Displaying 1 - 10 of 24 Forum Posts 1 2 3 Next
  • Jan 08, 2017 07:17 PM
    Last: 10d
    434

    Republicans have proposed to privatize Social Security since the George W Bush Administration and their newfound takeover of the Executive and Legislative branches of government gives them their first opportunity to deliver on that promise in over a decade. While they are salivating at the prospect of privatizing the decades old program, I surely hope they think twice before going through with it.

    Privatizing Social Security will bring in unnecessary and potentially dangerous risks to the safety net of tens of millions of Americans who have come to rely on their benefits for the majority of their retirement income. The 2008 financial crisis shows us that we can not always trust the private sector to make the best decisions. Imagine what would have happened to millions of seniors paychecks if their benefits were tied to the financial markets? The results would have been catastrophic.

    Instead of injecting risk into the system, Republicans should consider options that will actually tackle the Social Security Trust Fund's solvency issues. This would include raising the maximum taxable threshold of $127,200 and gradually increasing the age when individuals become eligible to receive their benefits. I fully understand that one is more controversial than the other, but I still think that both are a far better option than allowing the private market to gamble with the funds they receive.

    Does anyone agree with me or am I overlooking something about privatization that could be a benefit to the program?

  • Sep 19, 2016 02:18 PM
    Last: 4mo
    635

    It's a simple question, but one I've been thinking a lot about lately. Presidential debates used to have far more weight riding on them then they do now and I'm beginning to wonder if they are even worth the hassle anymore.

    The vast majority of American voters will have made up their minds of who they will be voting for before Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Trump take the stage for the first of three scheduled debates on September 26th and, barring a colossal mess up on either candidates performance, those opinions aren't going to change.

    I understand it's important to see how the two candidates will perform on the debate stage, but in the age of talking points and talking past each other to get ones point across, I'm beginning to wonder if they are even worth it anymore.

    Does anyone agree with me or do you think the debates are still important to help you determine who you will be voting for?

  • Aug 24, 2016 05:16 PM
    Last: 5mo
    807

    My wife and I had to place my mother-in-law in a nursing home ten years ago because her Alzheimer's made it impossible to live on her own and she seems to be quite content there. She receives the care she needs and calls her room home.

    It's was difficult at first, but we are now used to spending time with her there. We can even "sign her out" and take her out for a meal.

  • Jul 17, 2016 08:47 PM
    Last: 6mo
    2.6k
    J.K.Logic Wrote: First up, his wife. Here's Melania's full speech:

    Well that surely didn't go as they had hoped.

    Plagiarism is a big no-no in this day and age. They had to have known that there are teams of researchers and fact-checkers on the other side that is digesting each and every word and just waiting for someone to do something that will hurt their campaign.

    This is pretty much the worst thing that could have happened on the first day of the convention. And it was an entirely self-inflicted wound.

  • Jul 14, 2016 01:32 PM
    Last: 6mo
    549

    Presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump has picked Indiana Governor Mike Pence as his running mate, according to the Indianapolis Star and the New York Times.

    Governor Pence is a staunch conservative who will likely help assuage the fears of the base of the Republican Party who were hoping Mr. Trump would pick someone more aligned with the conservative wing of the party.

    I think this is a pretty safe pick for Trump because he needs the base of the party to come out in droves this November and a staunch conservative on the ticket will likely excite rank and file Republicans.

    Does anyone think this that Mr. Trump should have gone with someone else or do you think this was the best pick he could have made?

  • Apr 09, 2016 09:46 AM
    Last: 9mo
    1.8k
    J.K.Logic Wrote: I'm just now getting around to rounding everything up for filing. Happy I get the extra few days.

    I'm also a late filer. It's nice to have a few extra days this year. I'm hoping to get it done by Friday, but there's a pretty good chance I'll be heading to the post office Monday afternoon.

  • Mar 09, 2016 03:45 PM
    Last: 10mo
    683

    Bernie Sanders upset victory in Michigan surprised everyone in the political world, especially Hillary Clinton and her campaign. His victory gave a needed boost to his campaign at the time he needed it most, but Secretary Clinton still left the evening winning the most delegates after her stellar showing in Mississippi. So Bernie may have won the news cycle, but Hillary still won the most delegates.

    The only problem for Mrs. Clinton is that the news cycle tends to have more power than the delegate count. So should Clinton be worried about her unexpected loss in Michigan or was this just a bump in the road for her?

  • Feb 24, 2016 05:07 PM
    Last: 9mo
    4.9k

    Do any of our veteran members want to chime in on the difference between the two? From what I've read, it looks like every soldier who has served in the armed services at any time is eligible for Tricare benefits, but only soldiers who served in a conflict are eligible for VA benefits.

    Is this right or am I missing something?

  • Feb 10, 2016 05:17 PM
    Last: 1yr
    653

    I can see a way this could actually have America elect its first "Independent" President, but I would be shocked if all the pieces fell into place to make it happen.

    First and foremost--the two party system we have is pretty entrenched. Who would an Independent President go to in order to get legislation passed by Congress? Would an Independent President nominate "independent" judges to the Federal courts? And what other independent person would an independent politician have as their running mate?

    It's interesting that he is exploring a run, but if he jumps in then one of the two parties is likely going to be very upset on election day because he proved to be the spoiler.

  • Jan 24, 2016 04:30 PM
    Last: 9mo
    29k
    Sharonseneca Wrote: Have question, hoping you can help. I will be 65 this year. My husband is 66 and stated collecting his SS benefits. We both have worked and eligible for Ss benefits Can I take reduced benefits based on my earnings now, and then , when 66, claim spousal bneifits and get half of what he gets and elimitate mine?

    I would contact the Social Security Administration and talk to someone who explain your benefits and options in detail.