US continues to go backward...

[HacklemanPoke]

I am not disputing that low information voters become confused even with social issues But a two beer claim certainly seems very minor comparatively.

We have people that believe that are 400+ anti-LGTBQ bills in state legislatures; that you can’t say the word “gay” in Florida schools; that CRT is prevalent in schools; and several US Senators last year claimed that the GOP was planning to end Social Security and Medicare. Biden himself has previously joined in on the Medicare claim.

Politicians look to capitalize when they can.

Just an FYI GOP Senator Rick Scott has proposed that every entitlement program including Social Security and Medicare be sunset every 5 yrs. These programs would all expire without congressional approval.

Also a GOP Presidential candidate has proposed increasing the payout ages to Social Security. As a thread derailment warning making SS/MC could also become solvent by raising the income cap on FICA from $160K to $200K and things really improve if you raise the cap to $250K. For discussion only 12% of US wage earners make >$200,000/yr and 5% >$250,000.

 

[JTOSU]

Just an FYI GOP Senator Rick Scott has proposed that every entitlement program including Social Security and Medicare be sunset every 5 yrs. These programs would all expire without congressional approval.

Also a GOP Presidential candidate has proposed increasing the payout ages to Social Security. As a thread derailment warning making SS/MC could also become solvent by raising the income cap on FICA from $160K to $200K and things really improve if you raise the cap to $250K. For discussion only 12% of US wage earners make >$200,000/yr and 5% >$250,000.

Thank you for bringing that up. I specifically mentioned Social Security as an example because of the misstatements.

Yes, Rick Scott did proposed a broad plan to sunset all federal laws after 5 years, but of course you are aware he never mentioned Social Security or Medicare. But that didn’t stop a political opponent from making a false claim and then have that lie amplified by the media.

Rick Scott wants to end Social Security? Mostly False

When former U.S. Rep. Debbie Mucarsel-Powell announced her Senate campaign to unseat Florida Republican Sen. Rick Scott

www.politifact.com

Social Security is a very important issue, but one that continues to not get solved due to lies from partisans and media. Unfortunately, some apparently feel that a comment about two beers is just as important as Social Security solvency. IMO, the national debt and funding of Social Security are the two most important items our congressmen should tackle, but neither side appears to care.

Kudos for Nikki Haley for daring to at least propose an idea to continue funding Social Security. Her idea just kicks the can down the road for a decade, but it at least moves it.

I personally don’t like your idea of paying SS tax up to $250K, but I would rather people debate ideas to keep Social Security versus ignoring the issue.

 

[CowboyJD]

When your own citation doesn’t support your position.

“Scott’s initial plan didn’t directly call for ending either program outright, but left the option open by requiring that all federal legislation expire every five years unless Congress decided to renew. After mounting criticism from Democrats and members of his own party, Scott revised the plan to exclude both programs.

Multiple experts agreed that, had Social Security and Medicare been left in, their end would have been likely, given the difficulty of Congress passing and renewing expansive packages.

When we asked Mucarsel-Powell’s campaign for evidence that Scott wants to end Social Security and Medicare, it pointed to his plan’s original wording, and the time and circumstances that it took for him to revise it.

Scott decided to exclude Social Security and Medicare from his plan in February, about a year after he proposed it, following aggressive pushback.”

So let’s recap:

-While the original proposed legislation didn’t specifically mention social security, it applied to ALL legislation including Social Security

-Experts agree that if it was not excluded from the proposed legislation it would have effectively ended social security.

-After substantial pushback (what you are characterizing as lies because the bill supposedly never threatened SS)….he specifically excluded SS and Medicare a year later. He changed his position based upon pushback actually based on facts and language in the legislation….not falsehoods.

 

[JTOSU]

When your own citation doesn’t support your position.

“Scott’s initial plan didn’t directly call for ending either program outright, but left the option open by requiring that all federal legislation expire every five years unless Congress decided to renew. After mounting criticism from Democrats and members of his own party, Scott revised the plan to exclude both programs.

Multiple experts agreed that, had Social Security and Medicare been left in, their end would have been likely, given the difficulty of Congress passing and renewing expansive packages.

When we asked Mucarsel-Powell’s campaign for evidence that Scott wants to end Social Security and Medicare, it pointed to his plan’s original wording, and the time and circumstances that it took for him to revise it.

Scott decided to exclude Social Security and Medicare from his plan in February, about a year after he proposed it, following aggressive pushback.”

So let’s recap:

-While the original proposed legislation didn’t specifically mention social security, it applied to ALL legislation including Social Security

-Experts agree that if it was not excluded from the proposed legislation it would have effectively ended social security.

-After substantial pushback (what you are characterizing as lies because the bill supposedly never threatened SS)….he specifically excluded SS and Medicare a year later. He changed his position based upon pushback actually based on facts and language in the legislation….not falsehoods.

Lol, your news knowledge is even worse than I thought. I included the Politifact link to help.
Google a little to understand where Scott’s proposals landed with colleagues.

 

[HacklemanPoke]

Thank you for bringing that up. I specifically mentioned Social Security as an example because of the misstatements.

Yes, Rick Scott did proposed a broad plan to sunset all federal laws after 5 years, but of course you are aware he never mentioned Social Security or Medicare. But that didn’t stop a political opponent from making a false claim and then have that lie amplified by the media.

Rick Scott wants to end Social Security? Mostly False

When former U.S. Rep. Debbie Mucarsel-Powell announced her Senate campaign to unseat Florida Republican Sen. Rick Scott

www.politifact.com

Social Security is a very important issue, but one that continues to not get solved due to lies from partisans and media. Unfortunately, some apparently feel that a comment about two beers is just as important as Social Security solvency. IMO, the national debt and funding of Social Security are the two most important items our congressmen should tackle, but neither side appears to care.

Kudos for Nikki Haley for daring to at least propose an idea to continue funding Social Security. Her idea just kicks the can down the road for a decade, but it at least moves it.

I personally don’t like your idea of paying SS tax up to $250K, but I would rather people debate ideas to keep Social Security versus ignoring the issue.

Raising the cap to 200K would cost 12% of US wage earners $100/mo. Raising the age from 65-67 would cause 100% of new retirees $1500 to $2000 per month.

I’m not putting you in this boat but it’s interesting that fair tax or flat tax proponents just want everyone to pay the same % or “their fair share”, but a person making 200k per yr pays a lower (by at least 1/2 percent) than a person making 70k per yr in fica.

 

[CowboyJD]

Lol, your news knowledge is even worse than I thought. I included the Politifact link to help.
Google a little to understand where Scott’s proposals landed with colleagues.

LOL.

You cite a googled article (Politifact link) in support of what you're claiming.

I quote the article you provided in support and show it doesn't really support your claim. In fact, it contradicts your claim.

And then you question my news knowledge.

Sure thing, pigeon.

Scott's original proposal absolutely would have endangered SS.

The fact that he got fact-based pushback from BOTH Democrats AND Republicans is irrelevant to your claim that Democrats lied in their pushback by claiming that Scott wanted to eliminate SS in his bill.

 

[HacklemanPoke]

Lol, your news knowledge is even worse than I thought. I included the Politifact link to help.
Google a little to understand where Scott’s proposals landed with colleagues.

So is your point that Scott’s original proposal would indeed have ended SS. Then when told he was nuckin futs by his own party he rewrote the policy to then exclude SS/MC Ds then lied by continuing to claim he wanted to end SS/MC?

Because even GOP Senate leaders say his original proposal would have ended SS/MC.

 

[JTOSU]

So is your point that Scott’s original proposal would indeed have ended SS. Then when told he was nuckin futs by his own party he rewrote the policy to then exclude SS/MC Ds then lied by continuing to claim he wanted to end SS/MC?

Because even GOP Senate leaders say his original proposal would have ended SS/MC.

That is the point. There was NEVER a chance Republicans were ending SS. It is the 3rd rail of politics as shown. The claim was false. You know and I know that, but the political opponents made that claim and some in the media amplified it.

 

[JTOSU]

Raising the cap to 200K would cost 12% of US wage earners $100/mo. Raising the age from 65-67 would cause 100% of new retirees $1500 to $2000 per month.

I’m not putting you in this boat but it’s interesting that fair tax or flat tax proponents just want everyone to pay the same % or “their fair share”, but a person making 200k per yr pays a lower (by at least 1/2 percent) than a person making 70k per yr in fica.

I understand and grant that raising FICA is certainly a solution to lengthen SS viability. I happen to prefer other solutions.

FICA maximums are already 4x more than when I first started a paying job. And more recently, has increased 38% in the last 7 years. More and more of the burden is already being placed on wager earners.

 

[Polds4OSU]

I understand and grant that raising FICA is certainly a solution to lengthen SS viability. I happen to prefer other solutions.

FICA maximums are already 4x more than when I first started a paying job. And more recently, has increased 38% in the last 7 years. More and more of the burden is already being placed on wager earners.

Omg not an increase to 38% in the last 7 years. That is insanely high!!!..it was 68% when Reagan took over

The effective tax rate when SS was put into place in the US was 71% and SS was designed around the idea that tax rate would remain at that level

The top marginal tax rate was reduced to 58% in 1922, to 25% in 1925 and finally to 24% in 1929. In 1932 the top marginal tax rate was increased to 63% during the Great Depression and steadily increased, reaching 94% in 1944 (on income over $200,000, equivalent of $2,868,625 in 2018 dollars).

 

[JTOSU]

Omg not an increase to 38% in the last 7 years. That is insanely high!!!..it was 68% when Reagan took over


The top marginal tax rate was reduced to 58% in 1922, to 25% in 1925 and finally to 24% in 1929. In 1932 the top marginal tax rate was increased to 63% during the Great Depression and steadily increased, reaching 94% in 1944 (on income over $200,000, equivalent of $2,868,625 in 2018 dollars).

I think you are confusing FICA increases with income tax rates.
The FICA maximums increased by 38% since 2016. An individual paId 6.2% on first $116k of wages in 2016, for 2023 it is $160k (38% increase). For those individuals, that is ~$3K/annually paid more to the SS fund.

The 68% you mentioned under Reagan is the top marginal tax rate for income tax.

 

[Polds4OSU]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1699241870428107099

 

[Polds4OSU]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1699774427238728056

https://twitter.com/x/status/1699790491003605038

 

[Polds4OSU]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1699583527765921811

 

[Polds4OSU]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1699771186194846074

 

[PF5]

 

[Polds4OSU]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1701044091415629965

 

[PokitN]

https://x.com/greg_price11/status/1701628434894446999?s=20

 

[Polds4OSU]

https://x.com/greg_price11/status/1701628434894446999?s=20

The law will ban PUBLIC (not school) libraries from banning books. School libraries can and are expected to ban books based on age based appropriateness in the school in Illinois.


PUBLIC libraries stance on Books. They don't ban ANYTHING...and it is up to the Patron and their Kids to determine what they as a family check out of the library and read and that it is NOT the place of the Librarian to determine what kids read and check out at a PUBLIC library, but the Parents responsibility to monitor what their kids check out and Read. This is the ALA (American Libraries Association) standard

I see NO issue at all with a law saying you can't Ban the books, and specifically puts the decision back on the parents on which books their kids check out and read

 

[GOGETUMPOKE]

https://x.com/greg_price11/status/1701628434894446999?s=20

Slowly boiling the frog.