Political: Cartoons, Memes, Funny Pictures, etc.

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • wakosama

    Collapse now - Avoid the rush
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 5, 2022
    13,366
    96
    Spring
    1702515943584.png
     

    benenglish

    Just Another Boomer
    Staff member
    Lifetime Member
    Admin
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Nov 22, 2011
    24,738
    96
    Spring
    I'd gladly give up on mine and keep paying in to support people over 50 that were counting on this if it means that we can ditch it for myself and everyone else in younger generations. End that ponzi scheme forever.
    All this mess because the original authors were incompetent at demographics. If they had been competent, they would have indexed Social Security to the census and made sure that only the oldest 10% (or so) of the population could ever collect it. That could even be done humanely by limiting the change to 1 year per census, with that change lagging 5 to 7 years behind the census.
     

    Me

    Active Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 21, 2021
    426
    76
    Austin
    All this mess because the original authors were incompetent at demographics. If they had been competent, they would have indexed Social Security to the census and made sure that only the oldest 10% (or so) of the population could ever collect it. That could even be done humanely by limiting the change to 1 year per census, with that change lagging 5 to 7 years behind the census.

    People forget that when the law was passed the age of collection was set to the average life expectancy at the time. It was meant to be an "oh @#$^, I lived longer than I expected and my funds ran out" insurance, not an "I'm older so pay me" program. Both parties keep kicking this can down the road but at some point we need to address it; it is widely known and accepted that the program will become insolvent in the very near future. We'll need to raise the age and means test it plus divert from the general fund to support existing obligations, it's going to be destructive to whatever party addresses it in the short term but needs to happen.

    /soapbox
     

    Fishkiller

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Jul 22, 2019
    4,927
    96
    The Big Town
    I'm getting a 3% raise also but my Medicare premium was raised 6%
    Do the math and you are still ahead. Average SS payment is around $1800 and at 3% that is a $54 raise. Min. Medicare is $174 and 6% is $10.44, so you are $53.56 per month ahead. Granted this is not going to dent the inflation we have had, but Medicare is not eating up your SS raise.
     

    msharley

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Feb 28, 2021
    25,929
    96
    Central Pennsylvania
    All this mess because the original authors were incompetent at demographics. If they had been competent, they would have indexed Social Security to the census and made sure that only the oldest 10% (or so) of the population could ever collect it. That could even be done humanely by limiting the change to 1 year per census, with that change lagging 5 to 7 years behind the census.
    Don't forget....

    After Wrotten Wronny SIGNED the bill TAXING the retirees...the Wrotten Wronny Administration GAVE 50% of the FUNDS in Social Security Administration to the good BORN BILLIONAIRE members of the Military Industrial Complex.

    Do a bit of research...

    These men were either signatory to the "Cost Plus Agreement" given to the "Leaders of Industry" at the start of WWII...or their direct descendants. (Banks, Big Oil, Big Three Car Co.'s, Chemical Firms, Mining, Aluminum...etc)

    The way the agreement is written? As long as there is a "war"? They keep getting paid (on our backs).

    Wonder why the US is/has been in a state of "perpetual war" for the last eighty years??

    Mssr. Eisenhower warned of such.....

    The more you read up on this? The sicker you will be....

    (as a side note...some of the Signators? Collaborated with the Germans. Prior to & during WWII...for those that are not aware, THE BUNDT is a good place to start)
     

    striker55

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 6, 2021
    5,409
    96
    Katy
    People forget that when the law was passed the age of collection was set to the average life expectancy at the time. It was meant to be an "oh @#$^, I lived longer than I expected and my funds ran out" insurance, not an "I'm older so pay me" program. Both parties keep kicking this can down the road but at some point we need to address it; it is widely known and accepted that the program will become insolvent in the very near future. We'll need to raise the age and means test it plus divert from the general fund to support existing obligations, it's going to be destructive to whatever party addresses it in the short term but needs to happen.

    /soapbox
    How about not supporting illegals and taking care of the military and seniors? I'm not a wealthy senior, if I could start over I'd have saved for my retirement.
     
    Top Bottom