What Sacrificing Americans Would Accept to save Social Security
Re: What Sacrificing Americans Would Accept to save Social Security
Clearly, this doesn't impact me in any way.
But, if I had a say...
There is a problem because the government kept 'borrowing' money from SS to pay for other things, is there not?
Re-fund it by taking money from the military budget. Spending over $2000 per person, per year, seems a bit much. I mean, that's $175ish each month for every single person.
But, if I had a say...
There is a problem because the government kept 'borrowing' money from SS to pay for other things, is there not?
Re-fund it by taking money from the military budget. Spending over $2000 per person, per year, seems a bit much. I mean, that's $175ish each month for every single person.
Re: What Sacrificing Americans Would Accept to save Social Security
I’m just pointing out the difference in viewpoints. You see the poor as not contributing ENOUGH, when their contribution is already outsized. You worry about putting an undue burden on the wealthy, which aren’t being hurt at all by their contributions.JoeMemphis wrote: ↑Mon Jun 13, 2022 10:16 pm And you are not here to do anything but make personal attacks.
This is just a survey. It isn’t proposed legislation. You know. People looking to find middle ground? Tell me are you part of the 70 to 80 percent willing to sacrifice or the 20% who would rather argue and get nothing? Are you interested in possible solutions or would you rather have the issue?
And you just won’t address what would happen for the poor who are the most affected by this on both ends.
Re: What Sacrificing Americans Would Accept to save Social Security
No GoU. That’s not the point. As I said this was a survey regarding how a plurality of people agree on some basic issues. Instead of lecturing me on what you think I believe and attacking me for it which contributes nothing to a discussion, try simply stating what you believe. Other people here seem to be able to pull that off without the personal attacks.gounion wrote: ↑Tue Jun 14, 2022 7:43 am I’m just pointing out the difference in viewpoints. You see the poor as not contributing ENOUGH, when their contribution is already outsized. You worry about putting an undue burden on the wealthy, which aren’t being hurt at all by their contributions.
And you just won’t address what would happen for the poor who are the most affected by this on both ends.
Re: What Sacrificing Americans Would Accept to save Social Security
You're setting up a strawman argument, and I won't accept your bullshit. I think people at the bottom of our economic system are paying enough and not getting enough back. Let's be clear - Your link says they should pay MORE and get LESS.JoeMemphis wrote: ↑Tue Jun 14, 2022 8:05 am No GoU. That’s not the point. As I said this was a survey regarding how a plurality of people agree on some basic issues. Instead of lecturing me on what you think I believe and attacking me for it which contributes nothing to a discussion, try simply stating what you believe. Other people here seem to be able to pull that off without the personal attacks.
And, as always, you won't take a stand YOURSELF. You demand I take a stand - and I HAVE - so why don't you? What do you say to the single mom trying to keep her kids fed, when you want her to pay more for less?
- carmenjonze
- Posts: 9614
- Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 3:06 am
Re: What Sacrificing Americans Would Accept to save Social Security
You try living on SNAP, TANF, CCDF, WIC, CHIP, PUBLIC AND SUBSIDIZED HOUSING, EIC, amd tax-free refunds. Then come back and tell us how much is left over for that Cadillac.
________________________________
The way to right wrongs is to
Shine the light of truth on them.
~ Ida B. Wells
________________________________
The way to right wrongs is to
Shine the light of truth on them.
~ Ida B. Wells
________________________________
Re: What Sacrificing Americans Would Accept to save Social Security
I don’t care if you take a stand or not. Up to you. You don’t seem capable of having a simple discussion without launching into a personal attack based solely on what you think I think.gounion wrote: ↑Tue Jun 14, 2022 9:32 am You're setting up a strawman argument, and I won't accept your bullshit. I think people at the bottom of our economic system are paying enough and not getting enough back. Let's be clear - Your link says they should pay MORE and get LESS.
And, as always, you won't take a stand YOURSELF. You demand I take a stand - and I HAVE - so why don't you? What do you say to the single mom trying to keep her kids fed, when you want her to pay more for less?
FYI, a person earning 20 per hour would see an increase in payroll taxes of $10 per month. Roughly 1/4 to 1/3 of the average monthly union dues. That in exchange for an increase at retirement of the monthy minimum distribution of over $200 dollars. So it doesn’t seem like a bad deal. Maybe that’s why 70 percent of your party supported it according to the survey.
Re: What Sacrificing Americans Would Accept to save Social Security
So the taxpayer is underwriting the low-wage employers. We're paying the difference between a living wage and what the employer SHOULD be paying.
Isn't that wonderful, Green Grass?
- carmenjonze
- Posts: 9614
- Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 3:06 am
Re: What Sacrificing Americans Would Accept to save Social Security
Conservative whites never had a problem with so-called welfare when it was white women only, and whites-only public housing.gounion wrote: ↑Tue Jun 14, 2022 9:32 am You're setting up a strawman argument, and I won't accept your bullshit. I think people at the bottom of our economic system are paying enough and not getting enough back. Let's be clear - Your link says they should pay MORE and get LESS.
And, as always, you won't take a stand YOURSELF. You demand I take a stand - and I HAVE - so why don't you? What do you say to the single mom trying to keep her kids fed, when you want her to pay more for less?
They only started the derision and stereotypes when Black women demanded equal access to public aid. But long before that, they were already subjecting Black women to forced-work/papers please laws. Here's how they acted in South Carolina.
The Greenville [South Carolina] Daily News, 1918
https://www.newspapers.com/image/?clipp ... US8yLoelUU
________________________________
The way to right wrongs is to
Shine the light of truth on them.
~ Ida B. Wells
________________________________
The way to right wrongs is to
Shine the light of truth on them.
~ Ida B. Wells
________________________________
- carmenjonze
- Posts: 9614
- Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 3:06 am
Re: What Sacrificing Americans Would Accept to save Social Security
We're all just another "class of loafers" to you pontificating, arrogant, lazy-ass cons, who think everyone else was put here to do your own work for you.JoeMemphis wrote: ↑Tue Jun 14, 2022 10:00 am I don’t care if you take a stand or not. Up to you. You don’t seem capable of having a simple discussion without launching into a personal attack based solely on what you think I think.
FYI, a person earning 20 per hour would see an increase in payroll taxes of $10 per month. Roughly 1/4 to 1/3 of the average monthly union dues. That in exchange for an increase at retirement of the monthy minimum distribution of over $200 dollars. So it doesn’t seem like a bad deal. Maybe that’s why 70 percent of your party supported it according to the survey.
It's almost incredible that your lazy ass bothered to copy/paste a link in a post.
________________________________
The way to right wrongs is to
Shine the light of truth on them.
~ Ida B. Wells
________________________________
The way to right wrongs is to
Shine the light of truth on them.
~ Ida B. Wells
________________________________
- carmenjonze
- Posts: 9614
- Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 3:06 am
Re: What Sacrificing Americans Would Accept to save Social Security
Conservative men are such stupid parrots.
Still repeating propaganda from the 80s. :problem:
Still repeating propaganda from the 80s. :problem:
How racism has shaped welfare policy in America since 1935 - AP News, 2016
Ronald Reagan’s “Welfare Queen” narrative only reinforced existing white stereotypes about blacks:
“There’s a woman in Chicago [ ]. She has 80 names, 30 addressees, 12 Social Security cards and is collecting veterans’ benefits on four nonexistent deceased husbands. She’s got Medicaid, is getting food stamps and welfare under each of her names. Her tax-free cash income alone is over $150,000.”
________________________________
The way to right wrongs is to
Shine the light of truth on them.
~ Ida B. Wells
________________________________
The way to right wrongs is to
Shine the light of truth on them.
~ Ida B. Wells
________________________________
- carmenjonze
- Posts: 9614
- Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 3:06 am
Re: What Sacrificing Americans Would Accept to save Social Security
These people won't be satisfied until child labor is legal again.
Not to mention unpaid labor.
________________________________
The way to right wrongs is to
Shine the light of truth on them.
~ Ida B. Wells
________________________________
The way to right wrongs is to
Shine the light of truth on them.
~ Ida B. Wells
________________________________
Re: What Sacrificing Americans Would Accept to save Social Security
You don't want to take a stand, you just want to set up a straw man argument and attack anyone else's stand.JoeMemphis wrote: ↑Tue Jun 14, 2022 10:00 am I don’t care if you take a stand or not. Up to you. You don’t seem capable of having a simple discussion without launching into a personal attack based solely on what you think I think.
And it's NOT about what you think - it's about what you write. You think it's perfectly acceptable for the desperately poor to pay more taxes for less, because what you're REALLY concerned about is keeping the tax bills of the right low or non-existent.
I've had a union job since 1979 and haven't made $20 since the early eighties.FYI, a person earning 20 per hour would see an increase in payroll taxes of $10 per month. Roughly 1/4 to 1/3 of the average monthly union dues. That in exchange for an increase at retirement of the monthy minimum distribution of over $200 dollars. So it doesn’t seem like a bad deal. Maybe that’s why 70 percent of your party supported it according to the survey.
I guess you REALLY don't understand the poor. You think $20 is low wage? Do you have any idea what the price of housing is? The price of food and gas is going through the roof, and you're here saying they should be should be paying higher taxes for less benefits.
And, since you can't defend that stance, you simply attack me.
Re: What Sacrificing Americans Would Accept to save Social Security
That's why they outsource - so they can use child and slave labor.carmenjonze wrote: ↑Tue Jun 14, 2022 10:12 am These people won't be satisfied until child labor is legal again.
Not to mention unpaid labor.
And that doesn't stop them from trying to bring it back here.
Re: What Sacrificing Americans Would Accept to save Social Security
Read the article and get back to me with the part that says they are getting less. Maybe you can also explain why a majority of your party also supports these concepts.gounion wrote: ↑Tue Jun 14, 2022 10:15 am You don't want to take a stand, you just want to set up a straw man argument and attack anyone else's stand.
And it's NOT about what you think - it's about what you write. You think it's perfectly acceptable for the desperately poor to pay more taxes for less, because what you're REALLY concerned about is keeping the tax bills of the right low or non-existent.
I've had a union job since 1979 and haven't made $20 since the early eighties.
I guess you REALLY don't understand the poor. You think $20 is low wage? Do you have any idea what the price of housing is? The price of food and gas is going through the roof, and you're here saying they should be should be paying higher taxes for less benefits.
And, since you can't defend that stance, you simply attack me.
Re: What Sacrificing Americans Would Accept to save Social Security
Isn't raising the age requirement getting less?JoeMemphis wrote: ↑Tue Jun 14, 2022 10:20 am Read the article and get back to me with the part that says they are getting less. Maybe you can also explain why a majority of your party also supports these concepts.
I thought you weren't going to vouch for the reliability of the survey. Now you're telling me it reflects reality, and that the majority of Democrats supports the concepts?
- carmenjonze
- Posts: 9614
- Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 3:06 am
Re: What Sacrificing Americans Would Accept to save Social Security
Here's what they did in North Carolina into the 1980s.
Sterilizing the Sick, Poor to Cut Welfare Costs: North Carolina's History of Eugenics - ABC News
Sterilizing the Sick, Poor to Cut Welfare Costs: North Carolina's History of Eugenics - ABC News
Note: 9-year-olds are not "women," but anyway...Though eugenics advocates at the time may have believed they were actually working towards a stronger gene pool, scientists' limited understanding of genes at that time meant that eugenics as public policy merely opened the doors to rampant discrimination against virtually anyone with an "undesirable" trait: alcoholics, those who were depressed, "promiscuous" women pregnant out of wedlock, and ultimately, poor men and women on welfare, who were often shuffled through the system under the vague and clinically meaningless diagnosis of "feeblemindedness."
This flexibility meant that some states kept their programs alive long after eugenics fell out of favor following World War II (a result of the glaring similarities noted between the Nazi sterilization programs and those in the U.S.). Especially in the south, sterilization programs merely shifted their focus on which populations were to be "controlled".
"Starting in the 1950s, I think a lot of sterilization was about racism," says Kluchin. "After WWII, welfare expands, the rate of illegitimacy expands and this anxiety grows among middle-class white people that a culture of poverty is being propagated in these rural, poor, black areas."
North Carolina sterilization program was at its peak during the civil unrest and exploding welfare costs of the 1960s, says Johanna Schoen, an associate professor of history at University of Iowa and expert in the North Carolina sterilization program.
It was the only state where social workers had the right to suggest "clients" for sterilization and the eugenics board seldom turned down those recommended -- they had a 95 percent acceptance rate. What's more, the program created a climate where doctors felt entitled to take sterilization into their own hands, doling them out when they saw fit, she says.
Instead of sterilizations taking place in mental institutions, in a few southern states they became more common in rural hospitals where poor unmarried women would be sterilized without their knowledge after coming in to give birth. In North Carolina, 85 percent of sterilization were performed on women as young as 9-years-old.
These amoral bigots think they are everyone's superiors, yet look how weak and lacking their arguments are."Mississippi appendectomies, they were called," Kluchin says, "because they would tell women that they needed to get their appendix out, but then sterilize them." For women, the procedure involved an incision to the abdomen and the tying off of the fallopian tubes. If done correctly, this doesn't affect hormones or libido, making it possible for women to live their entire lives unaware that they had been sterilized.
Sterilization was seen as a way to cut welfare costs, "by sterilizing the daughters on welfare," says Schoen.
Though it's unlikely that the U.S. would ever return to this approach, the attitudes driving the sterilization of those on welfare isn't so foreign to us today, says Schoen: "Many people today think that women on welfare shouldn't have children outside of marriage." It's only a short jump to "shouldn't be allowed to have children," she says.
________________________________
The way to right wrongs is to
Shine the light of truth on them.
~ Ida B. Wells
________________________________
The way to right wrongs is to
Shine the light of truth on them.
~ Ida B. Wells
________________________________
- carmenjonze
- Posts: 9614
- Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 3:06 am
Re: What Sacrificing Americans Would Accept to save Social Security
You have your head up your rear end.JoeMemphis wrote: ↑Tue Jun 14, 2022 10:20 am Read the article and get back to me with the part that says they are getting less. Maybe you can also explain why a majority of your party also supports these concepts.
Show where "the majority of" the D party "also supports these concepts."
Pro tip: you'll have to actually get up off your lazy duff and copy/paste a link into a post to do this, just so you know.
________________________________
The way to right wrongs is to
Shine the light of truth on them.
~ Ida B. Wells
________________________________
The way to right wrongs is to
Shine the light of truth on them.
~ Ida B. Wells
________________________________
Re: What Sacrificing Americans Would Accept to save Social Security
No it’s just a survey. I concede your point in that regard. Raising the retirement age by a year over time isn’t unreasonable IMO as we know people are living longer. Especially when they are raising the minimal monthly distribution by several hundred dollars. Seems like a good trade off IMO.
Re: What Sacrificing Americans Would Accept to save Social Security
Not when people on the bottom economically live far shorter lives than affluent people.JoeMemphis wrote: ↑Tue Jun 14, 2022 10:56 am No it’s just a survey. I concede your point in that regard. Raising the retirement age by a year over time isn’t unreasonable IMO as we know people are living longer. Especially when they are raising the minimal monthly distribution by several hundred dollars. Seems like a good trade off IMO.
Again, I think those at the bottom are paying ENOUGH ALREADY. Now, if you want to bump up the rates for those over, say $50,000 or $75,000, I might agree. Much of low-wage work are hard, back-breaking jobs, like, say being a room cleaner at a hotel. Do you think a woman can keep changing sheets and cleaning toilets until she is 68 years old?
But go ahead and pat yourself on the back because you are saying that, if the poor might take more burden on themselves, you won’t be in favor of ending Social Security completely. How compassionate of you.
Re: What Sacrificing Americans Would Accept to save Social Security
Once again putting words in someone else’s mouth.gounion wrote: ↑Tue Jun 14, 2022 11:28 am Not when people on the bottom economically live far shorter lives than affluent people.
Again, I think those at the bottom are paying ENOUGH ALREADY. Now, if you want to bump up the rates for those over, say $50,000 or $75,000, I might agree. Much of low-wage work are hard, back-breaking jobs, like, say being a room cleaner at a hotel. Do you think a woman can keep changing sheets and cleaning toilets until she is 68 years old?
But go ahead and pat yourself on the back because you are saying that, if the poor might take more burden on themselves, you won’t be in favor of ending Social Security completely. How compassionate of you.
I’m not looking to overly burden anyone. If you think $10 per month is too much then that’s okay. I don’t agree but that’s okay as well.
It’s just a discussion.
- carmenjonze
- Posts: 9614
- Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 3:06 am
Re: What Sacrificing Americans Would Accept to save Social Security
Not one penny more.JoeMemphis wrote: ↑Tue Jun 14, 2022 11:36 am Once again putting words in someone else’s mouth.
I’m not looking to overly burden anyone. If you think $10 per month is too much then that’s okay. I don’t agree but that’s okay as well.
Give it time.It’s just a discussion.
Soon you're be cussing, freaking out, and running away from the thread, merely because you were challenged on your destructive ideologies. Never fails. It will happen in this thread, too.
________________________________
The way to right wrongs is to
Shine the light of truth on them.
~ Ida B. Wells
________________________________
The way to right wrongs is to
Shine the light of truth on them.
~ Ida B. Wells
________________________________
Re: What Sacrificing Americans Would Accept to save Social Security
A discussion you won’t have, obviously.JoeMemphis wrote: ↑Tue Jun 14, 2022 11:36 am Once again putting words in someone else’s mouth.
I’m not looking to overly burden anyone. If you think $10 per month is too much then that’s okay. I don’t agree but that’s okay as well.
It’s just a discussion.
With prices, fuel and housing rising and rising, you think ten bucks would be no big deal to them. After all, it’s chump change to you. You have zero idea, or caring, of how other people live.
- carmenjonze
- Posts: 9614
- Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 3:06 am
Re: What Sacrificing Americans Would Accept to save Social Security
JoeMemphis wrote: ↑Mon Jun 13, 2022 8:31 am The link above is a survey so I don’t know how reliable the results may be.
Then why are you posting something you can't even trust, yourself?
Bell Buckle Bible College needs to revamp ther Argument and Persuasion 101 class.
________________________________
The way to right wrongs is to
Shine the light of truth on them.
~ Ida B. Wells
________________________________
The way to right wrongs is to
Shine the light of truth on them.
~ Ida B. Wells
________________________________
Re: What Sacrificing Americans Would Accept to save Social Security
We did discuss it. I heard your point of view. I simply disagree. It’s that simple. I would point out again that we are talking about an increase of .3%. Less than the average union dues. But if you think that’s too much, you are welcome to your opinion.
- carmenjonze
- Posts: 9614
- Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 3:06 am
Re: What Sacrificing Americans Would Accept to save Social Security
No increases. Zero.JoeMemphis wrote: ↑Tue Jun 14, 2022 12:05 pm We did discuss it. I heard your point of view. I simply disagree. It’s that simple. I would point out again that we are talking about an increase of .3%. Less than the average union dues. But if you think that’s too much, you are welcome to your opinion.
Not even .0% . Leave those who can least afford it alone.
How loud would you be shrieking bloody murder if someone suggested ANY raise in taxes on the rich.
________________________________
The way to right wrongs is to
Shine the light of truth on them.
~ Ida B. Wells
________________________________
The way to right wrongs is to
Shine the light of truth on them.
~ Ida B. Wells
________________________________