The Democrat Utopia
- Thread starter GBR0988
- Start date
Ratt Mhule
Active member
My take is that Im not worried about my retirement. Like I said, I invest in multiple accounts and my wife will get a pension working in the public school system, plus SS for both of us. I have financial advisors that I trust and they can do the math for me. It wont change my mind on SS or protecting it for others.
The issue I have with your arguments are that they are a one size fit all solution. Everyone should just invest 6% of their income and they will be set. Problem is, the real world is not one size fit all. We all have s#!t we deal with and stuff doesnt always go to plan. I was laid off from a six figure income job in January due to lack of sales and then my daughter had a bunch of medical issues arise and now medical bills are piling up. Thats just my situation, people are in worse off shape than me because I am pretty good with finances and didnt need to dip into savings or investments before I found another position.
Plus, $36,000 income can get you further depending on where you live. $36,000 will get your further in Nebraska than it will in NY, so I would possibly be able to invest more in Nebraska because I would have more disposable income. However, one emergency bill (car, medical, etc) could financially ruin someone making $36,000/yr and then they wont be able to invest unless it is mandatory like buster said and in that case, it would be the same as privatized SS. Id rather have guaranteed SS income and invest what disposable income I have, but thats my opinion and its the opinion of the majority of our country, which is why politicians have to lie about cutting earned benefits.
You should do the math because it’s pretty eye opening. But my guess is that you actually did do the math and don’t want to admit how much money it potentially would be for each citizen compared to the $1500 a month they get now. &nbsp
Social security is already being force taxed and this would be no different. Instead of a trust fund though, it would get into an investment account. People would not have the option to not participate.
You would rather have less wealth at retirement that could also be passed on to a family member??? Not me. I’ll take more money everyday rather than less money but that’s just me I guess.
Ratt Mhule
Active member
JB Pritzker coming in from the top rope against the do nothing democrats. Love it!
BigRedBuster
Active member
:laughpound We’re back to the republican talking point of democrats paying protesters.
PasstheDamnBallGuy
New member
I don't get where the air filter thing came from. I would say if that's supposed to be a knock on someone not knowing how to fix their own car it probably cuts through well over 50% of both voting bases. I've met a handful of people in just regular life that are legitimate car people vs the person that just enjoys the idea of it and thinks they are one.
teachercd
Active member
So I ran this through the old AI machine that I created...Here is what it says. To me this is all stupid, gender and age are social constructs. Here in the US we look at old people as "useless" but in Asian countries old people are viewed as wise. It is all social construct and we should have choices.
A lawmaker in Maine named Laurel Libby got in trouble because she posted online that she didn’t agree with a rule. The rule says that girls in high school sports must compete with transgender girls (who were assigned male at birth but identify as girls). She didn’t think that was fair, especially after a transgender girl won a track-and-field event.
The people in charge at the Maine House (where state laws are made) didn’t like what she said, so they punished her. But not just with a warning—they took away her ability to speak or vote on any new laws until she says she was wrong.
That means the people who elected her don’t have a voice anymore—she can’t vote on the state’s budget, big decisions, or anything else, even though she’s supposed to be working in that job until 2026.
So, the people helping her wrote this letter to the U.S. Supreme Court and asked a judge to stop the punishment. They want the Court to let her speak and vote again before May 6, 2025, when another big meeting is happening in the Maine House.
Would you like a summary of who decides these kinds of cases and what happens next?
A lawmaker in Maine named Laurel Libby got in trouble because she posted online that she didn’t agree with a rule. The rule says that girls in high school sports must compete with transgender girls (who were assigned male at birth but identify as girls). She didn’t think that was fair, especially after a transgender girl won a track-and-field event.
The people in charge at the Maine House (where state laws are made) didn’t like what she said, so they punished her. But not just with a warning—they took away her ability to speak or vote on any new laws until she says she was wrong.
That means the people who elected her don’t have a voice anymore—she can’t vote on the state’s budget, big decisions, or anything else, even though she’s supposed to be working in that job until 2026.
So, the people helping her wrote this letter to the U.S. Supreme Court and asked a judge to stop the punishment. They want the Court to let her speak and vote again before May 6, 2025, when another big meeting is happening in the Maine House.
Would you like a summary of who decides these kinds of cases and what happens next?
Ratt Mhule
Active member
Kamala Harris has gotten back into the ring.