U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
 
Old Yesterday, 01:28 PM
 
10,337 posts, read 12,097,658 times
Reputation: 6616

Advertisements

I'm not worried. I think President Trump will do the right thing for his voters. Like he always does.

Let's see the "proposed changes" before you get your panties tied in a bunch. Then you can take apart the things that concern you and discuss.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old Yesterday, 01:42 PM
 
4,200 posts, read 6,468,176 times
Reputation: 4321
Trump now at over 12,000 lies. Trump says, 'trust me, I will have the best healthcare plan of all times if you elect me.' More lies. Here a list of his failed promises:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZD_xyAjC-E



Now that Trump has given away over a trillion dollars to his rich besties and corporations he needs to find another source. Trump has already cut and cutback on a multitude of social programs. What's left? Medicaid has a big target on it and is followed by Medicare and Social Security. The republicans have targeted SS and Medicare for years but are deathly afraid of voter backlash. Now we have a lunatic in the White House who is running scared and is acting like a cornered rat. Trump is and will strike out at everything and anything. Without a doubt Trump will bring us to war he believes it would benefit him.
Dumping SS and Medicare would be right on his agenda.

The only way to ensure the continuation of Social Security and Medicare is to vote Trump out of the White House.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 04:22 PM
 
Location: Ohio
20,233 posts, read 14,410,681 times
Reputation: 16441
Quote:
Originally Posted by WannaliveinGreenville View Post
Let's see the "proposed changes" before you get your panties tied in a bunch. Then you can take apart the things that concern you and discuss.
A well-reasoned recommendation.

On top of that, the definition of "cuts" by the Media and Democrats have proven to be lies.

The Media and Democrats falsely claimed Republicans cut Social Security.

That was a lie.

What Republicans did was prohibit people on Social Security Disability from also collecting UE Benefits.

Right?

I mean people are claiming they cannot work due to disability and then claiming they're unemployed.

That's called fraud, so in reality there were no cuts to Social Security.

Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero View Post
the program WAS DESIGNED to kick in at 62 when the AVERAGE LIFE SPAN was 60
Not relevant.

Actuarial Science is based on Life-Expectancy From Age 35 and Life-Expectancy From Age 65, but never on Life-Expectancy From Birth.

Life insurance, medical insurance, worker's compensation insurance, Social Security, Medicare and such were never based on Life-Expectancy From Birth.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 04:59 PM
 
Location: Ohio
20,233 posts, read 14,410,681 times
Reputation: 16441
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrowGirl View Post
I agree with BeerGeek.....reform is needed. My concern has always been that it be done thoughtfully, such as a tiered system or perhaps extending the age where you can first take full benefits. I'm concerned that reforms if not done thoughtfully will disparately impact lower income folks.
There are no reforms that will save Social Security.

There have been two recent reforms enacted by Republicans.

One was kicking people off disability who were also drawing unemployment benefits. If you're disabled, you're claiming that you cannot work, so you should not be allowed to get unemployment benefits, since UE benefits are for people who can work but haven't found a job yet.

The other was the elimination of "File & Suspend."

That was largely women.

Women would file for their own benefits then suspend payment, then apply for benefits under their spouse. When they turned 70, they'd apply to restart their benefits.

See, for each year past full-retirement age you don't collect, you get a bonus.

Now when you apply for benefits, you have no choice and no say in the matter. Social Security will automatically pay you the highest benefit amount to which you're entitled, whether you like it or not.

There is legislation pending to fix Social Security.

As I've said for the past 10 years, all you have to do to fix Social Security is raise the FICA tax 1.8%-2.2%.

You do that and Social Security is solvent for the next 200-400 years with no additional tax increases.

That is exactly what the legislation does.

The legislation also has Democrat pet-projects in it.

Since eliminating the wage cap will in no way make Social Security solvent, Democrats want to eliminate the wage cap to fund an offset for low-income earners and those who do not get 100% of their benefits.

If you only have a 29-year work-history, then you don't get 100% of your benefits.

The offset is designed to give that person credit for 3 years to have 32 years instead of 29 years, so that they get 91% of their benefits. It's not 100% but it's certainly better than 82%.

The other offset is for low-income workers, mostly part-time workers who do have 35+ years, but their income is low and they can't claim spousal benefits or their spouse has no benefits.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PCALMike View Post
America is the richest country in the world and we cant even afford to provide a basic standard of living to our seniors?
Neither can your glorious socialist European utopias that are slashing both pension and healthcare benefits.

And, apparently, you're still unable to grasp the concept of Wealth.

Wealth does not equal Cash.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 05:47 AM
 
Location: Unperson Everyman Land
30,749 posts, read 20,290,285 times
Reputation: 8512
Quote:
Originally Posted by gmagoo View Post
It was Gomer Bush who failed to read or ignored his President`s Daily Briefing of Aug. 6 2001 warning that Bin Laden was determined to strike in U.S. It was Bill Clinton`s fault?

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.ph..._Briefing_Memo


This crap again!

The threats were so non-specific that they could have done just about anything anywhere on the planet.

Nothing short of martial law and a 24-7 curfew would have made a difference, and even that may not have been enough.

So tell us gmagoo, after Clinton dropped the ball in '93 - and every year thereafter, What specific measures to confront this unspecified threat would you have supported on August 6, 2001?

Please be specific!
Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 05:50 AM
 
Location: Unperson Everyman Land
30,749 posts, read 20,290,285 times
Reputation: 8512
Quote:
Originally Posted by PedroMartinez View Post
Other than the one before him.

And the one that might have been.
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top