|
Post by brucemacneill on Jan 24, 2024 7:43:52 GMT -5
Most of Haley's votes came from Democrats who, since Biden wasn't on the ballot, voted against Trump not for Haley really. Haley is a RINO and republicans don't care for the RINOs. With Trump we know what we get and it's what we want to Make America Great Again by eliminating the Democratic Socialists, most of y'all, and RINOs who are destroying the U.S.A. in favor of globalist Communists. If you have a love for the Constitution of the U.S.A., you have to vote for Trump in the 2024 election.
|
|
|
Post by John B on Jan 24, 2024 8:40:49 GMT -5
Most of Haley's votes came from Democrats who, since Biden wasn't on the ballot, voted against Trump not for Haley really. Haley is a RINO and republicans don't care for the RINOs. With Trump we know what we get and it's what we want to Make America Great Again by eliminating the Democratic Socialists, most of y'all, and RINOs who are destroying the U.S.A. in favor of globalist Communists. If you have a love for the Constitution of the U.S.A., you have to vote for Trump in the 2024 election. You sound so bitter, considering how much Democratic administrations have provided for you (pretty much every benefit you have in retirement) and how little Republican administrations have. Kind of like a dog who keeps looking for affection from the cruel owner who beats him.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Jan 24, 2024 9:19:25 GMT -5
Most of Haley's votes came from Democrats who, since Biden wasn't on the ballot, voted against Trump not for Haley really. Haley is a RINO and republicans don't care for the RINOs. With Trump we know what we get and it's what we want to Make America Great Again by eliminating the Democratic Socialists, most of y'all, and RINOs who are destroying the U.S.A. in favor of globalist Communists. If you have a love for the Constitution of the U.S.A., you have to vote for Trump in the 2024 election. You sound so bitter, considering how much Democratic administrations have provided for you (pretty much every benefit you have in retirement) and how little Republican administrations have. Kind of like a dog who keeps looking for affection from the cruel owner who beats him. Republican administrations have been very good to me whereas Democrat administrations have damn near bankrupted me 3 times so far. I've lost $40,000 under Biden and I'm spending $2000/mo more than I take in now where I had discretionary income under Trump of $1000+/mo. I can't afford Communism and I'm only happy I'll die soon and not have to live under it long. Bitter, damn straight I'm bitter.
|
|
|
Post by John B on Jan 24, 2024 9:34:02 GMT -5
You sound so bitter, considering how much Democratic administrations have provided for you (pretty much every benefit you have in retirement) and how little Republican administrations have. Kind of like a dog who keeps looking for affection from the cruel owner who beats him. Republican administrations have been very good to me whereas Democrat administrations have damn near bankrupted me 3 times so far. I've lost $40,000 under Biden and I'm spending $2000/mo more than I take in now where I had discretionary income under Trump of $1000+/mo. I can't afford Communism and I'm only happy I'll die soon and not have to live under it long. Bitter, damn straight I'm bitter. You'd be dead already if it weren't for Democratic administrations, unless you already voluntarily choose to forgo any sort of health insurance or retirement program available to people who aren't millionaires. You might be happier, though.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Jan 24, 2024 9:53:35 GMT -5
Republican administrations have been very good to me whereas Democrat administrations have damn near bankrupted me 3 times so far. I've lost $40,000 under Biden and I'm spending $2000/mo more than I take in now where I had discretionary income under Trump of $1000+/mo. I can't afford Communism and I'm only happy I'll die soon and not have to live under it long. Bitter, damn straight I'm bitter. You'd be dead already if it weren't for Democratic administrations, unless you already voluntarily choose to forgo any sort of health insurance or retirement program available to people who aren't millionaires. You might be happier, though. Health insurance costs me $1000/mo above for supplements above Medicare and I can't find a doctor around here since the hospital went bankrupt due to the mandate they serve uninsured people, which cost my wife her job as a nurse. Social Security eliminated corporate pensions and employee benefits and it will be bankrupt in another 10 years unless some miracle happens. There's always a catch to a Democrat plan. $401K plans claimed we'd be tax deferred and pay the taxes after retirement when we'd be in a lower tax brackets but inflation adjustments due to Democrat's love of inflating their way out will soon push us into higher tax brackets. There's always a catch.
|
|
|
Post by coachdoc on Jan 24, 2024 15:37:16 GMT -5
Pat Paulsen isn't running this time? No. He’s given up as he is nearly as old as Biden.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Jan 24, 2024 17:27:23 GMT -5
Social Security eliminated corporate pensions and employee benefits and it will be bankrupt in another 10 years unless some miracle happens. Social Security has been around since before anybody here was born, and conventional company-run pension plans were still operational when my father retired from GE in the 1980s. (That pension, along with SS, was good enough to sustain him for the rest of his life.) Serious damage was done to that kind of plan when corporations started freezing their plans and/or substituting defined-contribution for defined-benefit plans. (Wall Street loves private retirement-investment programs.) In addition, takeovers, acquisitions, consolidations, and bankruptcies led to pension agreements being simply abrogated, leaving retirees with nothing. Another argument is that "private companies did not abandon their pensions due to the inherent cost of the pension itself, but rather because of the complex regulatory burden they faced."* None of these have anything to do with Social Security, whose long-term solvency issues can be addressed in various ways, for example, bu raising the taxable-maximum limit. (I've been a-Googling.) * protectpensions.org/2016/08/04/happened-private-sector-pensions
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Jan 24, 2024 17:37:37 GMT -5
Whatever you say. I just have a different opinion of how this worked out.
|
|
|
Post by John B on Jan 24, 2024 19:58:04 GMT -5
I have a traditional pension, and I didn't enter the workforce until the 90's. Social Security eliminated neither traditional pensions, nor did it eliminate employee benefits. The only entities that could do both of those things are employers, Bruce. Just because you got screwed by employers (and show me one that doesn't offer benefits unless they're required to by law) doesn't mean it's the fault of Democrats.
Every benefit you currently enjoy, even when you can't afford them, are there because a Democratic administration or lawmakers won them for you. The fact that you're not still working is because you were afforded the ability to retire, and certainly not because of Republicans.
To paint with a big paintbrush, Republicans believe if there's something wrong with you, health or otherwise, it's probably your fault. And if you can't afford to live you shouldn't be a drag on the rest of us. So if you're so committed, stop drawing Social Security and using Medicare.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jan 25, 2024 5:35:06 GMT -5
It did, however, eliminate (or at least meaningfully reduce) the ability of the middle and lower classes to save for themselves, thereby taking that responsible choice from them and then declaring itself their savior.
I'm thankful to have at least that, but it isn't lost on me that I didn't have the choice. And I live with the disdain demonstrated in previous posts on this forum from those of you who don't need it.
(While your employers were paying half of yours we were paying all of both of ours)
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Jan 25, 2024 5:55:44 GMT -5
I wonder if John B actually knows any Republicans. I don't know any that think what he thinks they think.
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Jan 25, 2024 17:27:03 GMT -5
(While your employers were paying half of yours we were paying all of both of ours) I've been self employed since 1981. Whatever $$ that are coming to me from SSA and IRAs and such are $$ I put in there. We did get some inheritance from Sue's father. Nothing monumental, but surely helpful. My mom's still chugging along and there will be some inheritance when she passes on. None of that is government subsidy or corporate generosity.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Jan 25, 2024 17:55:54 GMT -5
I think a couple of beginning (in 1977) college teachers qualify as middle class, and we managed to accumulate savings while also contributing our shares to SS and the state retirement system. And in the decades when I was self-employed, I put in both portions of the SS contribution. We also started IRAs that sheltered part of our income from immediate taxation. (Ironically enough, when we were required to start annual withdrawals, C was still working and her withdrawals are taxed accordingly.) So I don't see how the existence of SS and/or employer retirement programs reduced our ability or incentives to save for ourselves. Of course, other factors helped us (no children, union membership, job stability, good medical benefits), but we were planning for retirement from the start.
Now, low-wage workers with families and crappy employee benefits clearly find it harder to save, but it's not because of SS/pension-plan disincentives--it's because they make lousy money.
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Jan 25, 2024 17:59:07 GMT -5
I haven't had an employer since about 1985. Like Marshall, anything I get from Social Security and my retirement account comes from what I put into them.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jan 25, 2024 18:07:33 GMT -5
Bless your hearts.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Jan 25, 2024 18:18:06 GMT -5
I simply intend to work until I fall out (hopefully not into the maw of a whirling shredder. But then again, I'll be dead when I hit the blades).
That tends to be how it works out here in redneck land.
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Jan 26, 2024 1:34:23 GMT -5
Not sure what's going on there, but thanks anyway. And bless you too, my man.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jan 26, 2024 5:00:09 GMT -5
Not sure what's going on there, but thanks anyway. And bless you too, my man. Three of you disagreed with the point I made while none of you fit what I described. Instead, you said "Well, I did it, (so you are wrong)."
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Jan 26, 2024 9:04:40 GMT -5
Your point was confusing. (While your employers were paying half of yours we were paying all of both of ours) You made it sound like many of us were skating on the handouts of Big Brother whilest you were the honest one pulling your own weight and getting behind in the process. You're a good man. Sometimes your logic looses me and I jump to conclusions you don't intend. I apologize for our miscommunication/interpretation.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Jan 26, 2024 11:54:28 GMT -5
John, the sentence below includes two sets of claims: It did, however, eliminate (or at least meaningfully reduce) the ability of the middle and lower classes to save for themselves, thereby taking that responsible choice from them and then declaring itself their savior. If "it" refers to the Social Security program, then the Claim 1 is that Social Security deductions eliminated or reduced the ability of people to "save for themselves." Claim 2 is that the SS system removes a choice and "declar[es] itself their savior." What you got back from several of us amounts to evidence (anecdotal, to be sure) contrary to Claim 1--my post was quite specific about our particular suspenders-and-belt take on retirement planning and the advantages (especially good health insurance and a degree of union-provided employment security) that made saving and planning easier. And I stand by my point that the crucial cause of failure to save is low pay, not SS deductions--though that point is arguable via research and analysis. Claim 2 is trickier, since it is actually two claims: Claim 2A is a kind of libertarian-philosophical take on "choice," and Claim 2B is an assertion about what SS (or the government) "declares" about its role. Neither of those has much to do with the economic function of a government-mandated retirement system that requires both employees and employers to contribute to it--particularly Claim 2B, which strikes me as a projection. And all three of us who disagreed have been self-employed and thus paid both parts of the SS contributions--just like you did. In my case, my freelance writing income was so low that my SS payout is much, much lower than C's, which is based on nearly fifty years of full-time conventional employment. From a take-home-pay standpoint, I probably would have done 7% better if I'd gotten a crappy regular job at the same gross rate that my writing generated. But then I couldn't have gone to work in my bathrobe.
|
|