Ron Johnson: social security is unfair for the rich people.

[Crnr2Crnr]

2 minutes ago, spin_dry said:

Johnson is only interested in his class of people. He has zero interest in anyone that may be struggling. He’s a total piece of shit 

I used to work with one of his cousins who was a staunch right wing Rush Limbaugh lover... he hated Ron

[racer254]

5 minutes ago, spin_dry said:

Johnson is only interested in his class of people. He has zero interest in anyone that may be struggling. He’s a total piece of shit 

Trying to find ways to save SS and you think that.  You are really just messed up. 

Ron Johnson:  Although I’ve been saying this since becoming a U.S. Senator, I recently came under attack (again) for suggesting we ought to be paying attention to the sustainability of Social Security, Medicare, and other “mandatory” spending programs, by putting everything “on budget” as discretionary spending. We should also be concerned about our $30.6 trillion national debt, but few in Washington D.C. are.  

Edited July 18, 2023 by racer254

[Crnr2Crnr]

2 minutes ago, racer254 said:

Trying to find ways to save SS and you think that.  You are really just messed up. 

https://www.google.com/search?q=ron+johnson+save+social+security&oq=ron+johnson+save+social+security+&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOdIBCTE3NTUyajBqN6gCALACAA&client=ms-android-americamovil-us-revc&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8#ip=1

Pick precisely which article people should read... 

[racer254]

Just now, Crnr2Crnr said:

https://www.google.com/search?q=ron+johnson+save+social+security&oq=ron+johnson+save+social+security+&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOdIBCTE3NTUyajBqN6gCALACAA&client=ms-android-americamovil-us-revc&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8#ip=1

Pick precisely which article people should read... 

Take a good look at his fiscal points.  You have said repeatedly that you would vote for a true fiscal conservative and Ron Johnson agrees with you and somehow you don't like him.  I am not surprised.

https://wisfacts.com/get-the-facts-social-security-medicare/

The first step in solving any problem is admitting you have one. Clearly, deficit spending and growing debt are not being addressed. It’s way past time to start.

First, we need to fix the annual budget process. That will take leadership that currently doesn’t exist. If Republicans retake the Senate majority next year, I will press our conference to commit to restoring order to the Senate by adhering to a calendar schedule.

It would start with passing a budget by the end of February. Because it’s impossible to immediately balance the budget, an increase in the debt ceiling would have to be passed to accommodate the deficit. Instead of slipping a debt ceiling increase in a “must pass” piece of legislation, we should use the opportunity as it was intended – to force some fiscal discipline on Congress. My suggestion would be to attach the following fiscal control bills to any debt ceiling increase: a Full Faith and Credit Act that prioritizes spending to prevent default on our debt, the Preventing Government Shutdown Act to fund government at the previous year’s level in the event appropriation bills aren’t passed before the start of the fiscal year; the REINS Act to restrain the growth of burdensome regulations; and finally, Reducing the Size of the Federal Government Through Attrition Act which would start shrinking government agencies over time without having to lay anyone off.

 

[Highmark]

2 minutes ago, Crnr2Crnr said:

you don't have to watch it... I provided you the information separately.  furthermore I don't believe they or anyone else suggested raising the cap more than it has been raised unless I missed something?  

I won't even get started on my normal 'how our elected idiots fucked up social security for decades' rants... I've said it all too many times here. 

Didn't Trump (to his credit?) tell republicans not to fuck with social security?

 

 

What information did you really provide?   If he's against the cap raising its because those paying nearest the cap get the least return and I've already stated someone earning that amount is far from the "wealthiest American's" as you stated.

2 people earning $80 K at retirement born in 1970 (our age) would each get approximately $2451 each or $4902 at age 67.

A single income household earning $160K at retirement would earn $3480 at 67.  $1400 less per month.   That's a fuck job and they were earning similar amounts. 

[spin_dry]

19 minutes ago, Highmark said:

What information did you really provide?   If he's against the cap raising its because those paying nearest the cap get the least return and I've already stated someone earning that amount is far from the "wealthiest American's" as you stated.

2 people earning $80 K at retirement born in 1970 (our age) would each get approximately $2451 each or $4902 at age 67.

A single income household earning $160K at retirement would earn $3480 at 67.  $1400 less per month.   That's a fuck job and they were earning similar amounts. 

Big fucking deal. The less wealthy have to pay the same for property taxes, fees, and various other monies to keep civilization afloat. There’s no sliding fee scale for that. 

[SkisNH]

1 hour ago, Crnr2Crnr said:

Ron is a cunt.

Jan. 1, 2023, the maximum earnings subject to the Social Security payroll tax will increase by nearly 9 percent to $160,200—up from the $147,000 maximum for 2022 

 

so, after you make $160.2k you don't pay another nickel into social security for the year.  

who's he trying to kid here?  

What's the max payout for social security?  If they keep taxing me will my benefits go up?

[Crnr2Crnr]

50 minutes ago, racer254 said:

Take a good look at his fiscal points.  You have said repeatedly that you would vote for a true fiscal conservative and Ron Johnson agrees with you and somehow you don't like him.  I am not surprised.

https://wisfacts.com/get-the-facts-social-security-medicare/

The first step in solving any problem is admitting you have one. Clearly, deficit spending and growing debt are not being addressed. It’s way past time to start.

First, we need to fix the annual budget process. That will take leadership that currently doesn’t exist. If Republicans retake the Senate majority next year, I will press our conference to commit to restoring order to the Senate by adhering to a calendar schedule.

It would start with passing a budget by the end of February. Because it’s impossible to immediately balance the budget, an increase in the debt ceiling would have to be passed to accommodate the deficit. Instead of slipping a debt ceiling increase in a “must pass” piece of legislation, we should use the opportunity as it was intended – to force some fiscal discipline on Congress. My suggestion would be to attach the following fiscal control bills to any debt ceiling increase: a Full Faith and Credit Act that prioritizes spending to prevent default on our debt, the Preventing Government Shutdown Act to fund government at the previous year’s level in the event appropriation bills aren’t passed before the start of the fiscal year; the REINS Act to restrain the growth of burdensome regulations; and finally, Reducing the Size of the Federal Government Through Attrition Act which would start shrinking government agencies over time without having to lay anyone off.

 

I agree with much of what's in his statement in the link.  How's he doing to convince the current Republican Congress to abide?  Is there support from members of his own party?  As I see it, ignoring our fiscal issues over the past couple decades has been a total bipartisan effort... and continues to be one. 

Americans don't want to hear the truth or do what's hard in the near term.   We've a broken system which spends far more than it brings in and continuously defers bigger and bigger spending expenses to future generations. 

America's biggest problem is a math problem.

 

 

[Crnr2Crnr]

22 minutes ago, SkisNH said:

What's the max payout for social security?  If they keep taxing me will my benefits go up?

https://www.ssa.gov/personal-record/change-sex-identification

 

[racer254]

5 minutes ago, Crnr2Crnr said:

I agree with much of what's in his statement in the link.  How's he doing to convince the current Republican Congress to abide?  Is there support from members of his own party?  As I see it, ignoring our fiscal issues over the past couple decades has been a total bipartisan effort... and continues to be one. 

Americans don't want to hear the truth or do what's hard in the near term.   We've a broken system which spends far more than it brings in and continuously defers bigger and bigger spending expenses to future generations. 

America's biggest problem is a math problem.

 

 

If you agree with him, then why are you against him?  Should be a simple decision, the more guys we get in there that continue to believe the same, maybe we will get something accomplished.

 

[Crnr2Crnr]

Just now, racer254 said:

If you agree with him, then why are you against him?  Should be a simple decision, the more guys we get in there that continue to believe the same, maybe we will get something accomplished.

 

I'm not a single issue voter...

 

[racer254]

4 minutes ago, Crnr2Crnr said:

I'm not a single issue voter...

 

Yes you are.  Remember....ABORTION!!!

[Snake]

1 hour ago, spin_dry said:

Tell the class how Ron Johnson made his fortune by marrying into it. 

Tell the class how Teresa Heinz's ex-husband's trust fund put a face on John Kerry's lips....

[SkisNH]

27 minutes ago, Crnr2Crnr said:

I agree with much of what's in his statement in the link.  How's he doing to convince the current Republican Congress to abide?  Is there support from members of his own party?  As I see it, ignoring our fiscal issues over the past couple decades has been a total bipartisan effort... and continues to be one. 

Americans don't want to hear the truth or do what's hard in the near term.   We've a broken system which spends far more than it brings in and continuously defers bigger and bigger spending expenses to future generations. 

America's biggest problem is a math problem.

 

 

So...your solution is to give everyone else the money they put into social security but keep the money from people you deem to rich. 

I'm certain of this...rich or poor you are better off getting the money you put in.

[Crnr2Crnr]

19 minutes ago, racer254 said:

Yes you are.  Remember....ABORTION!!!

LIV golf? 

Fake electors? 

Drink another cup of bleach 

[hayward]

2 hours ago, f7ben said:

160k for a family is barely livable 

[Crnr2Crnr]

25 minutes ago, SkisNH said:

So...your solution is to give everyone else the money they put into social security but keep the money from people you deem to rich. 

I'm certain of this...rich or poor you are better off getting the money you put in.

if I could have opted out 20 years ago and taken 50% of what I had paid into the program I would have.  Mind you my father paid in his entire life until his death at 54 and never got one red cent back.  Great deal for everyone else... 

[akvanden]

2 hours ago, spin_dry said:

Tell the class how Ron Johnson made his fortune by marrying into it. 

My grandfather always joked around saying "marry for money, you can always learn to love"

[dsupercat]

19 minutes ago, Crnr2Crnr said:

if I could have opted out 20 years ago and taken 50% of what I had paid into the program I would have.  Mind you my father paid in his entire life until his death at 54 and never got one red cent back.  Great deal for everyone else... 

So you want 50% of what you put in but the rich won't even get a fraction of what they pay in but that's ok because they have more then you correct?

[spin_dry]

50 minutes ago, Snake said:

Tell the class how Teresa Heinz's ex-husband's trust fund put a face on John Kerry's lips....

No difference. They’re both pieces of detestable shit. 

[Voodoo]

Do you guys get something if you die?

Canada Pension plan is a ponzi scheme, no less.

If I a single person dies at lets say 60, contributing for 40 years and taking nothing, that money just stays in the pot.

That's not a pension plan, it's just taxes by another name.

[Crnr2Crnr]

13 minutes ago, dsupercat said:

So you want 50% of what you put in but the rich won't even get a fraction of what they pay in but that's ok because they have more then you correct?

WOW 😲

Now that's some projecting... enough that I had to reread my posts in this thread and then figure out what the fuck your point is.  

Are you rich?  In what month do you exceed the $161k level? 

 

[Crnr2Crnr]

2 minutes ago, Voodoo said:

Do you guys get something if you die?

Canada Pension plan is a ponzi scheme, no less.

If I a single person dies at lets say 60, contributing for 40 years and taking nothing, that money just stays in the pot.

That's not a pension plan, it's just taxes by another name.

spousal and kids under eighteen get benefits I believe, but am not certain.  no death benefit persay 

[racer254]

All kinds of ways to increase your SS benefits.

https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/investing/social-security/increase-social-security-benefits

[Highmark]

3 hours ago, spin_dry said:

Big fucking deal. The less wealthy have to pay the same for property taxes, fees, and various other monies to keep civilization afloat. There’s no sliding fee scale for that. 

Yes their is.   There are plenty of things with taxes that have income qualifications.   There are also things like college Pell grants and what not based off income that are advantageous to lower income families.