Great news!!! Thanks for posting this.
Well that should kick of WWIII pretty quick. If this is true then it's time to invoke the 25th amendment or anything to get rid of these assholes before they destroy the entire world.
WTF are they trying so hard to protect over there anyway? And don't tell me this is some altruistic move by the US government to help those who are being attacked and oppressed. The US government is one of the most honorless groups on this spinning rock. They only intervene in things that directly benefit them.
NYT article about this.
Except Klinger was doing it to prove he was mentally ill.
For going after Trump in lawfare....and for ruining the career of Bob McDonnell in Virginia as well.Now Jack Smith needs to be imprisoned. What a scumbag.
False.Disagree. You can be for the US being great & not be lockstep with whatever Trump says & wants. To imply there's no room for disagreement with Trump & having TDS is a rejection of freedom.
Along with greed, yes.Since rinos apparently don't want to MAGA, they have TDS, right?
I'll take Klinger wearing a white wedding dress before Labor Day >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this actual mental illness worship any dayExcept Klinger was doing it to prove he was mentally ill.
Floating a trial balloon??Thanks BlueRunner11. I got my hopes up too soon.
What's not possible? Keeping the current payments and starting a new system? If so, I can agree to a point unless you can divert some of the money we currently spend on pork, the Ukraine laundering scheme, green new deal, and a myriad of other programs we could either dissolve or lesson the cost of.It's not really possible. SS was doomed to fail unless our population grew exponentially.
The accounting systems used in DoD today (BQ & CRIS being 2 of the biguns) were not designed to do what you're asking it to do. And they were definitely not designed to comply with gaap. In that sense, you're right and the expenditures will never balance to a purchase. Esp when you consider all that goes into a program office and testing, facilities and what not. When you try to amortize all of those other costs to eventually buy a hammer, that is literally how you end up with a 100 dollar hammer. (and it is probably nuke certified lol)
I am NOT saying there isn't problems with how DoD spends money ... I love Newt's line at the F-22 rollout outside of ATL ..."let's turn the Pentagon into a triangle".
There is where the problem lies IMO. When Executive staffs are manned at 100% and Command staffs are manned at 90% and actual execution staffs manned at 60%, AND the only way the "Executive staff" member gets ahead is by creating a new policy ... you end up with a bunch of dumbass policies and no one to ever execute it fully (sometimes a good thing!) nor adequate time to train or understand. They can tell you where $$ went in terms of contractor, test event, sub-contractors, manpower, TDY, but not in terms of one asset.
What's not possible? Keeping the current payments and starting a new system? If so, I can agree to a point unless you can divert some of the money we currently spend on pork, the Ukraine laundering scheme, green new deal, and a myriad of other programs we could either dissolve or lesson the cost of.
It should absolutely be investigated along with any others of both parties. However i want to see irrefutable evidence if they are going to prosecute. The prosecution needs to be above reproach.
The math doesn't seem feasible or fair. I only see two scenarios to even coming close to making this work for the next 50 years.What's not possible? Keeping the current payments and starting a new system? If so, I can agree to a point unless you can divert some of the money we currently spend on pork, the Ukraine laundering scheme, green new deal, and a myriad of other programs we could either dissolve or lesson the cost of.
This is a parody account.
The math doesn't seem feasible or fair. I only see two scenarios to even coming close to making this work for the next 50 years.
Scenario 1:
Scenario 2:
- Boomers get their full SS benefits
- Generations that come afterwards fund boomers, but their payout structure is significantly less
- Eliminate ceiling for paying into SS
In either case, the younger generations aren't getting paid out like the older generations.
- Immediately switch Boomers to means tested SS benefits (e.g., you only get full benefits if you need it and if you're worth millions you get nothing).
- Generations that come afterwards are subject to same rules as boomers.
- Eliminate ceiling for paying into SS
in the second scenario, boomers would never go for it.
Boomers have significantly more wealth than those who are younger. Kind of effed up that the poor young are funding the rich old.
SS can only be solvent if you generate additional SS funds or reduce the payouts (or both). How was that weird?At first glance that is just weird... A heckuv a weird take...
SS can only be solvent if you generate additional SS funds or reduce the payouts (or both). How was that weird?
Can you give me an example of how SS has been robbed, raped and pillaged? Be specific.Had SS not been robbed, raped, and pillaged. Focus on the robbing, raping, and pillaging...
And, F Gowdy, too. They don’t deserve one ounce of empathy. Biden’s bs has directly led to countless other fathers losing sons/daughters. The Afghanistan withdrawal & the border debacle, alone, have led to hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths & destroyed families. He won’t even acknowledge the victims, either. Much less worry about those parents missing their children.Trey Gowdy was on the other day saying he thought Trump should pardon Hunter because Biden has already lost one son and for an old man to worry about Hunter in his senior years is just not right. My reply to Gowdy would be, f**k Biden AND Hunter, I have zero empathy for the criminal things they have done, and they never not once worried about the American people.
The SS ponzi scheme math doesn't work out in the end. Esp when new benefits are added. There is an easier answer but i don't want to type it all into the phone. In (very) short, let ppl opt out. Their employer continues to pay the match and the employee keeps his 6.2%. That is a 6.2% raise right now. But do not come back 10 yrs from now expecting govt funded retirement.The math doesn't seem feasible or fair. I only see two scenarios to even coming close to making this work for the next 50 years.
Scenario 1:
Scenario 2:
- Boomers get their full SS benefits
- Generations that come afterwards fund boomers, but their payout structure is significantly less
- Eliminate ceiling for paying into SS
In either case, the younger generations aren't getting paid out like the older generations did (e.g., greatest generation).
- Immediately switch Boomers to means tested SS benefits (e.g., you only get full benefits if you need it and if you're worth millions you get nothing).
- Generations that come afterwards are subject to same rules as boomers.
- Eliminate ceiling for paying into SS
in the second scenario, boomers would never go for it.
Boomers have significantly more wealth than those who are younger. Kind of effed up that the poor young are funding the rich old.
If we go back to 2019 spending levels, we can not only fund SS but also pay off the national debt eventually.What's not possible? Keeping the current payments and starting a new system? If so, I can agree to a point unless you can divert some of the money we currently spend on pork, the Ukraine laundering scheme, green new deal, and a myriad of other programs we could either dissolve or lesson the cost of.
Charlie Kirk's gonna run for AZ governor.Here is an idea ... what about Byron Donald for Senate to replace Rubio.
And Ben Shapiro or Cahrlie Kirk for press secretary. They would never do it, but it would be interesting to watch!
Again. You don't have to rip off people's money.The math doesn't seem feasible or fair. I only see two scenarios to even coming close to making this work for the next 50 years.
Scenario 1:
Scenario 2:
- Boomers get their full SS benefits
- Generations that come afterwards fund boomers, but their payout structure is significantly less
- Eliminate ceiling for paying into SS
In either case, the younger generations aren't getting paid out like the older generations did (e.g., greatest generation).
- Immediately switch Boomers to means tested SS benefits (e.g., you only get full benefits if you need it and if you're worth millions you get nothing).
- Generations that come afterwards are subject to same rules as boomers.
- Eliminate ceiling for paying into SS
in the second scenario, boomers would never go for it.
Boomers have significantly more wealth than those who are younger. Kind of effed up that the poor young are funding the rich old.
Well duh. I hope you weren't asking that question because you really didn't know the answer. Because that's embarrassing.Since rinos apparently don't want to MAGA, they have TDS, right?
Can you give me an example of how SS has been robbed, raped and pillaged? Be specific.
Think I saw something the other day (maybe it was posted on here...can't remember) that Kirk is wanting to run for Governor in Arizona I believe it was.Here is an idea ... what about Byron Donald for Senate to replace Rubio.
And Ben Shapiro or Cahrlie Kirk for press secretary. They would never do it, but it would be interesting to watch!
I don't see how boomers are considered rich though. Boomers may have more money simply by working more years and hopefully saving to that point which everyone can do. The younger ones will get that way when their time comes. However, I know more boomers who are just living on SS than not (yes anecdotal). Including those in my family except me (5 other siblings). Many of my friends too. The only saving grace for me is between Military retirement, Civil Service retirement, SS, and my 401K I am doing ok. Not rich, but comfortable.The math doesn't seem feasible or fair. I only see two scenarios to even coming close to making this work for the next 50 years.
Scenario 1:
Scenario 2:
- Boomers get their full SS benefits
- Generations that come afterwards fund boomers, but their payout structure is significantly less
- Eliminate ceiling for paying into SS
In either case, the younger generations aren't getting paid out like the older generations did (e.g., greatest generation).
- Immediately switch Boomers to means tested SS benefits (e.g., you only get full benefits if you need it and if you're worth millions you get nothing).
- Generations that come afterwards are subject to same rules as boomers.
- Eliminate ceiling for paying into SS
in the second scenario, boomers would never go for it.
Boomers have significantly more wealth than those who are younger. Kind of effed up that the poor young are funding the rich old.
The SS ponzi scheme mayh doesnt work out in the end. Esp when new benefits are added. There is an easier answer but i dont want to type it all into the phone. In (very) short, let ppl opt out. Their employer continues to pay the match and the employee keeps his 6.2%. That is a 6.2% raise right now. But do not come back 10 yrs from now expecting govt funded retirement.
Another area that we could have saved 11 billion dollars. Think about it, these attention starved youngsters of today would have done it for free. Must be another series of money laundering where they got a fraction of it while the Bidens got their fair share.
Now that is the problem when you have young people entering the workforce. You give them 6.2% more money and they will not save it for the future. Problems is, we can say that they don't come back expecting government to help them later, but you and I both know the bleeding hearts club band will demand that we help these poor people out.The SS ponzi scheme mayh doesnt work out in the end. Esp when new benefits are added. There is an easier answer but i dont want to type it all into the phone. In (very) short, let ppl opt out. Their employer continues to pay the match and the employee keeps his 6.2%. That is a 6.2% raise right now. But do not come back 10 yrs from now expecting govt funded retirement.
Now that is the problem when you have young people entering the workforce. You give them 6.2% more money and they will not save it for the future. Problems is, we can say that they don't come back expecting government to help them later, but you and I both know the bleeding hearts club band will demand that we help these poor people out.