Only to set the record straight, the initial raid of the so called SS Trust Fund began in the 60's during the war in Viet Nam in order to fund the war. That is when the first I O U 's were "deposited".
Now we know since the Obama Administration that there is no Trust Fund other than a column for bookkeeping purposes. That all monies are mixed in the general fund as declared that during one of the earliest government shutdowns during his term then that it was very likely that SS checks would not be paid, just to keep this simple. That was the scare tactic used.
Texas ? I would suggest California and New York instead ...
Those IOUs are mostly what's called Treasury notes, bills or bonds. They are some of the safest securities ever. You probably have some. If you do and are really concerned, I'll buy them all from you today at 9% discount. Let me know.
Only to set the record straight, the initial raid of the so called SS Trust Fund began in the 60's during the war in Viet Nam in order to fund the war. That is when the first I O U 's were "deposited".
Now we know since the Obama Administration that there is no Trust Fund other than a column for bookkeeping purposes. That all monies are mixed in the general fund as declared that during one of the earliest government shutdowns during his term then that it was very likely that SS checks would not be paid, just to keep this simple. That was the scare tactic used.
Texas ? I would suggest California and New York instead ...
Careful what you wish for. CA & NY account for over 22% of the entire US gross domestic product. Good luck without that.
But of course, the funds going into SS have been raided by congress to fund other programs for decades.
My suggestion is to sells assets. We can start with Texas
Only to set the record straight, the initial raid of the so called SS Trust Fund began in the 60's during the war in Viet Nam in order to fund the war. That is when the first I O U 's were "deposited".
Now we know since the Obama Administration that there is no Trust Fund other than a column for bookkeeping purposes. That all monies are mixed in the general fund as declared that during one of the earliest government shutdowns during his term then that it was very likely that SS checks would not be paid, just to keep this simple. That was the scare tactic used.
Texas ? I would suggest California and New York instead ...
The Times reported Wednesday that doctors noticed a dark spot in brain scans for Kennedy after he experienced memory loss in 2010 and concluded he had a brain tumor, according to a 2012 deposition. He received a call from another doctor who believed that it was not a tumor, and was instead a dead parasite.
Talk about worms dead and living, here's one for number crunchers and career politicians and their enablers...
Well, when it started out, it was more of a safety net than a retirement entitlement benefit...and most people only lived a few years, right?
But of course, the funds going into SS have been raided by congress to fund other programs for decades.
Too late to solve that problem, $ is gone, spent on guns, roads, benefits of others...
Could cut the benefit, extend the age requirement or other means.
My suggestion is to sells assets.
We can start with Texas
The Times reported Wednesday that doctors noticed a dark spot in brain scans for Kennedy after he experienced memory loss in 2010 and concluded he had a brain tumor, according to a 2012 deposition. He received a call from another doctor who believed that it was not a tumor, and was instead a dead parasite.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Apr 19, 2024 - 5:49pm
haresfur wrote:
They are not on the same sides of a coalition they are all in a coalition with the rest of the democrats, though. Uneasy bedfellows or something.
Ok, got it. I am not a Manchin fan. I think he leveraged his newfound power because of the razor-thin Democratic majority to promote himself. He knew he was likely to lose his Senate reelection bid this year to Judge. So he announced he was not running, and then flirted with being a presidential candidate for the No Labels folk.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Apr 19, 2024 - 4:38pm
haresfur wrote:
I've previously said my opposition to giving too much power to minor groups, with Israel as the example. Australia sort of addresses the issue with rank choice voting and 12 senators from each state and 2 from each of the internal territories. This means that it is reasonably easy for minor parties to be elected in the senate but still limits influence at the house level where there are currently, I think, 3 parties and a coalition of socially liberal, fiscally conservative, anti-corruption, dominantly women independents.
I think that the US effectively has a coalition with the likes of Sanders, Warren, and Manchin in the democrats, and what's left of the actual conservatives in the republicans.
I would not include Manchin in a coalition with Sanders and Warren.
Okay by me. I still favor ranked choice, but I see a lot of value in forcing coalitions for governance.
I've previously said my opposition to giving too much power to minor groups, with Israel as the example. Australia sort of addresses the issue with rank choice voting and 12 senators from each state and 2 from each of the internal territories. This means that it is reasonably easy for minor parties to be elected in the senate but still limits influence at the house level where there are currently, I think, 3 parties and a coalition of socially liberal, fiscally conservative, anti-corruption, dominantly women independents.
I think that the US effectively has a coalition with the likes of Sanders, Warren, and Manchin in the democrats, and what's left of the actual conservatives in the republicans.
In many ways, Kennedy is an ideal candidate for both the far left and far right, and even the angry, ignored middle...certainly a no-less flawed candidate than the two established wankers.
The cover ups by big biz and gov, that danger the environment and people, leftwing policies like increasing taxes to take care of the poorâ¦and the conspiracies / coverups the gov does/doesnât participate in here and abroad, securing the border, gun rights, denounces mediaâ¦and like trump, an insider/outside who has trouble keeping his mouth shut, but unlike trump, he really wants to change the govâ¦
Squint, and you can see a parable of Kennedyâs decision to run against the Democrats, the party of his family going back to his great-grandfather. Duty is his professed reason for challenging Biden for the Democratic nomination and then launching his independent candidacy last October. (His path to the ticket was unfairly blocked by the dnc, he alleges.) âI never intended to run for president,â Kennedy avers. But he âsaw things happening to my party and my country that made me frightened about the world that my children are going to grow up inâ.
Under Biden, Kennedy now says, the Democrats are a corrupt party of war, corporate control and censorship. The censorship he is talking about is partly of him: he alleges that Biden was personally responsible for some of his social-media suspensions. He claims that the prospect of four more years of Biden, who keeps a bust of Kennedyâs father in the Oval Office, worries him as much as a second term for Donald Trump. JFK and Bobby senior âwould have walked awayâ from todayâs Democratic Party, he believes. In a public statement last October, four of his siblings disagreed forcefully.
I do not know how the NZ Constitution is set up and provided for this kind of change.
Tell me how this could be done under our Constitution, please.
Thank you in advance.
Proportional representation would require a constitutional change, a pretty extensive one. Other forms of electoral reform (ranked choice voting, assigning electoral college votes by vote proportion rather than winner-take-all, etc.) could be accomplished at the state level.
And should be, but that's a whole 'nother argument.
In 1993 New Zealanders voted in a referendum to change their voting system from the traditional first past the post (FPP) method to mixed member proportional representation (MMP). This was the most dramatic change to the country's electoral system since the introduction of women's suffrage exactly 100 years before. How and why did this electoral revolution come about?
The origins of electoral reform lay in the gradual breakdown of public trust and confidence in politicians, Parliament and the simple certainties of the old two-party system. This process began in the 1950s and 1960s and gathered momentum in the 1970s and 1980s, decades marked by economic uncertainty and the emergence of new social and political movements.
Sound familiar? The current support for Trump feels so reminiscent to what NZ was like under Muldoon (who was a lamb compared to Trump but also incited violence and ran on a platform of law and order to quell the very violence he instigated). The experience was bad enough for us to introduce MMP as soon as he lost power.
But it also makes me think of what my American professor said back in the 80's: The Americans generally oscillate between the parties regardless of who is running or what their platform is. It is part of the country's DNA.
This is about the only explanation I can find for Trump still enjoying such high polling numbers.
High time you guys installed some kind of MMP, I reckon. It's no cure-all, but it might help.
Okay by me. I still favor ranked choice, but I see a lot of value in forcing coalitions for governance.
In 1993 New Zealanders voted in a referendum to change their voting system from the traditional first past the post (FPP) method to mixed member proportional representation (MMP). This was the most dramatic change to the country's electoral system since the introduction of women's suffrage exactly 100 years before. How and why did this electoral revolution come about?
The origins of electoral reform lay in the gradual breakdown of public trust and confidence in politicians, Parliament and the simple certainties of the old two-party system. This process began in the 1950s and 1960s and gathered momentum in the 1970s and 1980s, decades marked by economic uncertainty and the emergence of new social and political movements.
Sound familiar? The current support for Trump feels so reminiscent to what NZ was like under Muldoon (who was a lamb compared to Trump but also incited violence and ran on a platform of law and order to quell the very violence he instigated). The experience was bad enough for us to introduce MMP as soon as he lost power.
But it also makes me think of what my American professor said back in the 80's: The Americans generally oscillate between the parties regardless of who is running or what their platform is. It is part of the country's DNA.
This is about the only explanation I can find for Trump still enjoying such high polling numbers.
High time you guys installed some kind of MMP, I reckon. It's no cure-all, but it might help.
