Electile Dysfunction (Current students plz look!)

[CaptainHenreh]

Yeah, unfortunately the gravy trains ends as the tax cuts for our income group is being rolled back.  Part of the initial plan.  Some were hoping we would undergo another revision and they wouldn't be rolled back...but that looks like it won't happen.

"Wealth tax" and "eat the rich" is the name used to vilify.  It's a progressive tax bracket with rules and exemptions that now mean the effective tax rate on keeps getting lower on "the wealthy" under our current system.  I don't suggest we go back to the 50-70% in years past, but establish a more progressive effective tax bracket and roll back some of these tax cuts aimed squarely at those who make the most. 

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear, I am not suggesting Biden's plan is an "eat the rich" kind of thing. I think Warren's chatter on wealth taxes and her tax plan was.

I'm not the guy who thinks that Biden is some kind of Progressive Crusader, he's too old for that kind of thing. The people he appoints on the other hand, likely will be.

Also kamala harris sucks too, and normally this is where I say "Nobody cares about the VP" because normally nobody does. But if Elected he'll serve until he's 83. A consideration that natural causes may prevent him from serving his full term is something to think about.

---

I hope all you Johnson voters can sleep well for the next 4 years.

I'mma sleep like a wee babe.

-2016

---

So vote. But please vote for who you want to win, even if it's Joe Exotic.

WHAT DID YOU KNOW?!???!!!

[Kaan]

Biden is a dinosaur.  Go away.

I can agree with this... but so Agent Orange

[WRXtranceformed]

I also understand your sentiment on forced retirement spending.  But unfortunately people are short sighted and without some sort of forced retirement; we will end up eating these people into a system that costs us far more.  I would rather force people to put some money into forced retirement out of their own paychecks vs completely paying for them out of my paycheck later on in life.  Social Security isnt perfect; but it's the net we need to make sure our neighbors have some sort of retirement vs becoming destitute and relying completely on the system.

I would gladly donate all of my lifetime accrued social security benefit to someone who didn't or couldn't save and needed it, if I didn't have to pay another dime into it for the rest of my life

Every one of us here in every tax bracket is going to be salty when we get into our 60s and start drawing on SS at a fraction of what we actually paid in, if we get any of it at all.  Let's revisit this if in 25-30 years we aren't all dead from the apocalypse

[HAULN-SS]

Are you implying the FBI wasn't involved and incompetent? I think that is the willfully ignorant part. Read the timeline of events in the Horowitz report. Then remember every time you see Carter pages name that he was working for the CIA and the guy that changed an email saying he wasn't plead guilty just lately for making the change. https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/d...rowitz.pdf

They absolutely did not want him to become President. We don't have to wonder if it happened.

I meant exactly what I said.  The FBI is responsible for counterintelligence investigations, the FBI launched a properly predicated investigation into the Trump campaign due to suspicious contacts with Russian nationals, and as a result of that investigation, 7 members of the Trump campaign have been convicted of crimes.

The Horowitz report disputes none of that.  It says that the FBI made omissions and errors in fact in obtaining FISA warrants, particularly in the case of Carter Page.  Page was not a source for the CIA since 2013.  The Horowitz report states clearly that there was a proper predicate for the investigation and that the investigation was not started due to political bias.

The worst you can say is that FBI agents conspired against Carter Page to surveil him when they might not have had enough justification to do so had they not cooked their FISA applications.

You keep saying properly predicated, but the whole investigation was fruit of the poisonous tree. Agents willfully ignored the fact that the predicated was DNC paid for opposition research. It has been proven that even the primary sourcing in the Steele dossier said that he and some buddies got drunk and tried to figure out how to get as much money as possible out of Steele.

[Kaan]

I also understand your sentiment on forced retirement spending.  But unfortunately people are short sighted and without some sort of forced retirement; we will end up eating these people into a system that costs us far more.  I would rather force people to put some money into forced retirement out of their own paychecks vs completely paying for them out of my paycheck later on in life.  Social Security isnt perfect; but it's the net we need to make sure our neighbors have some sort of retirement vs becoming destitute and relying completely on the system.

I would gladly donate all of my lifetime accrued social security benefit to someone who didn't or couldn't save and needed it, if I didn't have to pay another dime into it for the rest of my life

Every one of us here in every tax bracket is going to be salty when we get into our 60s and start drawing on SS at a fraction of what we actually paid in, if we get any of it at all.  Let's revisit this if in 25-30 years we aren't all dead from the apocalypse

every two years the SSA sends out the document with your status and what to expect. they are already saying in 27 years i'll receive 30% less without intervention.... that 30% is going to just increase as we age. dollar for dollar is going to be a net loss for most of us in this forum over time... who knows where the dollar for dollar line will be on income... too many years of politicians meddling to predict it.

[D_Eclipse9916]

I also understand your sentiment on forced retirement spending.  But unfortunately people are short sighted and without some sort of forced retirement; we will end up eating these people into a system that costs us far more.  I would rather force people to put some money into forced retirement out of their own paychecks vs completely paying for them out of my paycheck later on in life.  Social Security isnt perfect; but it's the net we need to make sure our neighbors have some sort of retirement vs becoming destitute and relying completely on the system.

I would gladly donate all of my lifetime accrued social security benefit to someone who didn't or couldn't save and needed it, if I didn't have to pay another dime into it for the rest of my life

Every one of us here in every tax bracket is going to be salty when we get into our 60s and start drawing on SS at a fraction of what we actually paid in, if we get any of it at all.  Let's revisit this if in 25-30 years we aren't all dead from the apocalypse

every two years the SSA sends out the document with your status and what to expect. they are already saying in 27 years i'll receive 30% less without intervention.... that 30% is going to just increase as we age. dollar for dollar is going to be a net loss for most of us in this forum over time... who knows where the dollar for dollar line will be on income... too many years of politicians meddling to predict it.

Sorry, but most experts disagree that we will be insolvent on SS.  In fact, we can run at our current pay out till 2035 without a single change.  Even AFTER 2035 with WORST case scenario of no change; we will likely receive 75-90% of our benefit.  And that's at our current very low "return on investment that the fund gets".

Small tax law changes now will easily push this out/keep it good in perpetuity.

I guess I am at a loss of why you would rather have 100% of those extra dollars gone vs having 75% of it.  If SS didn't exist, those same people needing SS would be on FULL TIME benefits from the govt of which they have not added into at all.
And if you are on the train of "but I can do better with my money"; that's great.  The system isnt there for you.  It's for those who 100% would not put in if they werent forced to and SOMETHING is better than nothing.  Again, saving YOU money long term by having these people save forcefully vs having to hike our income/capital gains to pay for our already overtaxed system.

Plus if you are so good with your money, and you would rather give that money back...well then don't claim your SS when you are of age.  It's a fund in the trust of the govt, so if you dont claim it; it will keep SS more solvent for those who need it.  Hey, exactly what you wanted!

[Kaan]

Sorry, but most experts disagree that we will be insolvent on SS.  In fact, we can run at our current pay out till 2035 without a single change.  Even AFTER 2035 with WORST case scenario of no change; we will likely receive 75-90% of our benefit.  And that's at our current very low "return on investment that the fund gets".

I was wrong... its 25% reduction... and it is stable at the 25% reduced rate past 2035 (which i'm sure 99% of us are going to be 67 after that date)... still a terrible savings account lol

from the SSA: Currently, the Social Security Board of Trustees projects program cost to rise by 2035 so that taxes will be enough to pay for only 75 percent of scheduled benefits. This increase in cost results from population aging, not because we are living longer, but because birth rates dropped from three to two children per woman.

[rherold9]

I'm just surprised that with all the atrocities/issues we aren't talking too much about how this man thinks we are somehow Russia now and he is the dictator. Just crazy to think after everything that has happened it doesn't even strike a chord as it's just a fraction of the issues out there....

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

[D_Eclipse9916]

Sorry, but most experts disagree that we will be insolvent on SS.  In fact, we can run at our current pay out till 2035 without a single change.  Even AFTER 2035 with WORST case scenario of no change; we will likely receive 75-90% of our benefit.  And that's at our current very low "return on investment that the fund gets".

I was wrong... its 25% reduction... and it is stable at the 25% reduced rate past 2035 (which i'm sure 99% of us are going to be 67 after that date)... still a terrible savings account lol

from the SSA: Currently, the Social Security Board of Trustees projects program cost to rise by 2035 so that taxes will be enough to pay for only 75 percent of scheduled benefits. This increase in cost results from population aging, not because we are living longer, but because birth rates dropped from three to two children per woman.

You are repeating what I said in your quoted.  Can I ask what your point is?  

Yes, terrible savings account; but it's a social safety net, not an investment.  The more you make the less benefit you receive, which is kind of the point.  SS has never been touted as a high return investment.  SS paying out to widows, disabled and those who can barely pay for their rent, nevertheless into their IRAs is a gift that helps lift many out of poverty who would otherwise go destitute. And come on the payouts are just barely enough to keep rent paid, its not like their going to aruba. Plus unlike other social programs, they pay directly into it while they work and benefits are proportional to how much they put in!

[G.Irish]

Are you implying the FBI wasn't involved and incompetent? I think that is the willfully ignorant part. Read the timeline of events in the Horowitz report. Then remember every time you see Carter pages name that he was working for the CIA and the guy that changed an email saying he wasn't plead guilty just lately for making the change. https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/d...rowitz.pdf

They absolutely did not want him to become President. We don't have to wonder if it happened.

I meant exactly what I said.  The FBI is responsible for counterintelligence investigations, the FBI launched a properly predicated investigation into the Trump campaign due to suspicious contacts with Russian nationals, and as a result of that investigation, 7 members of the Trump campaign have been convicted of crimes.

The Horowitz report disputes none of that.  It says that the FBI made omissions and errors in fact in obtaining FISA warrants, particularly in the case of Carter Page.  Page was not a source for the CIA since 2013.  The Horowitz report states clearly that there was a proper predicate for the investigation and that the investigation was not started due to political bias.

The worst you can say is that FBI agents conspired against Carter Page to surveil him when they might not have had enough justification to do so had they not cooked their FISA applications.

You keep saying properly predicated, but the whole investigation was fruit of the poisonous tree. Agents willfully ignored the fact that the predicated was DNC paid for opposition research. It has been proven that even the primary sourcing in the Steele dossier said that he and some buddies got drunk and tried to figure out how to get as much money as possible out of Steele.

Clearly you did not read the Horowitz report.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

[Ken]

You are repeating what I said in your quoted.  Can I ask what your point is?  

Yes, terrible savings account; but it's a social safety net, not an investment.  The more you make the less benefit you receive, which is kind of the point.  SS has never been touted as a high return investment.  SS paying out to widows, disabled and those who can barely pay for their rent, nevertheless into their IRAs is a gift that helps lift many out of poverty who would otherwise go destitute. And come on the payouts are just barely enough to keep rent paid, its not like their going to aruba.  Plus unlike other social programs, they pay directly into it while they work and benefits are proportional to how much they put in!

Once again, it's the inability for some to emphasize with those less fortunate. Some don't realize how difficult it is for the less fortunate to invest/save, let alone even have access to a reliable institution to do so. Remove SSA and, as you mentioned, those people then become reliant on government that is even less ready for that burden. But, i guess, "fuck you, i got mine."

---

Are you implying the FBI wasn't involved and incompetent? I think that is the willfully ignorant part. Read the timeline of events in the Horowitz report. Then remember every time you see Carter pages name that he was working for the CIA and the guy that changed an email saying he wasn't plead guilty just lately for making the change. https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/d...rowitz.pdf

They absolutely did not want him to become President. We don't have to wonder if it happened.

I meant exactly what I said.  The FBI is responsible for counterintelligence investigations, the FBI launched a properly predicated investigation into the Trump campaign due to suspicious contacts with Russian nationals, and as a result of that investigation, 7 members of the Trump campaign have been convicted of crimes.

The Horowitz report disputes none of that.  It says that the FBI made omissions and errors in fact in obtaining FISA warrants, particularly in the case of Carter Page.  Page was not a source for the CIA since 2013.  The Horowitz report states clearly that there was a proper predicate for the investigation and that the investigation was not started due to political bias.

The worst you can say is that FBI agents conspired against Carter Page to surveil him when they might not have had enough justification to do so had they not cooked their FISA applications.

You keep saying properly predicated, but the whole investigation was fruit of the poisonous tree. Agents willfully ignored the fact that the predicated was DNC paid for opposition research. It has been proven that even the primary sourcing in the Steele dossier said that he and some buddies got drunk and tried to figure out how to get as much money as possible out of Steele.

Clearly you did not read the Horowitz report.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

No, but OANN summarized it so well!

[Apoc]

I love that peoples' beliefs here are like an Olympic ring Venn diagram. Historically, I've made the mistake of trying to push everyone into two camps - liberal or conservative. Everything is so much more complex than that.

I've always operated on the assumption I'm getting exactly $0 in SS after I retire. That sucks for me, but I know the people getting it likely need it more than me. I say that as someone who has paid ~$250k in Fed/SS/Medicare taxes over the last five years and doesn't believe in highly progressive taxes. Sometimes I just gotta take one for the team, including with my vote.

[CaptainHenreh]

I love that peoples' beliefs here are like an Olympic ring Venn diagram. Historically, I've made the mistake of trying to push everyone into two camps - liberal or conservative. Everything is so much more complex than that.

Nuance? Fuck off, no room for that. You're on team Goodthink or you're evil.

[Apoc]

I love that peoples' beliefs here are like an Olympic ring Venn diagram. Historically, I've made the mistake of trying to push everyone into two camps - liberal or conservative. Everything is so much more complex than that.

Nuance? Fuck off, no room for that. You're on team Goodthink or you're evil.

Maybe not belabor the point or, at the least, try not to turn a positive message into an opportunity to bitch?

[Kaan]

Sorry, but most experts disagree that we will be insolvent on SS.  In fact, we can run at our current pay out till 2035 without a single change.  Even AFTER 2035 with WORST case scenario of no change; we will likely receive 75-90% of our benefit.  And that's at our current very low "return on investment that the fund gets".

I was wrong... its 25% reduction... and it is stable at the 25% reduced rate past 2035 (which i'm sure 99% of us are going to be 67 after that date)... still a terrible savings account lol

from the SSA: Currently, the Social Security Board of Trustees projects program cost to rise by 2035 so that taxes will be enough to pay for only 75 percent of scheduled benefits. This increase in cost results from population aging, not because we are living longer, but because birth rates dropped from three to two children per woman.

You are repeating what I said in your quoted.  Can I ask what your point is?  

relax... i lead off with "i was wrong" ... thats the point.

[D_Eclipse9916]

Sorry, but most experts disagree that we will be insolvent on SS.  In fact, we can run at our current pay out till 2035 without a single change.  Even AFTER 2035 with WORST case scenario of no change; we will likely receive 75-90% of our benefit.  And that's at our current very low "return on investment that the fund gets".

I was wrong... its 25% reduction... and it is stable at the 25% reduced rate past 2035 (which i'm sure 99% of us are going to be 67 after that date)... still a terrible savings account lol

from the SSA: Currently, the Social Security Board of Trustees projects program cost to rise by 2035 so that taxes will be enough to pay for only 75 percent of scheduled benefits. This increase in cost results from population aging, not because we are living longer, but because birth rates dropped from three to two children per woman.

You are repeating what I said in your quoted.  Can I ask what your point is?  

relax... i lead off with "i was wrong" ... thats the point.

   Sorry!

Luckily my pocketbook and social views align here to easily vote for Biden.

[Kaan]

I've always operated on the assumption I'm getting exactly $0 in SS after I retire. That sucks for me, but I know the people getting it likely need it more than me. 

same same... we invest like we will never see it... but i'm "forced" to sit down with my financial advisor and go over it and include it. my disability payout is higher than my retirement pay... doesnt seem right (but i know separate accounts and all... except that one time they used retirement to boost disability). my total life time estimated pay in will be dried up if i live 10 years into retirement (i'm guessing that doesnt happen for enough people or it wouldnt be solvent).

[CaptainHenreh]

Maybe not belabor the point or, at the least, try not to turn a positive message into an opportunity to bitch?

Sorry, my inner "fucking moron" was talking.

[WRXtranceformed]

I also understand your sentiment on forced retirement spending.  But unfortunately people are short sighted and without some sort of forced retirement; we will end up eating these people into a system that costs us far more.  I would rather force people to put some money into forced retirement out of their own paychecks vs completely paying for them out of my paycheck later on in life.  Social Security isnt perfect; but it's the net we need to make sure our neighbors have some sort of retirement vs becoming destitute and relying completely on the system.

I would gladly donate all of my lifetime accrued social security benefit to someone who didn't or couldn't save and needed it, if I didn't have to pay another dime into it for the rest of my life

Every one of us here in every tax bracket is going to be salty when we get into our 60s and start drawing on SS at a fraction of what we actually paid in, if we get any of it at all.  Let's revisit this if in 25-30 years we aren't all dead from the apocalypse

every two years the SSA sends out the document with your status and what to expect. they are already saying in 27 years i'll receive 30% less without intervention.... that 30% is going to just increase as we age. dollar for dollar is going to be a net loss for most of us in this forum over time... who knows where the dollar for dollar line will be on income... too many years of politicians meddling to predict it.

Sorry, but most experts disagree that we will be insolvent on SS.  In fact, we can run at our current pay out till 2035 without a single change.  Even AFTER 2035 with WORST case scenario of no change; we will likely receive 75-90% of our benefit.  And that's at our current very low "return on investment that the fund gets".

Small tax law changes now will easily push this out/keep it good in perpetuity.

I guess I am at a loss of why you would rather have 100% of those extra dollars gone vs having 75% of it.  If SS didn't exist, those same people needing SS would be on FULL TIME benefits from the govt of which they have not added into at all.
And if you are on the train of "but I can do better with my money"; that's great.  The system isnt there for you.  It's for those who 100% would not put in if they werent forced to and SOMETHING is better than nothing.  Again, saving YOU money long term by having these people save forcefully vs having to hike our income/capital gains to pay for our already overtaxed system.

Plus if you are so good with your money, and you would rather give that money back...well then don't claim your SS when you are of age.  It's a fund in the trust of the govt, so if you dont claim it; it will keep SS more solvent for those who need it.  Hey, exactly what you wanted!

If you were responding to me, I think you misread what I wrote.  I'd rather give that money back IF I didn't have to pay into it going forward.  If I don't get all or at the very least the vast majority of what I've been forced to pay into social security when I retire I'm going to be salty af, as everyone should be

[HAULN-SS]

You are repeating what I said in your quoted.  Can I ask what your point is?  

Yes, terrible savings account; but it's a social safety net, not an investment.  The more you make the less benefit you receive, which is kind of the point.  SS has never been touted as a high return investment.  SS paying out to widows, disabled and those who can barely pay for their rent, nevertheless into their IRAs is a gift that helps lift many out of poverty who would otherwise go destitute. And come on the payouts are just barely enough to keep rent paid, its not like their going to aruba.  Plus unlike other social programs, they pay directly into it while they work and benefits are proportional to how much they put in!

Once again, it's the inability for some to emphasize with those less fortunate. Some don't realize how difficult it is for the less fortunate to invest/save, let alone even have access to a reliable institution to do so. Remove SSA and, as you mentioned, those people then become reliant on government that is even less ready for that burden. But, i guess, "fuck you, i got mine."

---

Are you implying the FBI wasn't involved and incompetent? I think that is the willfully ignorant part. Read the timeline of events in the Horowitz report. Then remember every time you see Carter pages name that he was working for the CIA and the guy that changed an email saying he wasn't plead guilty just lately for making the change. https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/d...rowitz.pdf

They absolutely did not want him to become President. We don't have to wonder if it happened.

I meant exactly what I said.  The FBI is responsible for counterintelligence investigations, the FBI launched a properly predicated investigation into the Trump campaign due to suspicious contacts with Russian nationals, and as a result of that investigation, 7 members of the Trump campaign have been convicted of crimes.

The Horowitz report disputes none of that.  It says that the FBI made omissions and errors in fact in obtaining FISA warrants, particularly in the case of Carter Page.  Page was not a source for the CIA since 2013.  The Horowitz report states clearly that there was a proper predicate for the investigation and that the investigation was not started due to political bias.

The worst you can say is that FBI agents conspired against Carter Page to surveil him when they might not have had enough justification to do so had they not cooked their FISA applications.

You keep saying properly predicated, but the whole investigation was fruit of the poisonous tree. Agents willfully ignored the fact that the predicated was DNC paid for opposition research. It has been proven that even the primary sourcing in the Steele dossier said that he and some buddies got drunk and tried to figure out how to get as much money as possible out of Steele.

Clearly you did not read the Horowitz report.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

No, but OANN summarized it so well!

Oh you guys fucking burned me good. I had to look up what OANN is. I clearly linked the fucking summary of the report direct from source to make it easy for you to find it. Y'all need to step back a little and think about what your AI driven echo chambers are delivering to you to consume partial reports, incomplete sets of facts or other highly viral bullshit. I don't have time to build you a paint by numbers guide of cited sources that you won't read anyway.