Lots of interesting news today

www.theblaze.com

Trump announces 'successful attack' by the US on three sites in Iran | Blaze Media

The announcement was made on Truth Social and shared by Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
www.theblaze.com www.theblaze.com


1750552464090.jpeg
 
RatLabGuy said:
The difference is that with my approach people still get the payout, even if it includes the pain of paying more to get less.

Dropping SS completely is such a politically unpopular idea that not enough elected politicians will ever vote for it. As mentioned above, people who've been paying in want their cut.

Since it's a pay-as-you-go system and nobody wants to just take away Grandma's food money, the only hope would have been a 20+ year gradual phase out so that current beneficiaries die off while the current younger generation pays less in. But it's too late to do that effectively now.

Good news is that even in 8 years or whatever on the current path, it isn't just stopping all together. We just don't have the funding to continue at the current benefit level. So you'll see a smaller shit.
Click to expand...

Honestly, I am not sure how it really works, as I have never planned to see a dime of it, so maybe this is another version of me talking out my ass.... At a minimum, they should only pay out as much as was paid in. When you start taking SS, you decide what that payment plan looks like.
 
SS began in the late 1930's. Back then, the average man would collect for 12 years and the average woman would collect for 14 years. Today the average man collects for 19 years and the average woman collects for 22 years. When it began, the tax was 1%. Today it is 6.2%. If they are going to run out of money, then they need to adjust the tax and the payout.
 
drkelly said:
If they are going to run out of money, then they need to adjust the tax and the payout.
Click to expand...
This is the problem.
The other part of that is that the median salary has not kept up with inflation / cost of living. Every year the amount SS pays to recipients is adjusted ("COLA, Cost of Living Adjustment") based on inflation (the definition of which keeps changing). However since what is paid in is based on a % of salary, and salaries have not got up at the same rate, then the discrepancy between pay in vs pay out has been increasing.
benXJ said:
The full retirement age/full payout age has been pushed over the years
Click to expand...
Yep - as a band-aid way to account for the insolvency created by the above factors.
paradisePWoffrd said:
At a minimum, they should only pay out as much as was paid in. When you start taking SS, you decide what that payment plan looks like.
Click to expand...
Something commonly overlooked or not well advertised is that SS is an insurance plan. It is NOT an investment, savings account, etc. It was never intended as such, and by definition, on average it is not a good "deal" for anybody. Some people - a lot of people - get lucky and what they get back out exceeds what they paid in.... just like the guy that has an auto accident that totals 3 cars and racks up a $100k bill.
But a lot of people also never get back out what they paid in.... just like a lot of us w/ auto insurance. People die before hitting SS age, or only draw a few years, or are in the higher end of the earning bracket but don't get paid back out proportionally, etc.

One can debate whether universal retirement income insurance is a good thing or not, but that is probably a discussion for the Garage.
 
Last edited:
mommucked said:
www.wral.com

Former candidate for NC auditor charged with threatening to kill state senator over shrimp ban

Anthony Street, 44, was arrested last week by the State Bureau of Investigation. He was charged with communicating threats to a legislative agent or court official.
www.wral.com www.wral.com
Click to expand...
Obviously you shouldn't say stuff like that, especially in print, and in public. But why the F are they trying to ban trawling in those locations? There's a ton of people whose livelihoods depend on it and its a big part of NC ag/industry.
 
benXJ said:
but what if shrimp trawling was negatively affecting your livelihood?

if you are working in an industry where cuts need to be made for long term health of....you name it.....its gonna sting
Click to expand...
Hence my question of why are they trying to ban it. I'm guessing an arbitrary distance of 1/2mile isn't going to make or break someone elses livelihood, but maybe it is. I gotta figure wake boats and jet skis are worse for most everyone, but they're not banning them 🤷‍♂️
 
benXJ said:
but what if shrimp trawling was negatively affecting your livelihood?

if you are working in an industry where cuts need to be made for long term health of....you name it.....its gonna sting
Click to expand...
It's the sport fishermen who are whining so much about it. There are obviously more sport fishermen spread across the state than there are commercial guys, they tend to be oddly concentrated at the coast.

www.wral.com

Amid large protests, NC House members vow to kill shrimp trawl ban

Hundreds of protesters showed up at the legislature Tuesday, demanding that lawmakers stop a proposed shrimp trawling ban in North Carolina’s inland waters.
www.wral.com www.wral.com

This quote states the real issues and it came from a Dem! :eek:. Don't get hungup on the last statement about climate crisis. Regardless of what you believe is causing it, our waters are warmer than they historically have been. Flounder don't like warm water, it's a known fact.

"Flanked by those against the ban and other lawmakers, several representatives argued against the science and the process used by those in favor of the ban. Rep. Pricey Harrison, D-Guilford, argued that the ban is not an environmental policy.

“This is an allocation issue,” said Harrison, who has extensive experience with coastal resources issues having served on various boards and commissions. “And, in fact, if we were focused on the environment and its impacts on the sustainability of fish, we’d be talking about water quality, we’d be talking about coastal development, we’d be talking about protecting our wetlands, restoring our buffers, instead of going in the opposite direction. And the big elephant in the room, the climate crisis, because it is raising the temperatures of the estuaries and the ocean, creating ocean acidification and that is actually what’s affecting the access to the fish the most.”
 
jeepinmatt said:
Hence my question of why are they trying to ban it. I'm guessing an arbitrary distance of 1/2mile isn't going to make or break someone elses livelihood, but maybe it is. I gotta figure wake boats and jet skis are worse for most everyone, but they're not banning them 🤷‍♂️
Click to expand...
By catch is a big thing. I've never been on a shrimp boat, so i can't truly speak for how many dead discards they have. They DO kill tons of young finfish in the nets before they have a chance to grow. Grey trout, spots, mullet, flounder, reds.....
 
Back
Top