ChiGoose

Let me know when you find a story on Wednesday about a Democrat jumping out of a building due to the election results. Or should I just file this under the "rainbow fentanyl in your kids' candy" fake crap that people make up to make themselves feel superior?

If your argument is that the media sucks at its job, you'll find no argument from me.

So this is all nonsense. COVID is real, it killed over a million Americans. It wasn't made up. People didn't WANT COVID to be a thing. That's so unbelievably stupid. Why would anyone want a pandemic? Different people had different ideas on how to handle the pandemic. But COVID is real. If you think that the coding of COVID deaths was done poorly, then look at excess deaths. That is, the number of people who died over what would be expected during that time period, from any and all causes. The numbers are pretty staggering: https://ourworldindata.org/excess-mortality-covid Also, here's your flu tracker: https://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/usmap.htm

Having someone sign a sworn document they know is false actually is a crime.

That's pretty gross.

You're telling on yourself.

Oh no! I'm so owned! You have completely owned me with this devastating comeback! I haven't heard an attack this devastating since the third grade! Honestly, the idea that everybody who votes for the party I disagree with is both dumb and dangerous. In your case though, it's clearly more about being dumb.

You should lay off the crack buddy, it's addling your brains. Two things can be true: Trump committed crimes The GOP is probably going to take Congress next week They are not mutually exclusive. That people are still parroting this idiotic talking point makes me concerned about the quality of education in this country. Lots of people seem to lack critical thinking skills.

Politico has obtained John Eastman's Crime-Fraud Emails Oh look, a crime: Eastman is stating that Trump knows that the information on documents for an election lawsuit in Georgia is false but he ends up signing them anyway. He's also dropping random letters, presumably to prevent the email from being found through searching by word. These emails were deemed by a judge to more likely than not be part of a crime and therefore exempt from attorney-client privilege.

This is a fair question, and with other programs, I'd probably more readily agree to cuts. But I think that, after a life of hard work, Americans should be able to retire comfortably. Many will be able to do so because of the wealth they've accumulated (which is where means-testing could scale their SS benefits) but there are plenty of people who never really "made it" and don't have that cushion. I don't think they should still have to work until the day they die just because they weren't successful when they were younger. I'm not sure if scaling the benefits through means-testing counts as "cuts" but either way, I think that's a good discussion point around reducing the costs of the program.

Partially, yes. I think it's a valuable program and something that people have earned. If a payroll tax is not sufficient then I think we should look at additional revenue streams as opposed to reducing eligibility or benefits.

As far as Medicare is concerned, I would roll Medicare and Medicaid into one program to reduce administrative costs (which is something like 25% of healthcare costs). You can keep or modify the eligibility and specifics of the programs, but having multiple healthcare administrations seems like a waste. For social security, I'd raise or eliminate the payroll tax cap. I think today it only taxes the first $150k of salaries. So if you make more than that, you have a lower effective SS payroll tax than someone making less. Makes very little sense to me. Raising or eliminating the cap would increase the money going into the program. You could also look at other revenue streams such as a wealth tax, but honestly we should scale income tax brackets similarly to how we had them in the post-war boom. Also we should look at how the super wealthy avoid taxes by taking out loans against their assets for cash instead of having a W-2 wage that would be taxed. I would like to avoid things like reducing benefits or raising the eligibility age. These are programs that people paid into their whole lives and they should be able to rely on them. As far as means testing, it depends on how it's done, but if we can do it easily and accurately (which is not always a guarantee), then I'm good with it.

...what are you talking about? Are you high?

I think that the focus should be on fixing and expanding them. The GOP approach is to cut funding for programs that help Americans. Whatever the problem we are facing, the solution is always: cut programs for working and average Americans and reduce taxes on corporations and the rich. Economy is bad? Cut programs for Americans, reduce taxes for the rich and corporations. Economy is good? Cut programs for Americans, reduce taxes for the rich and corporations. Inflation? Cut programs for Americans, reduce taxes for the rich and corporations. War? Cut programs for Americans, reduce taxes for the rich and corporations. Stubbed my toe? Cut programs for Americans, reduce taxes for the rich and corporations. The approach to everything is to ensure that the rich and powerful have a larger share of the pie at the expense of the working schlubs.

https://about.bgov.com/news/entitlement-spending-cap-plans-linked-by-gop-to-debt-limit-deal/ "The Republican Study Committee, the largest group of House Republicans, released a budget plan in June that called on lawmakers to gradually raise the Medicare age of eligibility to 67 and the Social Security eligibility to 70 before indexing both to life expectancy. It backed withholding payments to those who retired early and had earnings over a certain limit. And it endorsed the consideration of options to reduce payroll taxes that fund Social Security and redirect them to private alternatives. It also urged lawmakers to “phase-in an increase in means testing” for Medicare." Raise the eligibility age and cut the funding. But don't you worry! They will make sure to keep those taxes low for their rich donors and corporations. The best part is that, in order to force these changes, they will threaten to tank the economy: "The four Republicans interested in serving as House Budget Committee chairman in the next Congress said in interviews that next year’s deadline to raise or suspend the debt ceiling is a point of leverage if their party can win control of the House in the November midterm elections."

You act like I owe you my time and attention. I don't owe you *****. If I tried to respond to every dumb, ignorant, and blatantly false thing being said on this site, I'd have no time for anything else. You play this game where you post a ton of absolute BS and if people respond, you ignore the reality staring you in the face. If they don't, you claim victory. You must lead a very sad and pathetic life in the real world. I feel bad for you. I've already responded to this topic, but you keep tagging me because you have a crush on me. I get it, I'm pretty fantastic, but you're several years too late.

Don’t forget to cut Social Security and Medicare!

While I am flattered that I seem to always be on your mind, I have already told you that I am happily married. Hopefully you find that special someone someday!

I’m doing great! Thanks for asking

Yep. She was a terrible candidate. So terrible she lost to a guy who had no idea what he was doing and actually was probably mad that he won.

Cool story, bro. The idea that anyone can read the moronic screeds you post here and agree with them explains why this country is so screwed.

You’re DRsGhost? That explains a lot. And here I thought there was a new poster who grew up eating lead paint chips under high tension power lines.

Do you have any evidence for this? Or just the solitary anecdote of "Doc, some random person on a Buffalo Bills message board, says its true, so we can throw out anything that says otherwise"?

Because there is no evidence of it. According to the affidavit, Pelosi denied knowing DePape "13. Pelosi was interviewed by SFPD Officer Ariane Starks in the ambulance during transport to San Francisco General Hospital. Pelosi stated he had never seen DEPAPE before." (page 4) Also, DePape stated that he broke into the house with the intent to harm Nancy Pelosi: 15,a "DEPAPE stated that he was going to hold Nancy hostage and talk to her. If Nancy were to tell DEPAPE the “truth,” he would let her go, and if she “lied,” he was going to break “her kneecaps.” DEPAPE was certain that Nancy would not have told the “truth.” In the course of the interview, DEPAPE articulated he viewed Nancy as the “leader of the pack” of lies told by the Democratic Party. DEPAPE also later explained that by breaking Nancy’s kneecaps, she would then have to be wheeled into Congress, which would show other Members of Congress there were consequences to actions." (page 5) I think it's good practice to reserve judgment on breaking news stories until we have some good facts. And then as the facts come out, we should always re-examine our priors. In this instance, we have a sworn statement from an FBI agent disclosing information from the investigation that includes: Pelosi stating he did not know DePape DePape saying he broke into the house that night to harm Nancy Pelosi At this point, that should be enough to discredit any claims that it was actually a gay lovers' quarrel. If facts change, we can always re-examine this, but of the two options: DePape is a stranger to the Pelosi's broke into the house to harm the Speaker DePape was actually a secret lover of Paul Pelosi's and they got into a fight anyone still promoting 2 as a likely option is just disclosing that they will reject reality if it is inconvenient to them. Also, I want to be clear that I am not accusing you of this. Just trying to explain why I believe the gay lover claim is a conspiracy theory.

So you're saying that actually the more educated people are the more they support the GOP? If so, can you provide support for this claim? Or you just being a troll who adds no value to anything?