Political Cartoons, Memes & Amusing Videos

[rareboy]

Sorry, but this is incorrect and very common misinformation.

I'm sure no one is going to read this. But here goes.....

The way the Social Security Trust Fund operates has never changed since the law went into effect.
No one has ever taken, stolen, borrowed, or misappropriated money from the Trust Fund for any purpose. That's illegal and is not true.
The entirety of the Social Security Trust Fund is by law invested in U.S. Treasury Bonds. By law. Every penny is accounted for.

It is true, the Trust Fund currently has a surplus. That surplus exists in the form of Treasury Bond investments.
What is owed to Social Security by the Treasury is the principle and interest upon redemption of the bonds.
This is a basic function of the national debt and the full faith and credit of the United States.
If republicans want to "write off those loans", it means repudiating the national debt, which would cause utter worldwide chaos.
I'm sure republicans would have no problem doing that.

This misinformation has become so prevalent, it is almost impossible to combat.
People want to believe this. Everyone wants to blame someone else for a problem, which is basically just math.
There are so many reaching retirement age and claiming Social Security benefits, that there is simply more money going out than coming in.
Social Security is having to draw upon the Trust Fund to pay benefits, which depletes the Fund.

So what's the answer?
Republicans, of course, want to hurt people. They want to throw it back on beneficiaries.
They want to cut payments, raise the retirement age, they want to eliminate the employer contribution, and as usual privatize everything.
But this spike in retirements will "age out" and the amount going out will eventually come down.

What really needs to happen is to bring in more money until that happens.
But, bringing in more does not mean raising FICA taxes on those currently contributing. It means raising the CAP.
Do you know that, in 2024, you only contribute to FICA until your gross taxable salary has exceeded $168,600 for the year? You then stop contributing for the rest of the year.
Think about how Social Security would be stabilized and become solvent if that CAP were raised to $1 Million or $5 Million or just removed.
Social Security money, for most seniors, is money that quickly flows back into the economy in the form of living expenses. That's a good thing all around, which benefits the economy.
This what Democrats want to do. Republicans just want to make seniors suffer, so the rich can have a few more shares of stock investments.

The problem is, seniors are also the people whose spending helps make billionaires rich. Take the money out of the economy and watch it collapse in recession or depression like it has time and again.

Certainly they are going to push for an end to employer contributions. That is something they can deliver to their friends as long as they can also destroy unions and collective agreements.

 

[cityboy-stl]

The problem is, seniors are also the people whose spending helps make billionaires rich. Take the money out of the economy and watch it collapse in recession or depression like it has time and again.

Certainly they are going to push for an end to employer contributions. That is something they can deliver to their friends as long as they can also destroy unions and collective agreements.

So you're saying republicans cutting Social Security is good a thing? I don't get your point. Sorry.

 

[rareboy]

So you're saying republicans cutting Social Security is good a thing? I don't get your point. Sorry.

I am not sure where you get the idea that I am saying it would be a good thing?

Cutting Social Security (which they can't do) to create millions of poorer seniors only results in a loss of consumer dollars and consumption, which last time I checked, is one of the reasons why most corporations make money. Seniors with less money will cut back consumption and discretionary spending which we know the younger, already poorer generations aren't able to make up.

Unrelated to the above, I was saying that DOGE and the GQP may in fact take a good hard run at cutting employer contributions and shifting the total burden onto the individual. But workers are also not going to take this without fighting back, at least in the industries with unions and collective bargaining.

 

[cityboy-stl]

I am not sure where you get the idea that I am saying it would be a good thing?

Cutting Social Security (which they can't do) to create millions of poorer seniors only results in a loss of consumer dollars and consumption, which last time I checked, is one of the reasons why most corporations make money. Seniors with less money will cut back consumption and discretionary spending which we know the younger, already poorer generations aren't able to make up.

Unrelated to the above, I was saying that DOGE and the GQP may in fact take a good hard run at cutting employer contributions and shifting the total burden onto the individual. But workers are also not going to take this without fighting back, at least in the industries with unions and collective bargaining.

I completely misread. My bad. Sorry.

The theme of my long post, was to point out common misinformation that money has been taken, stolen, borrowed, misappropriated from the Trust Fund to pay for wars, tax cuts, etc. Not true.
Every penny is, by law, in Treasury Bond investments. Also, IMO, the best way to stabilize Social Security is raising the CAP.

 

[rareboy]

 

[rareboy]

 

[rareboy]

 

[Alistair]

I’m not so sure that he’s a victim of a disgruntled care seeker. How did the guy have so much precise information about where he was going to be? Do you know that he’s been estranged from his wife for the past two years, and he was probably going to lose millions of dollars in the court case against him. Sounds like a motive to me.

It’s sounding like a really bad murder for hire episode of Columbo to me.

 

[KaraBulut]

I had to hold my nose watching Scarborough grandstand, but yes...DOGE is an exercise in disingenuity, but it also disguises the most blatant act of kleptocracy about to take place.

Rattner's explanations are worth watching. My solution lately has been to watch the weekend edition of Morning Joe which trims out most of Scarborough's blathering and tends to have the better content from the week.

They can get rid of Veterans' health benefits by transferring the administration to private health insurers and providers, but the overall costs don't just disappear.

Likewise they could get rid of the FBI, but then there would be no federal level crimes...only a patchwork of ineffective law enforcement that would stop at the borders of each state.

Get rid of federal prisons? Not likely. What they will propose is that they all be privatized. So you can get rid of the administration cost but not the cost of incarceration.

Privatization was a big project of the last President from the National Laboratory for Bad Government (NLBG aka Texas), George W Bush. It was a dismal failure both in Texas and Federally. The US government hides a lot of workers as contractors so that they don't show as FTEs (and it makes them non-union). But whether it's privatization or contractors, it's more costly in the end.

There's another scary thing going on in the NLBG and it has to do with a Texas' dismal record on protecting vulnerable children in the State. Texas trying and failing to privatize the Child Protective Services programs in Texas. The vendors who are taking over the foster care system are pulling out of contracts because they lose money.

Across Texas, a slow and sputtered rollout of foster care privatization

Lawmakers were assured that outsourcing management of foster care services would fix the state’s troubled child welfare agency. But the rollout of the new model, set to be completed by 2029, has been complicated by setbacks.

www.texastribune.org

A Federal Judge was on Texas' back about their dismal record in protecting children in residential homes and in foster care. Presented with evidence that children in the Texas foster care system were being physically abused, sexually abused and even dying, the judge, Janice Jack, had started levying fines on the State of Texas.

Then the State of Texas hired Allyson Ho, the wife of James Ho, a Ted Cruz favorite and a friend of Harlan Crowe, who happens to sit on the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. With Allyson Ho's assistance, the State of Texas went to the 5th Circuit, who removed Judge Jack from the case, on the grounds that she was being too harsh on the State of Texas!

5th Circuit Court orders federal judge removed from Texas foster care lawsuit

U.S. District Judge Janis Jack, the state’s de facto foster care czar, has been overseeing the case since 2011.

www.texastribune.org

At issue is the care of roughly 9,000 children in the state’s permanent custody after being removed from their homes because of abuse or neglect. Since the case was filed, Jack has found the state in contempt three times for failing to fix conditions...

“The above excerpts show that the judge exhibits a sustained pattern, over the course of months and numerous hearings, of disrespect for the Defendants and their counsel, but no such attitude toward the Plaintiffs’ counsel,” the appellate court decision stated. “The judge’s demeanor exhibits a ‘high degree of antagonism,' calling into doubt at least ‘the appearance of fairness’ for the state Defendants.”

Don't be surprised if one of the "solutions" that the Trump Administration proposed is to outsource Federal jobs to contracting companies. And don't be surprised if the Courts refuse to hold the Federal government accountable when outsourcing is a dismal failure.

 

[cityboy-stl]

I’m not so sure that he’s a victim of a disgruntled care seeker. How did the guy have so much precise information about where he was going to be? Do you know that he’s been estranged from his wife for the past two years, and he was probably going to lose millions of dollars in the court case against him. Sounds like a motive to me.

It’s sounding like a really bad murder for hire episode of Columbo to me.

We don't know for sure, yet. But the presumption comes from the words "Deny", "Defend", "Depose" engraved on the shell cases. The words come from the title of a book about the insurance industry denying claims. Which makes it a logical conclusion.

Do you mean victim's wife hired the shooter? I hadn't heard that one, but possible I suppose.

 

[KaraBulut]

I’m not so sure that he’s a victim of a disgruntled care seeker. How did the guy have so much precise information about where he was going to be? Do you know that he’s been estranged from his wife for the past two years, and he was probably going to lose millions of dollars in the court case against him. Sounds like a motive to me.

It’s sounding like a really bad murder for hire episode of Columbo to me.

That was my impression, too... until I saw the video. The shooter's suppressor ("silencer") malfunctioned several times. He shot the CEO in the back and leg. A pro would have been more efficient with his aim and would have been less likely to have so many suppressor failures.

The shooter knew how to handle a weapon but he shot the CEO in a place with full lighting and a surveillance camera with a witness standing nearby.

 

[rareboy]

 

[rareboy]

 

[rareboy]

 

[rareboy]

From Darth Putin:

It's hard to believe Assad, a London-trained ophthalmologist, couldn't see this coming.

 

[rareboy]

 

[Alistair]

 

[rareboy]

 

[rareboy]

 

[rareboy]

If you have any doubt about legacy media.