President Trump

vantexan

Well-Known Member
i really parts of this post, but the inequality is much worse than 50% of society profiting off the lower 50%.

social security last i checked has a cap on the tax. if you lift the cap on it, then its good until 2070. social security pays too little anyways, so they need to increase that too.
There are certainly ways to tweak it, just a matter of political will to do so.
 

vantexan

Well-Known Member
If you cut benefits you lose the old people base. If you increase the income cap you lose the rich people base. Do nothing so everyone loses is the answer.
Or you can do means testing of retirees. If someone has a certain amount of income from other sources then their SS can be reduced to the point of not receiving any for the wealthy. And the income cap has been increased over the years. Of course at that point it truly is socialism as it's redistributing wealth.
 

vantexan

Well-Known Member
If you cut benefits you lose the old people base. If you increase the income cap you lose the rich people base. Do nothing so everyone loses is the answer.
One idea that I think might work is at the point they're only taking taxes with an employer match have a base that no one gets paid lower than and reduce the top amount that can be received. Everyone else would be in between those two amounts. Sure the high income people would take a hit but their the ones who benefited most from our system through their working years and have assets to take care of themselves.
 

DriveInDriveOut

Inordinately Right
Or you can do means testing of retirees. If someone has a certain amount of income from other sources then their SS can be reduced to the point of not receiving any for the wealthy. And the income cap has been increased over the years. Of course at that point it truly is socialism as it's redistributing wealth.
You are a liberal.
 

newfie

Well-Known Member
FB_IMG_1544899236419.jpg
 

Box Ox

What can be, unburdened by what has been.

When in reality, it was Comey who on October 28, 2016, mere days before the election, went against the Justice Department's policy of not commenting on investigations close to an election by announcing that there were newly discovered emails that were potentially relevant to the Clinton server investigation.

That alone might have been enough to sway the election in Trump's favor in the couple states that were very close and gave Trump the electoral vote win.

Like Comey said in testimony to Congress last Friday, anyone who thinks the FBI sought to favor then-Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton in an investigation into her use of a private email server is "smoking something."
 

vantexan

Well-Known Member
When in reality, it was Comey who on October 28, 2016, mere days before the election, went against the Justice Department's policy of not commenting on investigations close to an election by announcing that there were newly discovered emails that were potentially relevant to the Clinton server investigation.

That alone might have been enough to sway the election in Trump's favor in the couple states that were very close and gave Trump the electoral vote win.

Like Comey said in testimony to Congress last Friday, anyone who thinks the FBI sought to favor then-Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton in an investigation into her use of a private email server is "smoking something."
Well of course he did. He would have been eviscerated if he had sat on that. What it comes down to is, while some here like to say no prosecutable crimes were found, Comey actually said there were crimes committed but he didn't believe it was her intent to commit crimes. Intent! Yeah, go commit a felony and tell the judge it wasn't your intent to commit a crime. And if he asks why did you try to cover it up too you can give him an innocent look and say you were unaware that that was not allowed. Of course you'll get completely off the hook.
 

vantexan

Well-Known Member
You need to put a dictionary on your Christmas wish list. Maybe the wife you abandoned can mail it to you.
She's sitting right here, why don't out ask her? You really can't stand someone figuring out a way to pay for things without having to hump like you do, huh? Keep up the good work, you need to help pay my SS check.
 

Box Ox

What can be, unburdened by what has been.
Well of course he did. He would have been eviscerated if he had sat on that. What it comes down to is, while some here like to say no prosecutable crimes were found, Comey actually said there were crimes committed but he didn't believe it was her intent to commit crimes. Intent! Yeah, go commit a felony and tell the judge it wasn't your intent to commit a crime. And if he asks why did you try to cover it up too you can give him an innocent look and say you were unaware that that was not allowed. Of course you'll get completely off the hook.

Good thing there's probably bountiful evidence that Trump did intend to commit crimes and it can be proven in a court of law, eh?
 
Top