2 hours ago, radiogeneris said:

🚨 #BREAKING: Elon Musk says he and the President will be discussing a “DOGE dividend,” which will be a tax refund sent to EVERY taxpayer

 

This would be funded exclusively with a portion of total savings delivered by DOGE.

 

Looks like hard working taxpayers will receive a refund for much of the money stolen from us by corrupt organizations like USAID! 🔥

 

Source: https://x.com/nicksortor/status/1891984138615521710?t=2IZiepDwKPzfMfjExpIV3Q&s=19

 

So Elon and the billionaires are going to get a "refund" to go along with their tax cut. Sounds fair.

7 minutes ago, cdemundo said:

Income tax (FIT) and Social Security deductions (FICA) are distinct.

The expenses of the discretionary budget are distinct from the the Social Security Trust fund,

 

If you invested in an IRA would you be happy to withdraw only the amount you deposited?

 

Again I am reminded that there is no qualification of any kind required before a person can hold forth on AN.

 

 

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.

On 2/18/2025 at 8:25 AM, BKKKevin said:

If you read the entire linked article you will find the examples of misinformation…

One being that Musk said that he has found 150 year olds collecting Social Security…

Red meat for his easily fooled ilk… 

 

I'm not seeing where he's claiming that...  Or any numbers, before they dive deeper. 

 

But can you see a problem with budgeting, forecasting and managing Social Security if they have millions of people over 120 years old in the database?  How do they figure out what the needs will be in 10 years if they don't clean that up? 

 

In the past, they always used the anal extraction method.  They pulled numbers out of their butts to push whatever the narrative needed to be for the next election.  Maybe now we'll have real numbers.

1 hour ago, Yagoda said:

Id rather be a goober

Just to be clear, "goobers" implies that Trump voters are drooling stupid rednecks.

 

So I had you figured right then!!!!

10 minutes ago, xylophone said:

Just to be clear, "goobers" implies that Trump voters are drooling stupid rednecks.

 

So I had you figured right then!!!!

As I did you.

59 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

 

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.

It's pretty obvious what the real problem is - wealth inequity, and a cockeyed tax system.

 

In 2016 and 2017, Trump paid $750 in taxes.

 

Someone earning $50,000 pa paid tax of $5914.

 

The people getting the really big bucks obviously have too many loopholes.

 

When you have 3 multi-billionaires sitting on more money than the bottom 150 million Americans, IMO the tax system is broken.

37 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

 

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. 

 

Crackpot argument, especially this: "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."

 

Your formula would mean that anyone on social security can never leave the United States, not even for a day trip. Because that would mean their benefits would be spent outside the US. Take a trip to Cancun? Sorry, no more Social Security of Cola for you. This would mean locking up older Americans behind their border. Crackpot belief.

17 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

As I did you.

But, but, but....I'm not a trump supporter!! So you have truly earned this description:- 

Just to be clear, "goobers" implies that Trump voters are drooling stupid rednecks.

5 minutes ago, xylophone said:

But, but, but....I'm not a trump supporter!! So you have truly earned this description:- 

Just to be clear, "goobers" implies that Trump voters are drooling stupid rednecks.

Reading comprehension is not your thing is it LOL

 

 

59 minutes ago, John Drake said:

 

So Elon and the billionaires are going to get a "refund" to go along with their tax cut. Sounds fair.

 

No, all American taxpayers! Read what they say and do not change facts to fit your narrative.

NEW: Elon Musk delivers the PERFECT comeback to people complaining, “Nobody voted for Elon.”

“Speaking of unelected, there’s a vast federal bureaucracy that is implacably opposed to the president and the cabinet.

“And you look at D.C. voting, it’s 92% Kamala. Okay, so we’re 92% Kamala. That’s a lot... That’s basically almost everyone. And so, if the will of the president is not implemented and the president is representative of the people, that means the will of the people is not being implemented. And that means we don’t live in a democracy.”

 

 

 

 

1 minute ago, radiogeneris said:

NEW: Elon Musk delivers the PERFECT comeback to people complaining, “Nobody voted for Elon.”

“Speaking of unelected, there’s a vast federal bureaucracy that is implacably opposed to the president and the cabinet.

“And you look at D.C. voting, it’s 92% Kamala. Okay, so we’re 92% Kamala. That’s a lot... That’s basically almost everyone. And so, if the will of the president is not implemented and the president is representative of the people, that means the will of the people is not being implemented. And that means we don’t live in a democracy.”

 

 

 

 

What the world saw tonight between President Trump and Elon Musk is that the world’s most powerful man and the world’s richest man are actual friends. This is what the left and the haters will never properly account for. I’ve tried to explain this to people for years. President Trump is a good man who loves America and has genuine friendships that create more power and momentum for positive change than any pundit will ever be able to commentate on or calculate. All patriotic Americans should wish them both God speed and much success.

Ha ha, Smartest man Nailed it:

 

NEW: Elon Musk says talking to liberals about Trump is like dealing with people “shot with a dart in the jugular that contained methamphetamine and rabies.”

 

This might be the best 50 seconds from the whole interview.

 

You don’t realize how real this is until you can’t reason with people. I was at a friend’s birthday party in L.A.—a nice, quiet dinner—and I happened to mention the President’s name.

 

“And it was like they got shot with a dart in the jugular that contained, like, methamphetamine and rabies. Okay. And they’re like, (raging sound) what is wrong, guys? You just can’t have a normal conversation. It’s like they become completely irrational.”

 

 

 

 

DOGE: Has @doge gone too far? Elon Musk is cutting off everyone over 150 years old from Social Security. These people survived the Civil War and Elon is just going to cut them off? 😂

 

 

18 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

Reading comprehension is not your thing is it LOL

 

 

As a proud trump supporter you will be delighted that the orange clown has stated that Uraine started the war with Russia........another doozy from the compulsive liar and convicted felon that shows he REALLY is dumb. 

 

Hopefully you are able to read and understand the above!!!

Aggghhh   musk is evil for exposing things like this and must be stopped, I want SS money wasted!!!😡😡

 

Its from MSNBC too, the holy Grail of truth, no faux news

 

2 minutes ago, xylophone said:

As a proud trump supporter you will be delighted that the orange clown has stated that Uraine started the war with Russia........another doozy from the compulsive liar and convicted felon that shows he REALLY is dumb. 

 

Hopefully you are able to read and understand the above!!!

Perhaps he's right?

MSM now:

Meet May. She just turned 329 years old. She watched her husband throw tea off ships in Boston Harbor, lost her son in the Civil War, and survived the Titanic after nearly drowning. She’s been through a lot. Elon Musk just stopped her Social Security checks.

 

How could Elon do this?!

DOGE is existential precisely because we are on an unsustainable, exponential trajectory with our national debt. This creates a self-reinforcing cycle: rising interest rates drive up borrowing costs, inflation continues to erode purchasing power, and in response, we resort to even more deficit spending just to stay afloat.

 

This positive feedback loop accelerates the problem, making it harder to escape. The only way to stop the bleeding is to balance the budget now.

I find it hilarious how Elon Musk is basically solving the US gov issues as a side quest because it interferes with his quest to go to Mars.

8 minutes ago, radiogeneris said:

I find it hilarious how Elon Musk is basically solving the US gov issues as a side quest because it interferes with his quest to go to Mars.

 

Too bad he didn't have time to apply to his car business which is going into the toilet after having transferred the core technology to Chna.

24 minutes ago, xylophone said:

As a proud trump supporter you will be delighted that the orange clown has stated that Uraine started the war with Russia........another doozy from the compulsive liar and convicted felon that shows he REALLY is dumb. 

 

Hopefully you are able to read and understand the above!!!

 

https://rumble.com/v3m8ssi--ukraine-on-fire.html

 

Oh, gives more information about source of Ukraine war ... Is Ukraine a democracy now? What are we fighting for? Dictatorship? WHERE is the money US sent? Let's start there. Or just live in fictional world created by corrupted USA ID sponsored MSM Propaganda.

With many people, once they got attached to a theory, it was hard to get them detached. They’d screen out unhelpful facts, invent favorable ones, and ignore contradictions in their own claims. Look at those Sandy Hook, multiple fraud convictions, and Jan. 6th truthers, babbling about false flags and crisis actors and all the rest. When people were motivated enough to believe something, they were going to believe it no matter what. There was no such thing as a bridge too far.

 

42 minutes ago, radiogeneris said:

Ha ha, Smartest man Nailed it:

 

NEW: Elon Musk says talking to liberals about Trump is like dealing with people “shot with a dart in the jugular that contained methamphetamine and rabies.”

 

This might be the best 50 seconds from the whole interview.

 

“They call it, like, Trump Derangement Syndrome. You don’t realize how real this is until you can’t reason with people. I was at a friend’s birthday party in L.A.—a nice, quiet dinner—and I happened to mention the President’s name.

 

“And it was like they got shot with a dart in the jugular that contained, like, methamphetamine and rabies. Okay. And they’re like, (raging sound) what is wrong, guys? You just can’t have a normal conversation. It’s like they become completely irrational.”

 

 

 

 

Haha toally true, look at all the frothy mouthed comments here, the name calling starts form the same side too, but when you give some back they cry, play the victim, repeatedly press the report bottom and run to the admis, like a kid at school telling tales to the teacher.

I too had an interaction with an old friend, normal conversation then Trumps name came into it and within minutes he got all  frothy and angry would not listen to anything and stormed off, even his friends laughed at him.

3 minutes ago, frank83628 said:

Haha toally true, look at all the frothy mouthed comments here, the name calling starts form the same side too, but when you give some back they cry, play the victim, repeatedly press the report bottom and run to the admis, like a kid at school telling tales to the teacher.

I too had an interaction with an old friend, normal conversation then Trumps name came into it and within minutes he got all  frothy and angry would not listen to anything and stormed off, even his friends laughed at him.

 

DOGE has shown us why almost every legacy media outlet had the same exact wording when putting out a story.

They were being paid with OUR tax dollars to lie and manipulate the American people.

 

Many people are sheep and can't think for themselves unfortunately.

4 minutes ago, radiogeneris said:

 

DOGE has shown us why almost every legacy media outlet had the same exact wording when putting out a story.

They were being paid with OUR tax dollars to lie and manipulate the American people.

 

Many people are sheep and can't think for themselves unfortunately.

Yes, remember the word 'weird' overnight every outlet started saying it nonstop.

34 minutes ago, John Drake said:

 

Too bad he didn't have time to apply to his car business which is going into the toilet after having transferred the core technology to Chna.

Well its electric cars, only fools who dont need to drive buy those. He has other ways to make money

1 hour ago, radiogeneris said:

DOGE: Has @doge gone too far? Elon Musk is cutting off everyone over 150 years old from Social Security. These people survived the Civil War and Elon is just going to cut them off? 😂

 

 

Did Illisdean give you his propaganda job on the forum? 🤣

2 hours ago, Lacessit said:

It's pretty obvious what the real problem is - wealth inequity, and a cockeyed tax system.

 

In 2016 and 2017, Trump paid $750 in taxes.

 

Someone earning $50,000 pa paid tax of $5914.

 

The people getting the really big bucks obviously have too many loopholes.

 

When you have 3 multi-billionaires sitting on more money than the bottom 150 million Americans, IMO the tax system is broken.

Biden should have fixed it

2 hours ago, John Drake said:

 

Crackpot argument, especially this: "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."

 

Your formula would mean that anyone on social security can never leave the United States, not even for a day trip. Because that would mean their benefits would be spent outside the US. Take a trip to Cancun? Sorry, no more Social Security of Cola for you. This would mean locking up older Americans behind their border. Crackpot belief.

 

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.