Liberal Forum

Fuelman » 25 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

25 minutes ago

In the end all that does is give high earners a larger SS check.

I agree it could be a quick fix short term but not actually a solution long term.

watch the government raise the limit for social security for millionaires.

jerrab » 44 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

44 minutes ago

----------------------------------------------
The average Social Security benefit was just $1,979 per month for retired workers in January 2025. But Social Security's wealthiest beneficiaries get a lot more. The max monthly benefit in 2025 is $5,108 per month. That adds up to more than $61,000 per year.3 days ago

jerra » wrote:

01 Feb 1970, 6:30 am

Fuelman » Today, 10:55 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 10:55 am

In the end all that does is give high earners a larger SS check.

I agree it could be a quick fix short term but not actually a solution long term.

there is cap on social security.

 

 Yes, If you earned the the taxable limit for SS every year for 35 years you would receive the $5,108 if you wait until 70 to claim. (Probably a very small percentage of people)

The formula is the same for everyone. Raise the cap on those high earners, or eliminate it, they will get some pretty hefty monthly checks. 

Fuelman » 11 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

11 minutes ago

 Yes, If you earned the the taxable limit for SS every year for 35 years you would receive the $5,108 if you wait until 70 to claim. (Probably a very small percentage of people)

The formula is the same for everyone. Raise the cap on those high earners, or eliminate it, they will get some pretty hefty monthly checks.

lifting the cap of how much money can be taxed for social security is one thing, right now anything over 187,000 a year is not taxed for social security.

limiting how much money someone makes before they are not eligible for social security is another thing. right now even someone who makes a billion dollars a year can get social security. this is ridiculous. they do not need the money.

ROG62 » Today, 1:28 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 1:28 am

he did the same thing the democrats did on voter drop boxes when the GOP wanted them dropped...

"****** too poor to get ID"
"old people can't do this online" 
"****** to poor to get to voting booth"
"old people can't get to SSI office" and when they get there, "no one works there anymore, so lines are forever"

yet he didn't show all the things in writing or video that have been done to cause this so called chaos...

1. He read their own internal memo actually planning for precisely what is described.
2. He gave the specific number of visits SSA currently manages, and he showed by SSA's own numbers a 14% expected increase.
3. The memo said that staff cuts are inevitable, while traffic is going up.
4. It is a fact - not a racist trope - that older people are less adept on computers.
5. He never played the race card - YOU did.

ROG62 » Today, 1:28 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 1:28 am

maybe it's just the fact that the HEAD of the SSA, not the woman he talked about, are cleaning up the SSI benefit rolls and asking people to verify who they really are ensuring everyone getting benefits is alive and legitimately receiving them...

I watched the claims about names of 300 year olds being on the list. It was **** on its face. When did a 300 year old get a SS number, when the program is less than a hundred years old? The claims have been debunked as the **** they were on their face. The "problem" that leads to the "solution" is "manufactured" and "fake."

When they start using fake problems to cover for their "solution" to the fake problems, your *** is being greased, son. And you ought to be able to discern that.

Here's a snippet from an AP article that has a **** of a lot more credibility than the campfire stories Trump And Elon were raising hairs on our necks with:

https://apnews.com/article/social-secur ... 15b4852cf7

A July 2024 report from Social Security’s inspector general states that from fiscal years 2015 through 2022, the agency paid out almost $8.6 trillion in benefits, including $71.8 billion — or less than 1% — in improper payments. Most of the erroneous payments were overpayments to living people.

In addition, in early January, the U.S. Treasury clawed back more than $31 million in a variety of federal payments— not just Social Security payments— that improperly went to dead people, a recovery that former Treasury official David Lebryk said was “just the tip of the iceberg.”

The money was reclaimed as part of a five-month pilot program after Congress gave the Department of Treasury temporary access to the Social Security Administration’s “Full Death Master File” for three years as part of the omnibus appropriations bill in 2021. The SSA maintains the most complete federal database of individuals who have died, and the file contains more than 142 million records, which go back to 1899, according to the Treasury.

You want to notice that the issue was already being handled, and you want to notice that most of the waste was overpayments to living people that are already being clawed back. I can testify to that, as I was overpaid 3k the first year I claimed benefits and had to pay it back.

ROG62 » Today, 1:28 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 1:28 am

I understand he's not a partisan hack, but at time he sounds a bit Sternish...sorry...

When your fact check includes inventing things to refute him with - like *** cannot use computers, - he starts to sound pretty unimpeachable, to me.

I know the difference between **** and shinola - and I do not STOP knowing the difference just because I voted for the people slinging the ****.

jerrab » 26 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

26 minutes ago

lifting the cap of how much money can be taxed for social security is one thing, right now anything over 187,000 a year is not taxed for social security.

limiting how much money someone makes before they are not eligible for social security is another thing. right now even someone who makes a billion dollars a year can get social security. this is ridiculous. they do not need the money.

The promise of SS for everyone is just that. Turning it into class warfare solves nothing.
 

jerrab » Today, 3:02 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 3:02 am

men competing against women in sports is a slap in their face, it is another way of bullying women. the girls that compete maybe are being told that women's liberation meant that women are equal to men that they are strong as men. no women's liberation did not mean they are as strong as men, it was about we are not going to take your **** anymore and you cant bully us anymore. men pretending  to be women and beating them IN WOMENS SPORTS is bullying women once again.

It was a bit more nuanced than that. Bullying happens. Men bully women and PLENTY of women bully men. Long before gloria steinem, there were lots and lots and lots of ******-whipped men. So there was never this one-sided bully chart that ran in only one direction - nor is there now. In spite of women having the upper hand in divorces and cop-calling incidents, there are STILL bullied women. In spite of men earning more because they worker harder in dirtier and more dangerous jobs, there are STILL bullied men. 

Women's liberation had some great benefits. One of these was that in the world before liberation, women were listened to far more condescendingly. The same idea that would be seriously considered if it came from a man would be dismissed and passed over if it came from a woman. This was pretty ubiquitous, and it was pretty damned costly to SOCIETY - not just to women. Another benefit was ending the infantilization of women - which was a thing. But just as slave owners were not administering daily beatings to their slaves, husbands were not rubbing their cocks in their wives' faces on the way out the door to earn the family's sustenance. 

The dark purpose of women's lib - notwithstanding these salutary aspects - was to bully women out of the home and into the work force; out of motherhood and into servitude to corporations. So women's lib did not END the bullying of women. It institutionalized it. Women as a demographic have lost more than they have gained from women's liberation. The things they gained are significant and important and to be treasured and celebrated. But the things they lost are even more significant and important and their loss is inestimable in its cost to women, children, men, the American family.

And yes, the disgusting celebration and normalization of mental illness is bullying women - and then some. 

DeezerShoove » Today, 7:37 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 7:37 am

My simple hope is that there is another shoe to drop... That it might not be as dire as current indications seem.

You have to look at it as one of the ploys (for lack of a better word) for pissed off people like Dore:
Take one of the most deserved programs and compare it to the most overpriced programs.
SS payouts vs Pentagon/Israel payouts.

Not holding my breath though.

I'm not feeling any of that. 

I smell brutality on the wind. 
 

Fuelman » Today, 8:08 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 8:08 am

Technically, it's not their money, it's the money of those still working.
 

This is quite false. The monies paid in belong to those who paid them in. 

The mere fact that those monies were invest in Tbills does not mean the investors forfeited. 

If this were the case, your other retirement investments can be seized as well. They are not yours. They belong to people who are still working. 
 

Fuelman » Today, 10:59 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 10:59 am

That will be one hell of a debate to determine what that number is!!!

Oh, I don't know, maybe $10 over what we've got?   

murdock » Today, 8:35 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 8:35 am

Pull your head out of your stupid ***!I didn't say SS was free. I said that bastard wants free stuff! 

And forty plus years? 58 to be exact.

You said it in a thread about social security - not a thread about free stuff. So you're an idiot - but we knew that.

Cannonpointer » 2 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

2 minutes ago

This is quite false. The monies paid in belong to those who paid them in. 

The mere fact that those monies were invest in Tbills does not mean the investors forfeited. 

If this were the case, your other retirement investments can be seized as well. They are not yours. They belong to people who are still working.

G-dam you're an idiot.
 

jerrab » Today, 11:13 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 11:13 am

are you saying billionaires should not get 5,000 a month? I would agree.

limiting social security to people making under 200 million dollars a year would free up a lot of money.

@70? not interested...
 

jerrab » Today, 11:17 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 11:17 am

----------------------------------------------
The average Social Security benefit was just $1,979 per month for retired workers in January 2025. But Social Security's wealthiest beneficiaries get a lot more. The max monthly benefit in 2025 is $5,108 per month. That adds up to more than $61,000 per year.3 days ago

If they wait until they're 70...  
 

jerrab » Today, 11:19 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 11:19 am

watch the government raise the limit for social security for millionaires.

^^^ *******...

Cannonpointer » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

7 minutes ago

You said it in a thread about social security - not a thread about free stuff. So you're an idiot - but we knew that.

Lying bastard.

ROG62 » Today, 1:28 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 1:28 am

he did the same thing the democrats did on voter drop boxes when the GOP wanted them dropped...

"****** too poor to get ID"
"old people can't do this online" 
"****** to poor to get to voting booth"
"old people can't get to SSI office" and when they get there, "no one works there anymore, so lines are forever"

yet he didn't show all the things in writing or video that have been done to cause this so called chaos...

maybe it's just the fact that the HEAD of the SSA, not the woman he talked about, are cleaning up the SSI benefit rolls and asking people to verify who they really are ensuring everyone getting benefits is alive and legitimately receiving them...

I understand he's not a partisan hack, but at time he sounds a bit Sternish...sorry...

  This is why I said that you have PSD (Partisan Derangement Syndrome)

  you make **** up

https://youtu.be/_H0PDv5nymk?si=VxdWyEme-162_fEz
 

Cannonpointer » 42 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

42 minutes ago

1. He read their own internal memo actually planning for precisely what is described.
2. He gave the specific number of visits SSA currently manages, and he showed by SSA's own numbers a 14% expected increase.
3. The memo said that staff cuts are inevitable, while traffic is going up.
4. It is a fact - not a racist trope - that older people are less adept on computers.
5. He never played the race card - YOU did.

I watched the claims about names of 300 year olds being on the list. It was **** on its face. When did a 300 year old get a SS number, when the program is less than a hundred years old? The claims have been debunked as the **** they were on their face. The "problem" that leads to the "solution" is "manufactured" and "fake."

When they start using fake problems to cover for their "solution" to the fake problems, your *** is being greased, son. And you ought to be able to discern that.

Here's a snippet from an AP article that has a **** of a lot more credibility than the campfire stories Trump And Elon were raising hairs on our necks with:

You want to notice that the issue was already being handled, and you want to notice that most of the waste (LESS THAN 1%) was overpayments to living people that are already being clawed back. I can testify to that, as I was overpaid 3k the first year I claimed benefits and had to pay it back.

When your fact check includes inventing things to refute him with - like *** cannot use computers, - he starts to sound pretty unimpeachable, to me.

I know the difference between **** and shinola - and I do not STOP knowing the difference just because I voted for the people slinging the ****.

I saw it as he was gaslighting...which is why I referenced the voter ID / drop boxes...which the democrats turned it into some racist ****...that's not on me...

the guy jimmy was pulling the info from was also gaslighting as well as Diaz...she also made specious claims, if the memo is even factual...and if it's an "internal memo", who made it public? all it does is lead to baseless FEARPORN...

oh, and what's with jimmy's sidekick, bug eye? The effects play right into jimmy's narrative...unless he's a DEI hire suffering from Graves or TED...then it's understandable...

BTW, I went back and did see jimmy referencing his Mother-in-law...my apologies...


 

Cannonpointer » 23 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

23 minutes ago

This is quite false. The monies paid in belong to those who paid them in. 

The mere fact that those monies were invest in Tbills does not mean the investors forfeited. 

If this were the case, your other retirement investments can be seized as well. They are not yours. They belong to people who are still working.

No, the money you receive from Social Security isn't your money in the sense of being a direct return of your contributions, but rather a payment from a system funded by current workers' taxes, which is then distributed to those who qualify for benefits. 

Please try to keep up, you should know this ****.
 

ROG62 » 6 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

6 minutes ago

I saw it as he was gaslighting...which is why I referenced the voter ID / drop boxes...which the democrats turned it into some racist ****...that's not on me...

the guy jimmy was pulling the info from was also gaslighting as well as Diaz...she also made specious claims, if the memo is even factual...and if it's an "internal memo", who made it public? all it does is lead to baseless FEARPORN...

You mean like 300 year old SS recipients? Fearporn like that?

ROG62 » 6 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

6 minutes ago

..
BTW, I went back and did see jimmy referencing his Mother-in-law...my apologies...

SOMEONE is resorting to fearporn. If Jimmy is right and it is Trump that is resorting to fearporn with these preposterous claims of Mayflower passengers ghosts drawing social - which isn't **** happening, - what then? You gonna wait until your checks stop to cuss about it?

murdock » 21 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

21 minutes ago

Lying bastard.

@Mrkelly  - THIS^ is why we have pg. So piece of **** cannot **** up your thread with their **** posts.