Patong2021

Not exactly. It means that it is reasonable to have conditions on the payment such as no COLA adjustments if not resident in the USA. I have made clear that anyone who has paid in has the right to live where they choose and to receive the benefits that they have paid for. There is no denying that beneficiaries made contributions which have earned compound interest. The issue is whether it is fair to the US taxpayers that the benefits be topped up by the US taxpayers and that excess to be spent outside of the USA. The adjustment can be accomplished either by eliminating access to adjustments for inflation, as some countries do, or by introducing a small witholding adjustment. If a beneficiary has not contributed funds sufficient to cover the payout, and taxpayers are forced to make up the shortfall, then the taxpayers should have the right to require that the amount they are covering be provided only if spent in the USA. How can you justify forcing taxpayers to subsidize the lifestyle of some retiree in an exotic foreign locale? Let the retiree spend the money in balmy Alabama or sunny Arkansas where the cost of living is low if cost of living is that important.

That is unfair. What is your solution? How do you expect the Canadian consulate to verify the income statement? It does not have access to annual CRA filings and it does not have access to the person's bank accounts. What's your methodology to allow the consulate to issue an accurate declaration?

All that because the Canadian embassy no longer wishes to be part of a sham?

Yes deductions are distinct. However, the stability of the social security funds are guaranteed by the US Government which in effect is guaranteed by the US taxpayers. In respect to your reminder, how about this reminder first; The Social Security Trust Fund is required by law to be invested in non-marketable securities issued and guaranteed by the federal government. Excess funds are used by the government for non-Social Security purposes, creating the obligations to the Social Security Administration and thus program recipients. The current benefit payments are supported by the current payroll taxes. However, once the available funds can no longer cover the benefit payment obligations, the Treasury instruments will need to be sold creating a debt repayment obligation. The excess funds that were allowed to be used for other purposes will no longer be available, resulting in a budget funding deficit. And another reminder, the problem for social security is that the value of the social security payment obligations is not funded by the value of the beneficiary original investment and compounded interest. The debt obligation would inevitably have to be covered by the taxpayers.

Many of your concerns are understandable, and I am not discounting their importance. The loss of contributions at death can seem unfair. The counter argument is that while the money may not be refundable, there are survivor benefits that will continue to benefit the spouse, divorced spouse, child, or dependent parent of someone who worked and paid Social Security taxes before they died. That is more than fair. In respect to the amount available to beneficiaries, the stark reality is that people will collect more than their contributions over time are worth. I think it is self evident that the current model is not sustainable. According to 2022 data, the United States (US) Social Security Administration (SSA) paid about 6.1 billion US dollars (USD) in benefits to 760,000 beneficiaries outside the country (LaPonsie, 2024). That is crazy. In respect to your argument that beneficiaries move elsewhere to get more "bang for the buck", that is their personal choice. If a beneficiary is only receiving what they contributed, then yes, you are right that the beneficiary should be able to live wherever they wish. it is their money. However, if someone is receiving more than they contributed, then it is reasonable that the funders be able to set a condition that funds be spent in the nation providing the additional benefit. Why should taxpayers be supporting a person in a foreign land? If the money paid to such people is spent in the USA, then there is an indirect economic offset to their financial burden. Social security payments were intended to assist destitute elderly and as as an income supplement for retired workers. It was never intended as a means to fund the retirement of people foreign lands, nor was it intended as a replacement for prudent retirement savings planning. FDR and the SS planners did not consider the impact of beneficiaries living outside of the USA.

That's nice. However, the reality in the USA is that the vast majority of social security beneficiaries will receive far more than what the actual value of their contributions is actually worth. If they were only receiving what their contributions were worth at the time of payout, you would have a reasonable argument. A small number of US citizens carry the income tax burden of the USA. 0.02% of federal taxpayers contribute 12.6% of federal income tax. 54% of US income tax is paid by 30% of the taxpayers,. In the USA, around 110 million citizens pay some federal tax, and for most it doesn't come anywhere close to paying for the value of goods and services they receive from their government. And that's the problem of social security: The beneficiaries don't understand basic math and don't want to accept that they are being paid far more than their small contributions could ever generate. This is why social security contributions must either increase, and/or the amount paid out per beneficiary be reduced over time by changing the qualifying age, and or no longer be adjusted for inflation.

I am disappointed to learn of the transfer of the Novotel hotel to Hyatt at the airport. Although the place has become rundown, the pricing in part reflected that. Now that Hyatt has the management contract, room rates have increased and breakfast is now 1000 baht+ per person. This used to be my go to hotel for early morning departures and late night arrivals. No more.

Yes, you are correct. It has always been a delay, delay and let someone else deal with it. No different than the immigration crisis. Decades go by, making the problem a critical mess. I hope the congress members who believe in controlling the deficit are not steam rolled.

The point is that your retirees are collecting far more than they ever contributed. That is not fair. Let them collect the value of what their contributions are worth. You are demanding that they get a free ride. Why should they be treated as a special class while others are denied basic benefits or have their benefits reduced?

There should be, for the simple reason that the people who will pay on the higher limits will never collect the benefit. The majority of US citizens do not pay anywhere near the value of goods and services that they receive from their government(s). It is always the 20% of the population carrying the burden of 80% of the population. How much more burden must they take on?

Yes, but that statement needs context. Although the US federal law states that Social Security can only pay benefits from the funds available from the social security investment fund pool which are held in Treasury securities, this isn't likely to occur until 2035. In the absence of new funding or a reduction in the payouts, there would most likely be a freeze in payments, i.e. no COLA before there were "cuts". And before there were cuts, there might be reduced eligibility, and/or incremental small reductions. A cut is synonymous with a large reduction, and the Social Security program is still decades away from that. More likely is a US debt crisis. In order to pay out the benefits due, the Treasury instruments would have to be liquidated, and this would most likely create a financial crisis in the USA as the USA would not have the liquidity to repay the monies owed to the Social Security fund.

The US intelligence conclusion was conditional. The conclusion offered by the CIA was; "CIA assesses with low confidence that a research-related origin of the COVID-19 pandemic is more likely than a natural origin based on the available body of reporting. CIA continues to assess that both research-related and natural origin scenarios of the COVID-19 pandemic remain plausible" You are reading far more into the January statement than is there. Nobody has denied that there may have been a lab incident. It is the origin of the new virus variant that is in question. There is ;longstanding credible and reliable data that shows the link between infectious disease and the Chinese wet markets. They are horrible evil places. There is also reliable evidence that shows that many of the worst variants of avian flus originate in Asia due to Asian agricultural and farming practices. SARS Cov-2 virus is a variant of an existing virus. It is not entirely new. Viruses evolve and new variants are regularly created. This is how the world exists. The general consensus is that the virus originated in China and is linked to the Chinese animal abuse customs and lack of hygiene at their markets. It is plausible that samples were taken of the new respiratory virus once it was manifested in humans, and sent for study at the laboratory. The outbreaks in China occurred at the same time the virus was under study and it may have infected lab workers who then infected the general public. Breaches have occurred at other infectious disease facilities. The virus itself mutates and as the multiple variants that appeared over the past five years demonstrate, shows the same pattern of modification as other SARS related viruses. The medical research consensus does not deny that there were samples of the virus at the lab, nor the regional origin of the virus. Rather, the question that has never been resolved was whether the viruses at the lab were derived from infected patients or whether they were the result of viral engineering. Past experience indicates that the viruses at the lab came from human sampling and that human error or maybe even sabotage allowed the virus to enter the general population. Claiming that the virus was human created, allows a distraction from the underlying ongoing problem of the wet markets, the oversight of the Chinese microbiology facilities and safety at those facilities. The Chinese research facilities do not have the same moral or ethical constraints that western facilities have. Unethical or sloppy research practice can result in catastrophic damage, but does not necessarily indicate or prove that a virus was engineered and then released.

The article doesn't claim Musk will abolish social security. Rather it quotes Republican President Eisenhower. You know, the military military veteran who was an integral part of the defeat of right wing extremism. President Dwight Eisenhower, Republican and war hero, could have been talking about Musk when he warned in 1954 of a handful of “Texas oil millionaires” attempting to abolish Social Security. “Their number is negligible and they are stupid,” he wrote. It is no secret that there is waste at the Social Security administration. The pressure to get money into the pockets of beneficiaries coupled with personnel shortages and an obsolete data management system facilitates mispayments and fraud. It is also no secret that the funding for social security is inadequate. The qualifying age to collect retiree / old age benefits does not reflect the longevity of the beneficiaries today. Medicare and Medicaid benefits are relatively generous for those who qualify, and are structured such that fraud in inevitable. This is what Musk is tasked with investigating and fixing. I am one of those people who believes that the qualifying age for SS benefits should be raised and that the parameters to qualify for medicare and medicaid benefits should be tightened. As such, I support the DOGE initiative. What I do not support is the methodology and the wholesale disrespect of good management practice for the sake of expediency and publicity. On the other hand, if the Republicans were to come right out and say that SS benefits were to be reduced and to be changed, particularly in respect to increasing contributions and/or raising the qualifying age, much of its support in the trailer park and age 50-60 group would disappear. The easiest thing to do is to restrict or reduce social security benefits for non residents. Non residents are not spending their money in the USA and should not benefit from its generosity. Let the beneficiaries collect only what they paid in and nothing more than that.

go to the online publication called the hill and it is opinion/5148448-elon-musk-targeting-social-security/ Or go to your online browser and search for thehill elon musk targeting social security

One of the saddest myths in the USA is that Republicans was the party that single handedly freed the slaves. The promotion of that exaggeration betrays an ignorance of US history, an ignorance so profound, that many US citizens repeat the revisionist history as if it was the truth, when it is a political myth and just not true. The US civil war started on April 12, 1861. Two years later, in January 1, 1863 the Emancipation Proclamation was issued. It was a limited in scope and was intended to harm the economy of the Confederacy. It was a military measure and not an attempt to correct a civil issue. It ONLY applied to the Confederate states that had seceded from the Union. Slavery was still allowed in the states that were still in the Union. Confederate states that were occupied by the Union were allowed to continue slavery. The proclamation permanency was conditional upon there being an absolute Union victory. Yes, eventually the slaves were supposedly freed. However, the Union allowed the south to create a system of laws and regulations that in effect enslaved the negroes again by means of an enforced penury and a denial of civil rights. The oppression of the Afro American was not exclusive to the south and was just as prevalent in the north. The Republican party of the North was a mixing pot of of different political parties and views; the Whigs, disgruntled Democrats, and the Liberty Party. It was the Liberty Party which was abolitionist. The Republican party had the stated position that while itwas opposed to slavery it accepted slavery within the states that allowed it. The party did not have an abolitionist position that would have freed the slaves and protected them from abuse. The Republicans, including Lincoln even offered the South a constitutional amendment that would have continued to allow slavery in the southern slave states. It was the Republican party and Lincoln that embraced the proposal of settling the "negroes" outside of the USA and of specifically excluding their presence in the regions to be settled. The new territories were to be exclusive for whites only.

Hegseth has a history of infidelity and of embracing white supremacist positions. One does not tattoo white supremacists symbols and catchphrases on oneself if one is not a sympathizer or holder of such views. The US military is approx. 46% non white and has approx. 18% women in its personnel. If he pushes his misogynistic and race views he may alienate some of these people, many of whom perform critical tasks. The US military has a labour shortage, particularly in the skilled trades and technical support. Women form a key component of those two activities. Visible minorities are a critical component of frontline combat personnel. Hegseth has many character faults and weaknesses. He is not the most appropriate person for Secretary of Defense and certainly not up to the level as William Perry, Robert Gates and Richard Cheney were.

My concerns a certainly far more credible than the MAGA enthusiasts claims of "pizzagate" or of the false claims promoted by Kush Patel. The USA now has multiple dangerous incompetents leading critical departments. The Russians have easy access to the nation's defence. The last line of defence against the fifth columnists will be the US military command.

It is his fault and his responsibility. He knows what he is doing and it is intentional. Yes, he is most likely mentally ill, but he has retained the ability to understand the difference between right and wrong.

Your hyperbole does not address the current risk crisis. Trump has quite literally allowed unvetted people, some with a past history of impropriety gain access to critical security infrastructure. You don't think it will make it worse, but really have you thought it through? Trump has in effect created a massive security breach by allowing third party access to critical confidential information. Russia and China have been given an easy access to the US defense and security infrastructure. IT workers are some of the most mentally unstable and immature workers around. Humiliating and insulting them will only encourage some of them to retaliate in the only way they know how: Sabotage and/or selling secrets to foreign agents. I stand by my belief that the Trump - Musk activity is either a well nuanced foreign plot to gain control of the USA or it will result in the largest security breach in US history that may lead to the downfall of the USA. Nice chart, but like the $50 million condom story, it is unsubstantiated in its accuracy and is unreliable. Aside from large deployments in Germany and Japan and to a lesser extent, South Korea, the US foreign presence has been greatly reduced and is almost negligible in some regions. The foreign military presence is needed to secure US trade routes and access to critical commodities. Germany serves as a regional base and allows the USA access to critical signals intelligence The USA is not in the Mediterranean and Gulf region because it has a fondness for Arabs. Rather, it likes their oil and wants to have control over oil routes. The USA is in Japan and South Korea to hold China in check so that China does not control Asia Pacific. If Trump and Doge were really serious about cutting waste, they would start with closing the redundant military bases in the USA. Billions are spent keeping those bases open for no particular reason other than to keep some Republican power brokers happy. Stop subsidizing airports and air travel in areas where there is minimal activity and the USA can easily save a few hundred million $$. The same for agricultural subsidies that support massive corporate farms. Another big waste is on the VA. Apply the same eligibility criteria to all veterans. It is ridiculous that the veterans who enlisted prior to September 1980 have unlimited access, while the post 1980 veterans are subject to the 24 month active service criteria.

He is trying to get a rise out of people on the forum.

It is not about defunding. It is about the creation of a massive security breach in the USA. Elon Musk is creating hundreds, if not thousands of people with a grudge, who may very well become enablers of foreign sabotage, espionage and even violence. The DOGE team has removed critical personnel from the US security infrastructure. This is following the plotline of a James Bond movie, with Spectre gaining control of the US government.

Correct. Unless you are trained to deal with the mentally ill, you are wasting your time. They can genuinely be organically impaired such that they believe their delusions and cannot be reasoned with. The only way to manage them is through medication, or incarceration if they are violent. And then there are the those who are so emotionally immature and dysfunctional that they think they are being funny when they promote obvious lies and fabrications. They thrive on the annoyance and disruption that they cause. It should be obvious that when someone is denying the existence of the Corona virus, the person is not normal and should therefore be treated in the same manner as one would treat the more obviously mentally ill.

I am not disagreeing with your opinion that Thailand has high tariffs, but you picked some products where the higher costs are attributable to market characteristics and not tariffs. We all struggle with the issue of undergarments (and shoes too). I have just returned from the USA ,(Florida) and was flabbergasted by the cost of everything. Doritos used to be $2.99 for a big bag and now they are $5.29 (on sale). The cost is similar at Villa. I walked into a Target and was in shock at the prices on clothing. I needed a basic pair of sandals -flip flops, that I used to be able to by for under $7. at Walgreens or at Old Navy. I had to pay $18.99. I am sort of surprised to see that US food conglomerates, like Tyson and Orida are stocked at my local Lotus and they are priced competitively with the local Thai monopolies. However, the US government has this to say about Thai tariffs; High tariffs in many sectors continue to hinder access to the Thai market for many U.S. products. The highest ad valorem tariff rates apply to imports competing with locally produced goods, including automobiles and automotive parts, motorcycles, beef, pork, poultry, tea, tobacco, flowers, beer and spirits, and textiles and apparel. Wine imports are subject to a 54 percent tariff and six different taxes; taken together, the effective duty and tax burden is nearly 400 percent. Industry has raised concerns about the import tariffs on wine and disparate ad valorem taxes that appear to favor domestic white liquor. Despite Thailand’s 20-year Alternative Energy Development Plan (2018-2037), which aims to increase biofuels consumption, Thailand restricts the import of biofuels intended for fuel use. Fuel ethanol imports require approval and issuance of permits by Thailand’s Ministry of Energy, but to date the ministry has not issued any approvals or permits. Thailand originally aimed to phase out premium gasoline containing 10 percent ethanol blends (Octane 91 E10) by 2018 and octane 95 E10 E85 between 2023 and 2027, with the intention of making 20 percent ethanol blends (E20) the primary gasohol. However, concerns over sufficient feedstock availability in Thailand have repeatedly delayed the full transition from E10 to E20.

The Hashemites are a minority in a nation where a majority of the population identify as Palestinian. The King knows from experience the violence they are capable of. At some point, the Hashemites will be pushed aside and the Palestinian nation will take its rightful place in Jordan, uniting with parts of the West Bank of Israel.

The go to excuse is always " mental health issues". Yes, it is reasonable to say that one has to be seriously screwed up to drive a vehicle through a crowd, targeting children. However, that does not mean the responsible party is mentally ill. Mental health issues are often intentionally confused with intentional actions and is a means to ignore a culture that teaches such actions are acceptable. Use mental health as an excuse to avoid dealing with an inconvenient truth that some cultures are inherently barbaric and cruel. It is a "normal" event for shiites and sunnis to bomb each other's mosques. It is part of some of their cultures to use the organically impaired ( aka the mentally retarded) and the vulnerable (e.g. depressed) as suicide bombers. It is acceptable in their community to lie, to rape infidels, to locate munitions depots below schools and hospitals and to hide missile firing positions in residential areas. The sad reality, is that we are faced with members of a community resistant to respecting the morals, laws and culture to the places they have immigrated to. They view the generosity of the host nation as weakness and their religion teaches them, compels them to exploit the host compassion and welcome to further their own culture and religion.