https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2Vs_0_2gNY

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, December 25, 2022 at 11:10:58 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:
.

Jerry is correct ... Republicans have tried to ruin SS from the start

Although Republican put out numerous propaganda videos that lie to you about this:
(See above post for one that fooled our local fool, Pickle).
There are 76,100,000 articles proving the republicans still are:

https://tinyurl.com/58epsckb

First one:

THE NEW YORK TIMES

The G.O.P. Plot Against Medicare and Social Security

By Paul Krugman

The Times recently reported that Republicans, anticipating possible victory in the midterms, are embracing plans to cut Social Security and Medicare benefits — even though such cuts would be incredibly unpopular and would make nonsense of the G.O.P.’
s attempts to portray itself as the party of the working class.

Before I get to what Republicans appear to have in mind, let’s note that the push to slash major benefit programs may be the ultimate example of an elite priority completely at odds with what ordinary Americans want.

Political scientists have found several areas in which the wealthy want to see spending cut, while most voters want to see it increased. The biggest gap in views is on Social Security, where the rich, by a large margin, want to see benefits reduced while
the general public, by an even larger margin, wants to see them increased.

And Republicans are taking the side of the rich.

Now, there isn’t an official G.O.P. position on Social Security and Medicare — or, actually, any policy issue. But the Republican Study Committee, a caucus of House members that often sets the party’s agenda, has released a fairly detailed set of
proposals titled “Reclaiming Our Fiscal Future” that would, I suspect, raise howls of outrage from many voters if they knew about it.

The committee’s proposals center on raising the age at which Americans become eligible for Social Security and Medicare. Its plan calls for increasing the age at which workers can collect full Social Security benefits — which has already risen from
65 to 67 — to 70, and then raising it even further in the future as life expectancy goes up (if it does).

At the same time, the plan would raise the age at which Medicare kicks in, which is still 65, to match the Social Security age. Given the Social Security proposal, this means delaying Medicare eligibility by five years, to the age of 70, and possibly
delaying it even further in the future.

The report tries to justify these large benefit cuts — because that’s what they are — by pointing to the rise in life expectancy at age 65 since these programs were created. That is, it argues in effect that our major social benefit programs have
become too generous because Americans are living longer.

What the report somehow fails to notice, or at least to acknowledge, is that while average life expectancy for seniors was rising before Covid struck, that rise was very unequal. Gains were much larger for Americans in the upper part of the income
distribution — that is, the people who need Social Security and Medicare least — than for those lower down, who need them most.

Other research has shown that gains in life expectancy at age 25 — not the same measure, but surely related — have been much bigger among Americans with a college degree. In fact, life expectancy has actually declined among noncollege whites. And
mortality has been diverging among regions, with life expectancy at 65 in some states, mostly red, significantly below the national average and in others, mostly blue, significantly above.

So Republican plans to cut Medicare and Social Security would impose widespread hardship, with some of the worst impacts falling on red-state, noncollege whites — that is, the party’s most loyal base.

Why, then, does the party want to do this? We needn’t take claims that it’s about fiscal responsibility seriously; a fiscally responsible party wouldn’t be seeking to make the Trump tax cuts permanent or oppose giving the I.R.S. the resources it
needs to crack down on tax cheats. What we’re seeing, instead, is that despite its populist rhetoric, the G.O.P. is still very much a party of and for the rich.

A more interesting question is why Republicans think they can get away with touching the traditional third rails of fiscal policy. Social Security remains as popular as ever; Republicans themselves campaigned against Obamacare by claiming, misleadingly,
that it would cut Medicare. Why imagine that proposals to deny benefits to many Americans by raising the eligibility age won’t provoke a backlash?

At least part of the answer is surely the expectation that the right-wing disinformation machine can obscure what the G.O.P. is up to. The Republican Study Committee has released a 153-page report calling, among other things, for denying full Social
Security benefits to Americans under 70; that didn’t stop Sean Hannity from declaring the other day that “not a single Republican has ever said they want to take away your Social Security.”

Finally, how do Republicans imagine they could pass any of this agenda? After all, even if they do win the midterms, they won’t have enough votes to override a Biden veto.

Unfortunately, we know the answer: If Republicans win one or both houses of Congress, they’ll try to achieve their goals not though the normal legislative process but through blackmail. They’ll threaten to provoke a global financial crisis by
refusing to raise the debt limit. If Democrats defang that threat, Republicans will try to get what they want by making America ungovernable in other ways.

Will they succeed? Stay tuned.
_____________________________________

For the other 76,099,000 articles, click here:

https://tinyurl.com/58epsckb

(See why nobody here will admit they vote Republican and why?)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 12/25/2022 3:02 PM, VegasJerry wrote:

On Sunday, December 25, 2022 at 11:10:58 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:
.

Jerry is correct ... Republicans have tried to ruin SS from the start

Although Republican put out numerous propaganda videos that lie to you about this:
(See above post for one that fooled our local fool, Pickle).
There are 76,100,000 articles proving the republicans still are:

https://tinyurl.com/58epsckb

First one:

THE NEW YORK TIMES

The G.O.P. Plot Against Medicare and Social Security

By Paul Krugman

The Times recently reported that Republicans, anticipating possible victory in the midterms, are embracing plans to cut Social Security and Medicare benefits — even though such cuts would be incredibly unpopular and would make nonsense of the G.O.P.�

�s attempts to portray itself as the party of the working class.

Before I get to what Republicans appear to have in mind, let’s note that the push to slash major benefit programs may be the ultimate example of an elite priority completely at odds with what ordinary Americans want.

Political scientists have found several areas in which the wealthy want to see spending cut, while most voters want to see it increased. The biggest gap in views is on Social Security, where the rich, by a large margin, want to see benefits reduced

while the general public, by an even larger margin, wants to see them increased.

And Republicans are taking the side of the rich.

Now, there isn’t an official G.O.P. position on Social Security and Medicare — or, actually, any policy issue. But the Republican Study Committee, a caucus of House members that often sets the party’s agenda, has released a fairly detailed set of

proposals titled “Reclaiming Our Fiscal Future” that would, I suspect, raise howls of outrage from many voters if they knew about it.

The committee’s proposals center on raising the age at which Americans become eligible for Social Security and Medicare. Its plan calls for increasing the age at which workers can collect full Social Security benefits — which has already risen from

65 to 67 — to 70, and then raising it even further in the future as life expectancy goes up (if it does).

At the same time, the plan would raise the age at which Medicare kicks in, which is still 65, to match the Social Security age. Given the Social Security proposal, this means delaying Medicare eligibility by five years, to the age of 70, and possibly

delaying it even further in the future.

The report tries to justify these large benefit cuts — because that’s what they are — by pointing to the rise in life expectancy at age 65 since these programs were created. That is, it argues in effect that our major social benefit programs have

become too generous because Americans are living longer.

What the report somehow fails to notice, or at least to acknowledge, is that while average life expectancy for seniors was rising before Covid struck, that rise was very unequal. Gains were much larger for Americans in the upper part of the income

distribution — that is, the people who need Social Security and Medicare least — than for those lower down, who need them most.

Other research has shown that gains in life expectancy at age 25 — not the same measure, but surely related — have been much bigger among Americans with a college degree. In fact, life expectancy has actually declined among noncollege whites. And

mortality has been diverging among regions, with life expectancy at 65 in some states, mostly red, significantly below the national average and in others, mostly blue, significantly above.

So Republican plans to cut Medicare and Social Security would impose widespread hardship, with some of the worst impacts falling on red-state, noncollege whites — that is, the party’s most loyal base.

Why, then, does the party want to do this? We needn’t take claims that it’s about fiscal responsibility seriously; a fiscally responsible party wouldn’t be seeking to make the Trump tax cuts permanent or oppose giving the I.R.S. the resources it

needs to crack down on tax cheats. What we’re seeing, instead, is that despite its populist rhetoric, the G.O.P. is still very much a party of and for the rich.

A more interesting question is why Republicans think they can get away with touching the traditional third rails of fiscal policy. Social Security remains as popular as ever; Republicans themselves campaigned against Obamacare by claiming, misleadingly,

that it would cut Medicare. Why imagine that proposals to deny benefits to many Americans by raising the eligibility age won’t provoke a backlash?

At least part of the answer is surely the expectation that the right-wing disinformation machine can obscure what the G.O.P. is up to. The Republican Study Committee has released a 153-page report calling, among other things, for denying full Social

Security benefits to Americans under 70; that didn’t stop Sean Hannity from declaring the other day that “not a single Republican has ever said they want to take away your Social Security.”

Finally, how do Republicans imagine they could pass any of this agenda? After all, even if they do win the midterms, they won’t have enough votes to override a Biden veto.

Unfortunately, we know the answer: If Republicans win one or both houses of Congress, they’ll try to achieve their goals not though the normal legislative process but through blackmail. They’ll threaten to provoke a global financial crisis by

refusing to raise the debt limit. If Democrats defang that threat, Republicans will try to get what they want by making America ungovernable in other ways.

Will they succeed? Stay tuned.
_____________________________________

For the other 76,099,000 articles, click here:

https://tinyurl.com/58epsckb

(See why nobody here will admit they vote Republican and why?)

Krugman and Jerry sitting in the tree ... k i s s i n g

mmmmmmmmmwah

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, December 25, 2022 at 11:10:58 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2Vs_0_2gNY

Where I stopped watching your video:

'Under Clinton & Gore Up to 85% of your Social Security can be Taxed'

'Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?' [The answer was 'Democrats']


🔽🔽🔽🔽🔽🔽🔽🔽🔽🔽🔽🔽
'Beginning in 1984, a portion of Social Security benefits have been subject to federal income taxes.'
https://www.ssa.gov/history/taxationofbenefits.html

Hmmmm . . .

Ronald Reagan January 20, 1981 – January 20, 1989 George H. W. Bush January 20, 1989 – January 20, 1993

❓❓❓

Are you still concerned about bias in what other people post?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 12/26/2022 7:09 AM, risky biz wrote:

On Sunday, December 25, 2022 at 11:10:58 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2Vs_0_2gNY

Where I stopped watching your video:

'Under Clinton & Gore Up to 85% of your Social Security can be Taxed'

'Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?' [The answer was 'Democrats']

🔽🔽🔽🔽🔽🔽🔽🔽🔽🔽🔽🔽
'Beginning in 1984, a portion of Social Security benefits have been subject to federal income taxes.'
https://www.ssa.gov/history/taxationofbenefits.html

Hmmmm . . .

Ronald Reagan January 20, 1981 – January 20, 1989 George H. W. Bush January 20, 1989 – January 20, 1993

❓❓❓

Are you still concerned about bias in what other people post?

Is that the "only" thing "wrong" in the video? Social Security was
projected to go "out of business" by 1984 (according to your citation)
and that is why it was modified to allow a portion of SS benefits to be "taxable" ... not necessarily "taxed". If you only have SS as your
income source, none of it is "taxed" ... even today. Taxes are hard ...
that is why if you have a lot of money, there are so many ways to keep
some of it for yourself. But the top "earners" pay "almost all" of all
the taxes our governments collect ... all the way from the federal to
the towns.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, December 26, 2022 at 6:56:57 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:

On 12/26/2022 7:09 AM, risky biz wrote:

On Sunday, December 25, 2022 at 11:10:58 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:

...

But the top "earners" pay "almost all" of all the taxes our governments collect ... all the way from the federal to the towns.

.

Then you should have no trouble showing us all that data and where you got it...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 12/26/2022 9:46 AM, VegasJerry wrote:

On Monday, December 26, 2022 at 6:56:57 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:

On 12/26/2022 7:09 AM, risky biz wrote:

On Sunday, December 25, 2022 at 11:10:58 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:

...

But the top "earners" pay "almost all" of all the taxes our governments
collect ... all the way from the federal to the towns.

.

Then you should have no trouble showing us all that data and where you got it...

risky posted the site ... you cut it out

Move on again, Jerrioppolous

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, December 26, 2022 at 9:08:55 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:

On 12/26/2022 9:46 AM, VegasJerry wrote:

On Monday, December 26, 2022 at 6:56:57 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:

On 12/26/2022 7:09 AM, risky biz wrote:

On Sunday, December 25, 2022 at 11:10:58 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:

...

But the top "earners" pay "almost all" of all the taxes our governments
collect ... all the way from the federal to the towns.

.

Then you should have no trouble showing us all that data and where you got it...

.

risky posted the site ... you cut it out
Move on again, Jerrioppolous

.

*** Knew you couldn't show ***
*** knew you'd run ***

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 12/26/2022 12:39 PM, VegasJerry wrote:

On Monday, December 26, 2022 at 9:08:55 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:

On 12/26/2022 9:46 AM, VegasJerry wrote:

On Monday, December 26, 2022 at 6:56:57 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:

On 12/26/2022 7:09 AM, risky biz wrote:

On Sunday, December 25, 2022 at 11:10:58 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:

...

But the top "earners" pay "almost all" of all the taxes our governments >>>> collect ... all the way from the federal to the towns.

.

Then you should have no trouble showing us all that data and where you got it...

.

risky posted the site ... you cut it out
Move on again, Jerrioppolous

.

*** Knew you couldn't show ***
*** knew you'd run ***

Jerrioppolous strikes again ... soon you will be worse than the Blab ...
a mountain to overcome

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, December 26, 2022 at 6:56:57 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:

On 12/26/2022 7:09 AM, risky biz wrote:

On Sunday, December 25, 2022 at 11:10:58 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2Vs_0_2gNY

Where I stopped watching your video:

'Under Clinton & Gore Up to 85% of your Social Security can be Taxed'

'Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?' [The answer was 'Democrats']

🔽🔽🔽🔽🔽🔽🔽🔽🔽🔽🔽🔽
'Beginning in 1984, a portion of Social Security benefits have been subject to federal income taxes.'
https://www.ssa.gov/history/taxationofbenefits.html

Hmmmm . . .

Ronald Reagan January 20, 1981 – January 20, 1989 George H. W. Bush January 20, 1989 – January 20, 1993

❓❓❓

Are you still concerned about bias in what other people post?

~ Is that the "only" thing "wrong" in the video?


I thought I would start with those two grievous misrepresentations- which you haven't addressed.

Social Security was
projected to go "out of business" by 1984 (according to your citation)
and that is why it was modified to allow a portion of SS benefits to be "taxable" ... not necessarily "taxed". If you only have SS as your
income source, none of it is "taxed" ... even today. Taxes are hard ...
that is why if you have a lot of money, there are so many ways to keep
some of it for yourself. But the top "earners" pay "almost all" of all
the taxes our governments collect ... all the way from the federal to
the towns.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, December 26, 2022 at 12:34:15 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:

On Monday, December 26, 2022 at 6:56:57 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:

On 12/26/2022 7:09 AM, risky biz wrote:

On Sunday, December 25, 2022 at 11:10:58 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2Vs_0_2gNY

Where I stopped watching your video:

'Under Clinton & Gore Up to 85% of your Social Security can be Taxed'

'Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?' [The answer was 'Democrats']

🔽🔽🔽🔽🔽🔽🔽🔽🔽🔽🔽🔽
'Beginning in 1984, a portion of Social Security benefits have been subject to federal income taxes.'
https://www.ssa.gov/history/taxationofbenefits.html

Hmmmm . . .

Ronald Reagan January 20, 1981 – January 20, 1989 George H. W. Bush January 20, 1989 – January 20, 1993

❓❓❓

Are you still concerned about bias in what other people post?

~ Is that the "only" thing "wrong" in the video?

I thought I would start with those two grievous misrepresentations- which you haven't addressed.

.

And his inability to (Show us all that data and where you got it...)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 12/26/2022 2:34 PM, risky biz wrote:

On Monday, December 26, 2022 at 6:56:57 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:

On 12/26/2022 7:09 AM, risky biz wrote:

On Sunday, December 25, 2022 at 11:10:58 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2Vs_0_2gNY

Where I stopped watching your video:

'Under Clinton & Gore Up to 85% of your Social Security can be Taxed'

'Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?' [The answer was 'Democrats']


🔽🔽🔽🔽🔽🔽🔽🔽🔽🔽🔽🔽
'Beginning in 1984, a portion of Social Security benefits have been subject to federal income taxes.'
https://www.ssa.gov/history/taxationofbenefits.html

Hmmmm . . .

Ronald Reagan January 20, 1981 – January 20, 1989 George H. W. Bush January 20, 1989 – January 20, 1993

❓❓❓

Are you still concerned about bias in what other people post?

~ Is that the "only" thing "wrong" in the video?

I thought I would start with those two grievous misrepresentations- which you haven't addressed.

Social Security was
projected to go "out of business" by 1984 (according to your citation)
and that is why it was modified to allow a portion of SS benefits to be
"taxable" ... not necessarily "taxed". If you only have SS as your
income source, none of it is "taxed" ... even today. Taxes are hard ...
that is why if you have a lot of money, there are so many ways to keep
some of it for yourself. But the top "earners" pay "almost all" of all
the taxes our governments collect ... all the way from the federal to
the towns.

Well, I tried to address it ... you and Jerrioppolous disagree. Strange company you are keeping these days.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, December 26, 2022 at 1:35:17 PM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:

On 12/26/2022 2:34 PM, risky biz wrote:

On Monday, December 26, 2022 at 6:56:57 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:

On 12/26/2022 7:09 AM, risky biz wrote:

On Sunday, December 25, 2022 at 11:10:58 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2Vs_0_2gNY

Where I stopped watching your video:

'Under Clinton & Gore Up to 85% of your Social Security can be Taxed' >>>
'Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?' [The answer was 'Democrats']


🔽🔽🔽🔽🔽🔽🔽🔽🔽🔽🔽🔽
'Beginning in 1984, a portion of Social Security benefits have been subject to federal income taxes.'
https://www.ssa.gov/history/taxationofbenefits.html

Hmmmm . . .

Ronald Reagan January 20, 1981 – January 20, 1989 George H. W. Bush January 20, 1989 – January 20, 1993

❓❓❓

Are you still concerned about bias in what other people post?

~ Is that the "only" thing "wrong" in the video?

.

I thought I would start with those two grievous misrepresentations- which you haven't addressed.

And his inability to (Show us all that data and where you got it...)

Well, I tried to address it ... you and Jerrioppolous disagree. Strange company you are keeping these days.

*** Knew he STILL couldn't show ***
*** Knew he'd STILL dodge ***

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 12/26/2022 6:27 PM, VegasJerry wrote:

On Monday, December 26, 2022 at 1:35:17 PM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:

On 12/26/2022 2:34 PM, risky biz wrote:

On Monday, December 26, 2022 at 6:56:57 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:

On 12/26/2022 7:09 AM, risky biz wrote:

On Sunday, December 25, 2022 at 11:10:58 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote: >>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2Vs_0_2gNY


Where I stopped watching your video:

'Under Clinton & Gore Up to 85% of your Social Security can be Taxed' >>>>>
'Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?' [The answer was 'Democrats']


🔽🔽🔽🔽🔽🔽🔽🔽🔽🔽🔽🔽
'Beginning in 1984, a portion of Social Security benefits have been subject to federal income taxes.'
https://www.ssa.gov/history/taxationofbenefits.html

Hmmmm . . .

Ronald Reagan January 20, 1981 – January 20, 1989 George H. W. Bush January 20, 1989 – January 20, 1993

❓❓❓

Are you still concerned about bias in what other people post?

~ Is that the "only" thing "wrong" in the video?

.

I thought I would start with those two grievous misrepresentations- which you haven't addressed.

And his inability to (Show us all that data and where you got it...)

Well, I tried to address it ... you and Jerrioppolous disagree. Strange
company you are keeping these days.

*** Knew he STILL couldn't show ***
*** Knew he'd STILL dodge ***

Same song, different day.

Great minds think alike ... blab on.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)