Photos, vids, etc ....

It's possible that voting Steve Kirsch is a drug addict. Hadn't thought of that when I clicked on this ...



4mOAwtU.jpeg
 
t #684
I'm not sure what the significance of the ~'60's is in #683.
Recalling a simpler time when Americans thought "Iran" was a two word disclosure of action taken?

S2 #685
a) Your keen eye for hypocrisy has not lost focus.
b) Seems to me there's a missing puzzle piece here.
Surely there's more to it than this alone, but Republicans glaring "righteous" (wrongeous) indignation against a harmless, innocent minority Republicans project as gaudy, distracts from their own deplorable leadership record. Examples too numerous to mention, BUT:

President Biden could make a more persuasive argument against Russia invading Ukraine had President Bush not invaded Iraq.
 
"Who's doing the shooting? White boys whose parents don't secure their guns" superKara #687
Click to expand...
Even if so that does not justify bullying LGBTQ, kids of color, disabled, poor, girl ... in the belief the bullied will not then go on a mass-murder spree.

However, your point about unsecured lethal weapons is worth heeding.
Law should hold gun owners legally liable for any harm inflicted by the owner's gun. If additional persons (a spouse for example) have the gun owner's permission to use the gun, the name or names of owner-authorized users should be listed with the gun registration, extending legal liability to them as well.

Many American households include a gun in the belief it increases safety. Statistics indicate family safety is decreased by it.

"... the majority of school shooters are male (95%) and white (61%)–yet many of these individuals feel marginalized. Indeed, almost half of those who perpetrate K-12 shootings report a history of rejection, with many experiencing bullying."

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brow...bout-them-and-what-we-can-do-to-prevent-them/
 
#689
https://imgur.com/uhEYNqE

I went hat-shopping 'cause of this. Turns out that flashy red number is called a "bucket hat". I believe synthetic fibers block UV better than Cotton.

#691
Looks like Fred Savage & Peter Falk from The Princess Bride, filmed 36 years ago. - yikes - Savage is middle-aged, Falk is gone. tick, tick, tick, ...
 
"GOP Sen Ron Johnson calls Social Security a "legal Ponzi scheme". Ted Lieu #693
Click to expand...
I'm not so sure. How does Johnson define "legal"?
I thought I'd read congress failing to keep Social Security revenues separate has questionable legal basis.
In fact iirc that was not how Social Security revenues were originally handled. BUT:
it was a -short term gain for long term pain- "solution" to budgetary shortfall which then current MOC agreed to, knowing the members of congress that made that choice would be retired before the shortfall resulted in the red ink pyramid actually collapsing. [insolvency]

Pon·zi scheme (pŏnzē)
n.
A fraud disguised as an investment opportunity, in which initial investors and the perpetrators of the fraud are paid out of funds raised from later investors, and the later investors lose all funds invested.
[After Charles Ponzi (1882?-1949), Italian-born speculator who organized such a scheme (1919-1920).] *

So if Sen Johnson erred here, perhaps if at all in technical detail. His overall warning seems fairly accurate.
And the problem with such scams, they inevitably crash, as those familiar with Bernard Madoff should know.

Part of the problem:
those tangled in, entrapped by the Social Security scam were victimized at gunpoint.
It doesn't make sense to punish the victims further by pulling the $rug out from under them, particularly those that are near or in retirement.

SO !
While I appreciate Johnson's candor, and
Sen Lee's objective, I believe an ethical / equitable draw-down / phase-out is the best approach.

I UNDERSTAND !
When citizens fail to prepare adequately for their own retirement, they risk becoming wards of the State. That means, government's responsibility to support them. BUT !!

That doesn't mean Social Security is either the only, or the best option.
Government should regulate, not administer such programs.

The transition to a privatized system that gets Uncle Sam out from $under should be orderly, ethical, & equitable.

President sear would administer the replacement on an opt-out basis. Any wage earner that does nothing automatically contributes to a privatized fund, where their own contributions are held in trust for them. No Ponzi. No pyramid.
Citizens that would prefer a 401k option would be relatively free to do so, provided the alternate retirement investment met sensible government requirements: no "investing" in lottery tickets, or Brazilian llama farms, etc.

And btw, Social Security is not the only U.S. federal "entitlement" program careening toward the big - sqwarsh - . Cited examples include Social Security, Medicare, & even our Highway Trust Fund.

ref:
pyramid scheme
n.
A fraudulent moneymaking scheme in which early participants are paid out of money received from later recruits, with the final recruits putting money in and getting nothing back. *

* The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition copyright ©2022 by HarperCollins Publishers. All rights reserved.
 
I'm not so sure. How does Johnson define "legal"?
Click to expand...
Definitely legal. And you can argue whether or not it's a Ponzi scheme.

ponzi-scheme_sourcefile-resized-6f8e3822259a4653b8c780eb42e67a38.jpg


Reality is, Social Security (SS) is a "PAYGO" (i.e., Pay As You GO) - current benefits are payed by current workers - that means, if you're receiving benefits they are being paid by current workers. As for current workers, when they retire their benefits will be paid by current workers. That is their children. And their grandchildren. And if they live long enough their great grandchildren.

Part of the problem stems from the fact that when SS was established in 1935 there were far more workers and far fewer retirees (when 65 was first introduced as a retirement age relatively few people lived longer than that). Reality is, in 1940 there were 42 workers per retiree - today there are 3 workers per retiree and soon that number will be reduced to 2.

Think about what that means. Ida May Fuller was the first ever recipient of a Social Security check.

Ida May Fuller worked for three years under the Social Security program. The accumulated taxes on her salary during those three years was a total of $24.75. Her initial monthly check was $22.54. During her lifetime she collected a total of $22,888.92 in Social Security benefits.
Click to expand...

Then think about how "long tail" retiree benefits are. The last recipient of a Civil War pension died in 1920.

I know that when my studies turned to Social Security in the 1980's she was still around - fact is, there were over 180 widows and orphans of Civil War veterans who were still collecting pensions from the VA.
 
"The accumulated taxes on her salary during those three years was a total of $24.75. Her initial monthly check was $22.54. During her lifetime she collected a total of $22,888.92 in Social Security benefits." S2 #695
Click to expand...
- perfect -
So without compensating for $inflation she received 924.8 times as much benefit as her contribution. Seems fair to me.
Therefore we should just do that for every Social Security recipient. Insure that come Hell or high water each and every human that pays $anything into Social Security gets 924.8 times as much as they contributed. Problem SOLVED !!

- gosh -
I never realized solving $HUGE problems could be so easy!

Next problem!
[/satire]

It is a predictable if not inevitable characteristic of pyramid schemes that they collapse.
In the case of Social Security, Ida Fuller (SS recipient) was outnumbered 40:1 by SS contributors. As clearly stated in #695 that ratio is down to 3:1. Still wondering why pyramid schemes collapse?

If this methodology were viable, infinitely sustainable the way 401k is, I wouldn't have typed this.
I'm typing this because it's not. And it's intrinsically not. That's the problem with pyramid scams. AND !! It is so transcendently unnecessary. We don't have to invent anti-gravity to solve this problem. Fiscal viability is a matter of arithmetic simplicity.

When your outgo exceeds your income
the upshot will be your downfall.
Paul Harvey

ref:
 
PBSNH230612b.JPG

However perturbed or not by the specific cause, I think many of the U.S. Founders would find this glorious.
Responsible law abiding citizens are peacefully making a public appeal for Constitutional equal treatment.
The diversity is magnificent.
What a contrast to Jan 6 !
The insurrectionists tried to subvert the Constitution, overthrow a duly elected president, & install an unstable "very stable genius". Its perpetrators have earned prison time, a few for decades behind bars.
The Americans pictured here are not trying to subvert the Constitution, but are merely asking that it be applied as equitably to them as it is to their critics and self-made enemies.
The diversity of the signs and flags reveals the grass-roots spontaneity of those assembled, & their preparations for the demonstration.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top