that money? The people who are insisting it be gone are surely not going to need it.

The other day Donald made a video telling House GOP to save social security cause the radical socialist democrats are trying to take it away.

Yeah, the "socialists" are trying to eradicate "social" security. Seems legit.

(sadly, the trumpers will not see the irony.)

Phoenix520 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:07 pm Why do they want to cut SS? Is it really to have that money? The people who are insisting it be gone are surely not going to need it.

Same reason W Bush wanted to dump all the So Sec fund into the stock market - its a pile of money they want to rob.

Michael Flynn associate Ivan Raiklin, outside his Reawaken event with Ashli Babbitt’s mother, says he is going to DC and Kevin McCarthy has until the end of day tomorrow to release all J6 footage or he will call for a Member to make a Motion to Vacate to remove him as Speaker.

He's so scary!

Why wait? I'll make that call for a member to make a motion to remove him RIGHT NOW!!

I'll probably get the exact same response he does.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevinismus
Hey! Kevin!
Sei kein Kevin

Little by little, we learn about the deals McCarthy made with the wingnuts to become Speaker. Now we know one was a Mayorkas impeachment hearing.

Regarding Social Security changes….
Well, moving the qualifying age back 3 years isn’t the worst.
It isn’t moving it to the Stock Market or something else really dangerous.
I haven’t seen a numbers analysis, but I suspect that medical costs and other costs are really high. It has become a very large part of our national budget.

Without seeing a numbers analysis I can’t judge the validity of moving back the age of benefits.

Australia just moved theirs back. It is a rational response (maybe).

On a couple of fronts moving the age is ridiculous at an individual level.

No one is going to hire me if I'm laid off. That puts a huge gap between me and benefits age (it's already a huge gap, thanks to the years already added. This isn't only me.

People may be living longer, but aren't healthier from an ability-to-work perspective. From a health perspective, I probably should retire now as I'm in constant pain. But not being a 1 percenter I can't afford to both money-wise and health insurance-wise. And I'm better off than many people.

Raise the cap. It's currently about $160,000. There's no reason one should stop paying into it at some arbitrary number.

AndyinPA wrote: ↑Sun Jan 22, 2023 10:42 pm Raise the cap. It's currently about $160,000. There's no reason one should stop paying into it at some arbitrary number.

This all the effing day long

Danraft wrote: ↑Sun Jan 22, 2023 9:57 pm Regarding Social Security changes….

Australia just moved theirs back. It is a rational response (maybe).

Age requirements
The pension age is being gradually increased from 65 to 67 years as set out in the table below.

Period within which a person was born Pension age Date pension age changes
From 1 July 1952 to 31 December 1953 65 years and 6 months 1 July 2017
From 1 January 1954 to 30 June 1955 66 years 1 July 2019
From 1 July 1955 to 31 December 1956 66 years and 6 months 1 July 2021
From 1 January 1957 onwards 67 years 1 July 2023

https://www.dss.gov.au/seniors/benefits ... ge-pension

There are SO many jobs which are hard on a person's body. Unfortunately, those aren't the people contributing to the coffers of folks in Congress so they get ignored.

Suranis wrote: ↑Sun Jan 22, 2023 4:31 pm

Phoenix520 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:07 pm Why do they want to cut SS? Is it really to have that money? The people who are insisting it be gone are surely not going to need it.

Same reason W Bush wanted to dump all the So Sec fund into the stock market - its a pile of money they want to rob.

Actually, it is not about raiding the fund. It is all ideological. The GOP has been against SS since it began. Despite the newer Tea Partier/MAGA types being ones who depend on all the government programs, the party still has an ideology of "no government programs." They have to feed the anger and outrage of the MAGA world in order to turn their attention from the fact that they want to take away their SS and their Medicare (or ACA).

This is the same reason they have not actually bothered to pass immigration reform, even the dreadfully cruel reform that the MAGA wants. Their corporate money world wants cheap labor, so to shut the door, even to undocumented, would hurt their donor's bottom line. Therefore, they can only use it to feed outrage to get elected by those who think they are losing their country.

northland10 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 23, 2023 8:46 am Actually, it is not about raiding the fund. It is all ideological. The GOP has been against SS since it began. Despite the newer Tea Partier/MAGA types being ones who depend on all the government programs, the party still has an ideology of "no government programs." They have to feed the anger and outrage of the MAGA world in order to turn their attention from the fact that they want to take away their SS and their Medicare (or ACA).

It's amazing how many Republicans believe that if they didn't have to pay into Social Security, they would wisely invest all those thousands and thousands of dollars and have a cushy retirement. After all, they are not irresponsible scum (lazy black welfare queens, irresponsible single mothers, drunken scofflaws, etc.) who can't handle money. Moreover, they take care of their health and so won't need medical insurance from the government. They're responsible conservatives.

MN-Skeptic wrote: ↑Mon Jan 23, 2023 12:01 pm

northland10 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 23, 2023 8:46 am Actually, it is not about raiding the fund. It is all ideological. The GOP has been against SS since it began. Despite the newer Tea Partier/MAGA types being ones who depend on all the government programs, the party still has an ideology of "no government programs." They have to feed the anger and outrage of the MAGA world in order to turn their attention from the fact that they want to take away their SS and their Medicare (or ACA).

It's amazing how many Republicans believe that if they didn't have to pay into Social Security, they would wisely invest all those thousands and thousands of dollars and have a cushy retirement. After all, they are not irresponsible scum (lazy black welfare queens, irresponsible single mothers, drunken scofflaws, etc.) who can't handle money. Moreover, they take care of their health and so won't need medical insurance from the government. They're responsible conservatives.

They also think that they can invest in the stock market and consistently beat the ROI of professional money managers.

I had a similar argument with someone about whether it was better to take the annual payments or the lump sum if you won the lottery. The guy insisted that he could beat the investors at the lottery commission, so he preferred the lump sum. I tried to point out that he not only had to do better than they did, he had to do almost 50% better than they did. The lottery commission doesn't pay income tax on its investment earnings, as he would have to do. So, if the commission made a 5% roi, he had to do 7-8%, CONSISTENTLY, in order to realize as much money as the commission.

The same is true of the Social Security Administration.

If the republicans had their way, abolished the SSA and gave everyone the balance in their account, most people would be broke in 3-5 years. How many people have had their 401(k)'s or IRA's wiped out in the last couple of recessions?

The problem is that a lot of people look at SSA as a savings account, that they have been contributing to for years. It is not. It is a tax, pure and simple. No politician will admit this, of course. It was never intended to replace retirement savings for those who could afford it. It was intended to provide a safety net for those who worked all their lives at low-paying jobs and were never able to save anything. They were too busy trying to put food on the table and a roof over their heads. SSA was meant to protect them from having to eat dog food in their old age.

SSA also shoulders the financial risk of investing. No matter what happens in the stock market, my SSA benefits won't change. I'm not a huge fan of IRA's and 401(k)'s. They put the risk on the future retiree. If the market goes sideways just before you retire, you probably won't have time for your account to recover before you must begin drawing it down.

Such a relief that Jim Jordan’s boys on the Judiciary Committee are hard at work on the people’s business.

AndyinPA wrote: ↑Sun Jan 22, 2023 10:42 pm Raise the cap. It's currently about $160,000. There's no reason one should stop paying into it at some arbitrary number.

That would help. But there just aren't a whole lot of wage earners/self-employeds who consistently max out on their Social Security taxable wage/income base. I have prepared personal returns for hundreds of people over the past forty-plus years. Very few attain the SS wage base. Even fewer surpass it by a substantial amount. (Any actuaries around?) I would have to assume that by increasing the wage base the monthly benefit would increase accordingly--not necessarily linearly--but increase nonetheless.

I think that people whose livelihoods are in real estate should be subject to Social Security. Not the guy who owns a rental house or two. But the guy who owns commercial and industrial properties and the guy who owns apartment buildings. These real estate pros make tons of money, but do not pay into Social Security. Granted, they don't collect benefits, either.

Last, there should be a similar provision in the Social Security benefit that exists for the Medicare Part B premium. The dreaded "Income-Related Monthly Adjustment Amount" (IRMAA) increases the Part B premium for "high earning individuals." For marrieds, that threshold is $194,000. Singles are half that amount. The table for 2023 is below. Note that SSA is always two years in arrears in determining this amount. Amounts for 2023 are based upon your 2021 tax return.

https://www.socialsecurityintelligence. ... -brackets/

I think that it is logical that if a high earning retiree with a lot of income from wages, self-employment, pensions, IRA, rents, dividends, capital gains, interest, or other sources receive a reduction in SS income once it exceeds a certain threshold. Never mind that 85% of the benefit is taxable. There should also be a monthly reduction up to 50% of the normal amount.

Michael Flynn associate Ivan Raiklin, outside his Reawaken event with Ashli Babbitt’s mother, says he is going to DC and Kevin McCarthy has until the end of day tomorrow to release all J6 footage or he will call for a Member to make a Motion to Vacate to remove him as Speaker.

Raiklin is like an upmarket Donofrio.

I recall in December 2020 when Raiklin was making all these wild predictions/demands about how the electoral vote should happen. (When not begging for money, which Donofrio to his credit doesn't do.) Nothing Raiklin said actually happened, just like Donofrio.

Raiklin went to DC for the count, and on January 7th, Twitter baned him.

Kendra wrote: ↑Mon Jan 23, 2023 3:07 pm

Such a relief that Jim Jordan’s boys on the Judiciary Committee are hard at work on the people’s business.

They are all about the free market deciding except when it doesn't suit their fundraising needs.

Walt Disney World’s Splash Mountain breaks a record ahead of closure date

Walt Disney World’s Splash Mountain broke a park record ahead of its closure date on Monday.

Thrill Data, a website that monitors wait times at theme parks, recorded that Splash Mountain hit a wait time of 220 minutes, which is over three hours long, on its final day of operation.

A previous record of 210 minutes was set in 2020, according to the website.

While Disney Parks rides, such as Star Wars: Rise of the Resistance or Animal Kingdom’s Avatar Flight of Passage, have exceeded 200-minute wait times during their opening day, it’s unusual for Splash Mountain to see similar line volume, theme park blog Inside The Magic reported.

The famed water ride is set to undergo a complete makeover and will reopen as a “Princess and the Frog” attraction dubbed “Tiana’s Bayou Adventure” in late 2024.