this post was submitted on 21 Dec 2024
189 points (98.5% liked)
politics
19243 readers
3559 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
If he thinks 93 to 3 and 76 to 20 is close, it's probably time to step down and let someone who's not a 74yo shill for fossil fuel interests get a say..
Pretty sure hemeant it in jest.
Maybe. Should still step down, though.
Maybe even older people can retain a sense of humor, while others never get one.
True. Betty White was hilarious until the end. Schumer, on the other hand, has never been known for great wit..
I've seen some witty remarks from him over the years. One of my favorites was when Republicans wanted to make it illegal to burn THE FLAG (gasp). Schumer was quoted something like: "I wish these people cared as much about what the symbol represents as much as the symbol itself."
Sarcasm is hard to discern over text. Especially when journos don't bother to mention the speaker's tone.
My parents were urging me to write my rep over this, but I think this is misguided at best
These two provisions were addressing a real issue with how SS benefits are calculated - typically your monthly benefit is a percentage of your average monthly earnings eligible for SS. Higher AIMEs are indexed down more than lower ones on a principle of need (those with lower lifetime earnings are likely to need more of a benefit to live through retirement). These provisions basically addressed fringe cases where low AIME's weren't necessarily a result of low earnings but of switching out of SS eligible income into a pension system
As I understand it, these simply indexed the monthly benefit down based on (largely outdated) assumptions about those earners. As others have pointed out - SS already has a solvency problem (it's been undermined for decades now), and further stressing that fund without expanding the tax base is just going to further stress it at a time when the GOP is itching to cut it across the board.
No question that our retirement system needs to be expanded, but this particular change seems reckless. I have to wonder why they chose to do this now
What effect does this have on the solvency date?
Another article said it moves it closer by about six months. So it's still 9-10 years away
As a millennial I can't wait to receive the social security I'm paying into right now. I'm foaming at the mouth with excitement.
Thanks for the info!
I feel like this would accelerate that a bit. While this increases fairness in the system it's putting it further at risk in my opinion. They need to get rid of the cap, it's absurd to give someone already making massive amounts of income a break when the system is in need of more funding.
... For people who get a government pension. I don't think this is good legislation unless the person needs to stop work for long term disability.
They pay the Social Security tax, so they shouldn't get the benefit?