It's incredible how recent these dates are. I was a teenager in 1974. I suspect a lot of younger people today don't realize how recent, and thus how potentially fragile, equality is -- or that a lot of the members of Congress are old enough that their attitudes and values were formed back in the bad old days. No wonder they couldn't really believe Roe would go down, until it did.
Equality has always been fragile. Our system of government has never been about true equality for all. Since its founding as a nation inequality has been present in our system.
It took the power of the old liberal democratic party to effect the changes that are now at risk. Today the democratic party lacks the strength to insure that the archaic agenda of the tRumpublican party (to restrict the rights of minorities and women) won't again become the law of the land.
VOTE DEMOCRAT to protect the hard fought for rights and equality of prior era's.
The radical Right’s war on women is in tandem with their war on most Americans.
The elderly are threatened by their desire to eliminate Social Security and Medicare.
Their war on children is reaping an intolerable body count.
April 22, 2022, at 7:38 a.m. FRIDAY, April 22, 2022 (HealthDay News) –
Guns have surpassed road crashes as the leading cause of death among U.S. children and teens. Gun-related deaths rose 29% among 1- to 19-year-olds from 2019 to 2020, according to a new University of Michigan study.
Republicans are running on “crime” and "but the children!" while flooding the streets with guns.
They are arsonists blaming the fire department.
A little-noticed budget document, the Blueprint to Save America, released in June by the Republican Study Committee, details the group’s priorities.
Raising the Social Security eligibility age
Blocking prescription drug pricing reform
Ending birthright citizenship
Eliminating government agencies:
The National Labor Relations Board the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Kneecapping the EPA and rolling back climate change initiatives
The RSC opposes Biden’s decision to reenter the Paris Climate agreement, an international treaty to rein in global warming. And it supports a bill that would prohibit federal dollars from supporting the treaty’s goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The RSC also backs reducing the Environmental Protection Agency’s budget, including by ending all EPA grant programs and shuttering the agency’s regional offices.
Restricting abortion nationwide
Reversing federal recognition of transgender Americans
Expanding gun rights The group would also effectively remove silencers from regulation under the National Firearms Act, and block state laws that “regulate, tax, or prohibit the possession” of silencers.
Slashing programs that help low-income families The RSC endorses a slate of actions that would gut social welfare programs supporting low-income families. It would eliminate the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance program, which helps poor families heat and cool their homes. And the group proposes converting the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (formerly known as food stamps) and school meal programs into discretionary block grants, where states would administer their own food assistance programs with fewer federal funds. The RSC would ax an initiative that allowed schools in very low-income areas to provide free meals to all students.
RSC members also favor converting the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) into a block grant supported by less federal investment. They recommend “rebalancing the federal burden of these support programs down from the average 62 percent to a 50/50 split with the states.”
House Budget Committee Chairman John Yarmuth argues the RSC’s push to reduce federal funding assisting low-income families with children is hypocritical, given the group’s efforts to restrict abortions. “The same people who want to prevent abortion,” he says, “have repeatedly and consistently reduced care for the people who would potentially result from those unwanted pregnancies.”
Dube, Your comments on SS are strange. Who was it that put the SS funds into the general funds thereby making SS vulnerable to political miss appropriations. All the rest of your fear mongering is just that, political fear mongering.
Skud- it’s not fear mongering if what is stated is true.
The GQP has told all Americans who they are. It’s up to us to believe them. As for whose fault all this is - seriously!!!!
You are totally “that” kid. The one more interested in finding blame than fixing the issue in front of us. Will finding that one act which ‘broke it all’ fix anything in the here/now? No? Then move on and vow to never let such people close to the levers of power again. We can hash it out later with well planned investigations.
There is a five alarm fire in this country and skud here wants to stop and debate who set the blaze. My existence is being called into question and skud wants to debate parliamentary points of view.
Vote blue no matter who. We can argue about purity tests later but now???! Yeah. Blue is democracy. Red is authoritarianism with forced belief in religion and rules against everyone deemed other.
The Republicans have not been shy. I for one believe them.
I'm reporting facts and their stated intentions. Fear mongering is the specialty of the radical Right.
"Crime! Cities are burning!! Open borders!!! BLM!!! Antifa!!! LGBTQ!!! Socialism!!! Save the children from Marxist CRT!!! (Just stop giving them school lunches!
Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) has suggested that Social Security and Medicare be eliminated as federal entitlement programs, and that they should instead become programs approved by Congress on an annual basis as discretionary spending.
Rick Scott proposed: “All federal legislation sunsets in 5 years. If a law is worth keeping, Congress can pass it again.”
Lindsey Graham to Bernie: "To get out of this mess, people like me are going to have to take a little less and pay a little more in...You describe problems, but your answer is always the government — it’s always socialism.”
Graham also said that Sanders’ Medicare for All program would eliminate private-sector health care, which would be extremely costly.
If it's up for a periodic mandated vote, it can be eliminated. If it's not the government, then it is privatized.
These ideas are all intended to cut benefits and to shift SS money to private interests.
And you are spreading a myth.
https://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths2.html
When did Social Security go to general fund?
The Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government." Most likely this myth comes from a confusion between the financing of the Social Security program and the way the Social Security Trust Fund is treated in federal budget accounting.
From Politifact: A lengthy meme that regularly makes the rounds on Facebook attacks Democrats on Social Security.
We’re focusing here on two of the claims in the question-and-answer formatted post, which has been shared more than 450,000 times.
The Democratic Party "took Social Security from the independent ‘Trust Fund’ and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it," the post claims, and "eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding."
The post was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.)
It’s wrong on both counts.
The Social Security Administration says:
"There has never been any change in the way the Social Security program is financed or the way that Social Security payroll taxes are used by the federal government. … From its inception, the Trust Fund has always worked the same way. The Social Security Trust Fund has never been ‘put into the general fund of the government.’
"Most likely this question comes from a confusion between the financing of the Social Security program and the way the Social Security Trust Fund is treated in federal budget accounting. Starting in 1969, the transactions to the Trust Fund were included in what is known as the ‘unified budget.’ This means that every function of the federal government is included in a single budget. ...This budget treatment of the Social Security Trust Fund continued until 1990 when the Trust Funds were again taken ‘off-budget.’ This means only that they are shown as a separate account in the federal budget. But whether the Trust Funds are ‘on-budget’ or ‘off-budget’ is primarily a question of accounting practices — it has no effect on the actual operations of the Trust Fund itself."
While the Social Security trust fund balances weren't affected by the accounting change, "what economists and other policy analysts were concerned with is whether combining Social Security's surpluses with the on-budget's deficits encouraged policymakers to run larger deficits in the non-Social Security part of the budget," said American Enterprise Institute scholar Andrew Biggs, a former deputy commissioner with the Social Security Administration.
"For example, let's imagine that the public demanded that budget deficits be no more than, say, $100 billion per year. If they exceeded that amount, voters would consider Congress to be fiscally irresponsible and punish them at the next election. But if Social Security were running a $100 billion surplus, then Congress could run a $200 billion deficit in the rest of the budget while still reporting only a $100 billion unified budget deficit," Biggs told us.
"Most research has concluded that this is pretty much what happened: surpluses in Social Security encouraged Congress to run larger deficits in the rest of the budget, either by taxing less or spending more."
And just in case someone might bring up this old canard:
No tax deduction The second part of the claim is that the Democratic Party "eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding." This too is inaccurate.
"There was never any provision of law making the Social Security taxes paid by employees deductible for income tax purposes. In fact, the 1935 law expressly forbid this idea," the Social Security administration says.
10 comments:
It's incredible how recent these dates are. I was a teenager in 1974. I suspect a lot of younger people today don't realize how recent, and thus how potentially fragile, equality is -- or that a lot of the members of Congress are old enough that their attitudes and values were formed back in the bad old days. No wonder they couldn't really believe Roe would go down, until it did.
Equality has always been fragile. Our system of government has never been about true equality for all. Since its founding as a nation inequality has been present in our system.
It took the power of the old liberal democratic party to effect the changes that are now at risk. Today the democratic party lacks the strength to insure that the archaic agenda of the tRumpublican party (to restrict the rights of minorities and women) won't again become the law of the land.
VOTE DEMOCRAT to protect the hard fought for rights and equality of prior era's.
Two great memes. Stealing the first one.
The radical Right’s war on women is in tandem with their war on most Americans.
The elderly are threatened by their desire to eliminate Social Security and Medicare.
Their war on children is reaping an intolerable body count.
April 22, 2022, at 7:38 a.m. FRIDAY, April 22, 2022 (HealthDay News) –
Guns have surpassed road crashes as the leading cause of death among U.S. children and teens. Gun-related deaths rose 29% among 1- to 19-year-olds from 2019 to 2020, according to a new University of Michigan study.
Republicans are running on “crime” and "but the children!" while flooding the streets with guns.
They are arsonists blaming the fire department.
A little-noticed budget document, the Blueprint to Save America, released in June by the Republican Study Committee, details the group’s priorities.
Raising the Social Security eligibility age
Blocking prescription drug pricing reform
Ending birthright citizenship
Eliminating government agencies:
The National Labor Relations Board
the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Kneecapping the EPA and rolling back climate change initiatives
The RSC opposes Biden’s decision to reenter the Paris Climate agreement, an international treaty to rein in global warming. And it supports a bill that would prohibit federal dollars from supporting the treaty’s goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The RSC also backs reducing the Environmental Protection Agency’s budget, including by ending all EPA grant programs and shuttering the agency’s regional offices.
Restricting abortion nationwide
Reversing federal recognition of transgender Americans
Expanding gun rights
The group would also effectively remove silencers from regulation under the National Firearms Act, and block state laws that “regulate, tax, or prohibit the possession” of silencers.
Slashing programs that help low-income families
The RSC endorses a slate of actions that would gut social welfare programs supporting low-income families. It would eliminate the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance program, which helps poor families heat and cool their homes. And the group proposes converting the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (formerly known as food stamps) and school meal programs into discretionary block grants, where states would administer their own food assistance programs with fewer federal funds. The RSC would ax an initiative that allowed schools in very low-income areas to provide free meals to all students.
RSC members also favor converting the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) into a block grant supported by less federal investment. They recommend “rebalancing the federal burden of these support programs down from the average 62 percent to a 50/50 split with the states.”
House Budget Committee Chairman John Yarmuth argues the RSC’s push to reduce federal funding assisting low-income families with children is hypocritical, given the group’s efforts to restrict abortions. “The same people who want to prevent abortion,” he says, “have repeatedly and consistently reduced care for the people who would potentially result from those unwanted pregnancies.”
THEY DON"T GIVE A DAMN WHO THEY HURT!
Too bad we have to refight for abortion rights. Just shows how important Supreme Court nominees are.
tRumpublicans - Attempting to bring back past inequities we all thought were safely locked away in the trash bin of history.
Obviously we were badly mistaken.
Ignorance is raising its ugly head. AGAIN.
Dube, Your comments on SS are strange. Who was it that put the SS funds into the general funds thereby making SS vulnerable to political miss appropriations. All the rest of your fear mongering is just that, political fear mongering.
On my phone so typos will happen.
Skud- it’s not fear mongering if what is stated is true.
The GQP has told all Americans who they are. It’s up to us to believe them. As for whose fault all this is - seriously!!!!
You are totally “that” kid. The one more interested in finding blame than fixing the issue in front of us. Will finding that one act which ‘broke it all’ fix anything in the here/now? No? Then move on and vow to never let such people close to the levers of power again. We can hash it out later with well planned investigations.
There is a five alarm fire in this country and skud here wants to stop and debate who set the blaze. My existence is being called into question and skud wants to debate parliamentary points of view.
Vote blue no matter who. We can argue about purity tests later but now???! Yeah. Blue is democracy. Red is authoritarianism with forced belief in religion and rules against everyone deemed other.
The Republicans have not been shy. I for one believe them.
Oh, Skuddy.
I'm reporting facts and their stated intentions. Fear mongering is the specialty of the radical Right.
"Crime! Cities are burning!! Open borders!!! BLM!!! Antifa!!! LGBTQ!!! Socialism!!! Save the children from Marxist CRT!!! (Just stop giving them school lunches!
Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) has suggested that Social Security and Medicare be eliminated as federal entitlement programs, and that they should instead become programs approved by Congress on an annual basis as discretionary spending.
Rick Scott proposed: “All federal legislation sunsets in 5 years. If a law is worth keeping, Congress can pass it again.”
Lindsey Graham to Bernie: "To get out of this mess, people like me are going to have to take a little less and pay a little more in...You describe problems, but your answer is always the government — it’s always socialism.”
Graham also said that Sanders’ Medicare for All program would eliminate private-sector health care, which would be extremely costly.
If it's up for a periodic mandated vote, it can be eliminated. If it's not the government, then it is privatized.
These ideas are all intended to cut benefits and to shift SS money to private interests.
And you are spreading a myth.
https://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths2.html
When did Social Security go to general fund?
The Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government." Most likely this myth comes from a confusion between the financing of the Social Security program and the way the Social Security Trust Fund is treated in federal budget accounting.
From Politifact:
A lengthy meme that regularly makes the rounds on Facebook attacks Democrats on Social Security.
We’re focusing here on two of the claims in the question-and-answer formatted post, which has been shared more than 450,000 times.
The Democratic Party "took Social Security from the independent ‘Trust Fund’ and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it," the post claims, and "eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding."
The post was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.)
It’s wrong on both counts.
The Social Security Administration says:
"There has never been any change in the way the Social Security program is financed or the way that Social Security payroll taxes are used by the federal government. … From its inception, the Trust Fund has always worked the same way. The Social Security Trust Fund has never been ‘put into the general fund of the government.’
"Most likely this question comes from a confusion between the financing of the Social Security program and the way the Social Security Trust Fund is treated in federal budget accounting. Starting in 1969, the transactions to the Trust Fund were included in what is known as the ‘unified budget.’ This means that every function of the federal government is included in a single budget. ...This budget treatment of the Social Security Trust Fund continued until 1990 when the Trust Funds were again taken ‘off-budget.’ This means only that they are shown as a separate account in the federal budget. But whether the Trust Funds are ‘on-budget’ or ‘off-budget’ is primarily a question of accounting practices — it has no effect on the actual operations of the Trust Fund itself."
While the Social Security trust fund balances weren't affected by the accounting change, "what economists and other policy analysts were concerned with is whether combining Social Security's surpluses with the on-budget's deficits encouraged policymakers to run larger deficits in the non-Social Security part of the budget," said American Enterprise Institute scholar Andrew Biggs, a former deputy commissioner with the Social Security Administration.
"For example, let's imagine that the public demanded that budget deficits be no more than, say, $100 billion per year. If they exceeded that amount, voters would consider Congress to be fiscally irresponsible and punish them at the next election. But if Social Security were running a $100 billion surplus, then Congress could run a $200 billion deficit in the rest of the budget while still reporting only a $100 billion unified budget deficit," Biggs told us.
"Most research has concluded that this is pretty much what happened: surpluses in Social Security encouraged Congress to run larger deficits in the rest of the budget, either by taxing less or spending more."
And just in case someone might bring up this old canard:
No tax deduction
The second part of the claim is that the Democratic Party "eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding." This too is inaccurate.
"There was never any provision of law making the Social Security taxes paid by employees deductible for income tax purposes. In fact, the 1935 law expressly forbid this idea," the Social Security administration says.
Post a Comment