Why Is the GOP Still Trying to Kill Social Security?

Friday, March 08, 2024

Republicans advanced a sweeping resolution Thursday from the U.S. House Budget Committee that would gut crucial programs such as Social Security and Medicare.

Posted by earthmuse at 08:30 PM | 145 COMMENTS | permalink | Comment on This Entry |

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Why is the GOP still trying to kill Social Security?

Because it will cement their narrative that we can't rely upon the government to help (see also, GOP attacks on NATO) while making stock brokers rich.

#1 | Posted by censored at 2024-03-08 11:16 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

They hate people. Period.

#2 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2024-03-08 12:33 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

They gave Deficit Funded tax cuts to their Big Money donors, and now they want to pay for it by charging their grandparents.

Because that's just the kind of people they are.

#3 | Posted by Corky at 2024-03-08 12:37 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

They hate people. Period.

#2 | POSTED BY LEGALLYYOURDEAD

I think that this is the simple truth. All the evidence points to it.

Last night Biden put Trump and the GOP on permanent defensive about Social Security and healthcare.

They will deny they want to kill either and they will be lying.

#4 | Posted by Zed at 2024-03-08 12:59 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

What exactly are the changes to social security being attempted?

I know.....merely asking to know what the changes are is really a subversive attempt to defend them..........LOL

#5 | Posted by eberly at 2024-03-08 01:08 PM | Reply

Actually, it's evidence of being woefully uninformed.

Intentionally, perhaps.

#6 | Posted by Corky at 2024-03-08 01:40 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"What exactly are the changes to social security being attempted?"

No one trumpets their ignorance about what their own party is doing, as proudly as Eberly.

#7 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-03-08 02:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

Eb so thick with the smarm he comes here to proudly tell the class he has no idea what the issue is, or whether he is supporting or attacking Republicans war on Social Security, and then imagines himself some sort of misunderstood victim of the Retort, not of his own making.

He put himself in the roll of Schrodingers Doofas.

Refusing to read up on it and make an informed valuation statement, is Eberle's way of beating readers with a limp wail of... 'Oh poor me, I'm here merely asking, and they all will attack me'.

Narcissists have a strange way of discussing public policy..

#8 | Posted by Wardog at 2024-03-08 06:44 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

They are --------.

#9 | Posted by a_monson at 2024-03-08 08:59 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Why?

They're going to sell the idea by claiming that you'll have more money in your paycheck every week. (It's your fault if you don't have enough sense to save)

But the real reason is because in the end it will create a weak society and a weak society is much easier for a Dictator to control. And it will also get rid of that pesky middle class who get all uppity.

It's the same reason they want to get rid of health insurance.

Dictators want a two class system. The very rich and the very poor.

Guess who the rich ones are going to be.

Oh, and BTW, they're going to make it illegal to own a gun, too. Dictators can't afford to have an armed society either.

#10 | Posted by Twinpac at 2024-03-08 10:18 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Oh, and BTW, they're going to make it illegal to own a gun, too.

It's interesting that Lewzer has such a stranglehold on the party that he doesn't have to have a bunch of publicity photos/Christmas cards of him waving guns around like the rest of them do.

#11 | Posted by REDIAL at 2024-03-08 10:23 PM | Reply

And keep in mind, if there was no Social Security, corporations would no longer have to match their employee's payroll taxes which goes to Social Security. Many people are not aware that the payroll taxes, which comes out of an employee's paycheck each week, that this is only HALF the amount that goes into the Social Security 'trust fund', the other half comes from their employer. Note that employers do NOT match that portion of the payroll tax that goes to Medicare, only the portion earmarked for Social Security itself.

This Social Security matching is what corporations would like to get rid of, and this is also why they don't want the ceiling raised on tha amount of income which is subject to the Social Security payroll tax. Note that the Medicare payroll tax has no ceiling, employees pay that tax on all of their income, but since corporations don't have to match the Medicare payroll tazes, they don't care that there's no ceiling, but if that were also to apply to Social Security payroll taxes, then corporations would be on the hook for their matching amount. So that's why Republicans are always objecting to raising or eliminating the Social Security wage ceiling. They would rather raise the retirement age, as that means that people would have to pay in for more years and they would also be getting benefits for a lesser number of years before they die.

OCU

#12 | Posted by OCUser at 2024-03-08 10:55 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

You're thinking too far ahead, REDIAL

Trump doesn't have his dictator uniform yet with the gold braids and shoulder epaulettes. You know, like, the whole package of a viral strongman.

He'll get around to it.

#13 | Posted by Twinpac at 2024-03-08 10:59 PM | Reply

The statement provided is accurate regarding the Social Security matching system and the implications of raising the wage ceiling for Social Security payroll taxes. Employers match the Social Security and Medicare taxes withheld from employee pay, with employees paying 6.2% of wages up to a taxable maximum towards Social Security
4
. Employers pay an equal amount towards Social Security, making it a significant financial obligation for them
4
. Unlike Social Security, there is no ceiling on Medicare taxes, but employers do not match this portion, which is why they are indifferent to the lack of a ceiling for Medicare taxes
1
4
. If the same no-ceiling policy were to apply to Social Security payroll taxes, corporations would be responsible for matching the entire amount, leading to resistance towards raising or eliminating the wage ceiling by some parties, like Republicans
1
4
. Raising the retirement age is seen as an alternative approach to address funding concerns by extending the period of contributions while reducing the number of years beneficiaries receive benefits
1
.

#14 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2024-03-08 11:10 PM | Reply

the gold braids and shoulder epaulettes

Gold braids? It'll be gold everything. Picture (if you will) a C-3PO/Idi Amin love child.

#15 | Posted by REDIAL at 2024-03-08 11:11 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

REDIAL

For Christmas, I sort of had an image of Trump sitting on an ermine covered lounge chair with his new palace as a backdrop.

By then the White House will be turned into a Kremlin-esq headquarters.

#16 | Posted by Twinpac at 2024-03-08 11:47 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

1936 "Republicans are trying to dismantle Social security", 1940 "Republicans are coming for your check, 1944, "Republicans want to end Social Security, 1948, 1952, rinse and repeat every four years. It's the most tired election year trope guaranteed to get the q-tips upset, and a-tips vote reliably.

#17 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2024-03-09 12:26 AM | Reply

" It's the most tired election year trope"

Oh, ffs.

If recent history has taught us anything, it's that Republicans, once given enough political power, will prove just as crummy as we've feared.

If you don't believe Republicans would go too far, I've got a woman carrying around a dead fetus who'd like a word with you.

#18 | Posted by Danforth at 2024-03-09 01:17 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

Trump doesn't have his dictator uniform yet with the gold braids and shoulder epaulettes. You know, like, the whole package of a viral strongman.

He'll get around to it.

#13 | Posted by Twinpac

We know who he wishes he could completely emulate: Putin, Kim Jung Un, etc. He met with Hungary's Orban at Mar A Lago. He probably asked Orban for tips on how to be an authoritarian masquerading as a democratically elected leader.

#19 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2024-03-09 02:41 AM | Reply

ItZ MaRXiZm!1!!

#20 | Posted by hamburglar at 2024-03-09 05:25 AM | Reply

Take from the poor and give to the rich, the true motto of the Republican Party.
So that $30 that poor people got to enable them to have the internet...probably gone. Social security, in seven to ten years...in real trouble. But hey, Musk and the big money boys, they will have all the air conditioning and lowered taxed they want.

#21 | Posted by Hughmass at 2024-03-09 06:23 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

I'm confused. First, all the reference information linked back to Common Dreams. Not exactly the most objective source of information.

What are the Republicans trying to do? I couldn't find that answer anywhere. The best I could come up with was a work requirement for Medicaid recipients? Cool. Not totally against it, although I think that requiring someone to do public service is just as good as requiring as some other form of labor.

#22 | Posted by madbomber at 2024-03-09 06:36 AM | Reply

My first thought was that Trump was getting signals from Putin that he [Putin] might be getting a little wishy-washy over Trump's re-election prospects . . . so Trump decided to soft-soap another ally in the area for financial support.

Although it would be naive to over-simplify Trump's motives. There could be other more nefarious deeds in the process ~ like establishing a U.S missile base in Hungary to assist Russia's blitzkrieg across Eastern Europe once the U.S. is no longer a member of NATO.

#23 | Posted by Twinpac at 2024-03-09 06:36 AM | Reply

"Take from the poor and give to the rich, the true motto of the Republican Party."

Can you do me a fave? Walk me through that process. I have yet to understand how the earned income of the poor is being arbitrarily (or otherwise) transferred to the rich/ In fact from my vantage point it is the other way around.

#24 | Posted by madbomber at 2024-03-09 06:37 AM | Reply

#14

I'm not sure what is going on with your stuff...but I think I read somewhere that a 2% increase in FICA taxes would eliminate the SS revenue generation problem completely.

You down?

#25 | Posted by madbomber at 2024-03-09 06:40 AM | Reply

How FICA tax works
In 2023, only the first $160,200 of your earnings are subject to the Social Security tax. In 2024, the first $168,600 is subject to the tax. For both years, there is an additional 0.9% surtax on top of the standard 1.45% Medicare tax for those who earn over $200,000 (single filers) or $250,000 (joint filers)

My fix would be something like a 2% FICA surtax on incomes over $160,200. Or eliminate that limit. Or both.

#26 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-03-09 06:49 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"I have yet to understand how the earned income of the poor is being arbitrarily (or otherwise) transferred to the rich"

Social Security is a good example.

#27 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-03-09 06:54 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Joe Biden purposely opened our borders to 10 million poor uneducated foreign nationals of which 99.9% will require subsidies and multigenerational welfare and subsidies for the rest of their lives. They will eventually take not contribute to SS.

New Yorkers and Chicagoans and actually all Americans that are average or poor understand exactly how that works. They lose and illegal foreigners win. Actually every citizen except the mostly liberal richsters who seek cheap labor and nannies will lose. Joe Biden works for the rich not citizens.

#28 | Posted by Robson at 2024-03-09 09:47 AM | Reply

#28 | POSTED BY ROBSON

The economic benefits to this country from migrants are estimated to come in at multiple trillions.

When these people get to my part of Texas they find jobs and work. The same people (MAGA) who say that they bring disease and crime hire them.

The border and immigration are just things you yell about to pretend you give a ---- about something. In everyday practice, there is nothing that you won't be a hypocrite about; no "principle" that you won't betray.

#29 | Posted by Zed at 2024-03-09 09:57 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 5

" 99.9% will require subsidies and multigenerational welfare and subsidies for the rest of their lives."

Republican Math strikes again. Stay in school, kids!

#30 | Posted by Danforth at 2024-03-09 10:00 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

The more miserable the people are the more they are willing to accept an authoritarian strongman who claims only he can fix it.

#31 | Posted by donnerboy at 2024-03-09 10:02 AM | Reply

t is the goal of the Trump royal family whether or not if the MAGAterrorists can admit that or not.t be aware they are also. Yes they are stupid but they are also dangerous, thanks to the aNRA. So be aware of the danger as you would with a rabid dog.d

#32 | Posted by danni at 2024-03-09 10:19 AM | Reply

"Social Security is a good example."

Cool. Can you walk me though it?

#33 | Posted by madbomber at 2024-03-09 10:58 AM | Reply

"My fix would be something like a 2% FICA surtax on incomes over $160,200. Or eliminate that limit. Or both."

Why not just levy FICA taxes on income over $160,200?

Then the "working class" wouldn't have to contribute at all.

#34 | Posted by madbomber at 2024-03-09 11:00 AM | Reply

"When these people get to my part of Texas they find jobs and work."

And IMO, that's the answer. Streamline work permits for people who want to work in the US.

Asylum seekers are a different issue, but for those coming to work-it's not that difficult. The average Honduran is not going to be competing with the average USan for jobs.

#35 | Posted by madbomber at 2024-03-09 11:03 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"The more miserable the people are the more they are willing to accept an authoritarian strongman who claims only he can fix it."

Yeah...I don't know. I think if the Dems put up a reasonable candidate, it would be a landslide. Trump is human trash, but he's not a walking corpse.

We'll see what happens, but I fully expect the Dems to crush the Repubs in 2028. I think Trump will attempt to put an Eric or Don Jr. in the big seat...I just don't think that will play well with moderates and independents.

#36 | Posted by madbomber at 2024-03-09 11:11 AM | Reply

"When these people get to my part of Texas they find jobs and work. The same people (MAGA) who say that they bring disease and crime hire them."

So you are saying Democrats dont hire them?

#37 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2024-03-09 03:57 PM | Reply

#12 Ocuser They (Republicans) want to privatise SS and Medicare. That way companies make money and if all your SS is lost in the stock market, tough you can starve to death. They a;so want to privatise the VA, that's why they keep underfunding it.

#38 | Posted by Ronnie68 at 2024-03-09 03:58 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Oh, ffs.

If recent history has taught us anything, it's that Republicans, once given enough political power, will prove just as crummy as we've feared.

#18 | Posted by Danforth at 2024-03-09 01:17 AM | Reply | Flag:
| Newsworthy 1

I recall being told from the day I started working decades ago that I would never collect social security, because the Republicans were trying to get rid of it. That was DECADES ago. The Republicans have had the policitcal power (both houses and the Presidency) several times since then, and guess what, we still have social security. When you cry wolf long enough, nobody listens anymore.

But if you insist, I'll bite, WHY do you think the Republicans want to end social security? Besides opportunity you need motive and the Republicans have nothing to gain by eliminating social security. It is electoral suicide. No group votes more reliably than social security recipients.

#39 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2024-03-09 04:37 PM | Reply

"I recall being told from the day I started working decades ago that I would never collect social security, because the Republicans were trying to get rid of it"

Republicans are trying to get rid of it.
Just because they don't get rid of all of it at once doesn't mean it isn't happening.

Left to it's own, Social Security will run out of money.
Republicans aren't fixing that.
Because Republicans are trying to get rid of Social Security.

#40 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-03-09 05:19 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Miranda- now do Roe V Wade ...

#41 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2024-03-09 05:24 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"When these people get to my part of Texas they find jobs and work. The same people (MAGA) who say that they bring disease and crime hire them."

So you are saying Democrats dont hire them?

#37 | Posted by Miranda7

Whoa! Don't hurt yourself moving goalposts trying to deflect from Republican hypocrisy!

#42 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2024-03-09 05:37 PM | Reply

ZED I dont want them (unvetted unknown foreigners either in my community or near my house sucking welfare from citizens with their neck tats etc). Biden the clueless one is part of govt but doesnt own us or USA. I agree with MLK who doesnt care about skin color but does care about character. I want the criminal scum out and gone forever.

To repeat put a bounty on them. I dont care what color they are. Any criminal activity should mean they are gone forever. Any crime committed by a foreigner means gone forever. Any foreigner commiting killings and crimes in USA country or neighborhood should be evaporated and deported.

#43 | Posted by Robson at 2024-03-09 07:01 PM | Reply

The repugs are trying to kill Social Security like it's Herman Cain.

#44 | Posted by reinheitsgebot at 2024-03-09 10:24 PM | Reply

"The repugs are trying to kill Social Security like it's Herman Cain."

"Nein, Nein, Nein"
~Herrmann

#45 | Posted by Danforth at 2024-03-09 10:52 PM | Reply

"WHY do you think the Republicans want to end social security?"

Tax cuts for the wealthy.

Is there any other reason needed???

#46 | Posted by Danforth at 2024-03-09 10:54 PM | Reply

FACT SHEET: Congressional Republicans' Many Proposals to Cut Social Security and Medicare, and Increase Prescription Drug Prices and Health Care Premiums
www.whitehouse.gov
Congressional Republicans' long record of working to cut Medicare, Social Security:

Senator Mike Lee said: "One thing that you probably haven't ever heard from a politician: it will be my objective to phase out Social Security. To pull it up by the roots, and get rid of it."
In November, John Thune, the number two Senate Republican in leadership, declared that Social Security and Medicare benefits should be slashed.
Florida Senator Rick Scott is championing a plan to put Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security on the chopping block every five years, which would put the health and economic security of 63 million Medicare beneficiaries, 69 million Medicaid beneficiaries and 65 million Social Security beneficiaries at risk. Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin proposed sunsetting these laws every year.
The Republican Study Committee " which includes a majority of House Republicans " released a formal budget that, according to Politico, included "raising the eligibility ages for each program, along with withholding payments for individuals who retire early or had a certain income, and privatized funding for Social Security to lower income taxes."
And in 2015, most House Republicans, including Speaker McCarthy, Rep. Scalise, and a host of others in current leadership, voted to raise the retirement age to 70, which would cut Social Security benefits for tens of millions of seniors who paid into the system for years.

#47 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-03-09 11:06 PM | Reply

Danforth,

It will never happen and you know it. W made the biggest effort and what he pushed, with a strong political back wind, was privatizing 2% of it (if memory serves) and even that crashed and burned.

#48 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-03-09 11:08 PM | Reply

Why are Republicans telling voters they want to cut Social Security by a third?
www.marketwatch.com

#49 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-03-09 11:08 PM | Reply

"It will never happen and you know it."

That's what Eberly said too!

#50 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-03-09 11:09 PM | Reply

" W made the biggest effort "

Bullschittt. By the end, Dubya admitted his "plan" didn't even address the problem.

#51 | Posted by Danforth at 2024-03-10 12:34 AM | Reply

"It will never happen and you know it."

Nonsense. If Republicans ever got veto-proof power, expect it.

Just look at what they're doing to half the population. Right after they promised not to.

#52 | Posted by Danforth at 2024-03-10 12:54 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

" Bullschittt. By the end, Dubya admitted his "plan" didn't even address the problem.

#51 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2024-03-10 12:34 AM | FLAG: "

Please name for me a stronger push by a prominent Republican leader to fundamentally change SS than what W pushed.

#53 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-03-10 03:24 AM | Reply

What a stupid request. George W. Bush actually admitted his plan didn't even address the central problem. What part of that did you miss? It can't really be called a serious attempt: every time people learned more about it, it's approval rate dropped. By the end, even fellow Republicans were running away from it.

Sorry, W doesn't get points for trying to make the problem worse.

#54 | Posted by Danforth at 2024-03-10 05:21 AM | Reply

Please name for me a stronger push by a prominent Republican leader to fundamentally change SS than what W pushed.
#53 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Can you read?
Rick Scott's plan would end Social Security.

#55 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-03-10 05:47 AM | Reply

I posted this article already knowing several reasons why
a large faction of the GOP wants to kill Social Security,
and to raise awareness, that efforts on the Right are still
very active and ongoing to do so.

The GOP, or a sizeable faction of the GOP leadership,
pushed, undoubtedly by Wall Street Tycoons and other
CEO's, wants to eliminate S.S. primarily because in doing so,
that eliminates the possibility for about 60% or more of the
nation to ever retire. Wall Street wants it, to force people
to gamble more of their earnings on the casino that is Wall Street,
thereby enriching themselves. CEO's want it, to eliminate the costly
benefits match (as several have pointed out above) thereby cheapening
labor costs. They also want it, to force people to work longer,
as some rightwing politicians have suggested we do "well into our 70's and
80's.

It is an altogether EVIL push from EVIL people looking to extend their
benefits at the expense of a large portion of the U.S. population.
People everywhere need to STAND UP and fight this evil proposition and to
drive a stake through the arguments that this would be a 'great fiscal policy'
for the U.S. to engage in.

I tell you what it would most certainly do. It would drive the youth of America
from American shores permanently, once they see what they are up against
(longer work for less return, even to the point of death), and who in the hell
could blame them?

#56 | Posted by earthmuse at 2024-03-10 10:50 AM | Reply

Pearls clutched, oh dear. It appears you are right. There ARE places in the world where retirement age is lower than the US, China, North Korea, and Venezuela for example. So why are those people trying to get into the US? I guess they didn't get the memo about the upcoming end of SSA. Maybe they will allow "swaps" for our young people who will line up to flee so they don't have to work "to the point of death"

en.wikipedia.org

#57 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2024-03-10 11:07 AM | Reply

Miranda7 can't help but whistle past the Roe v Wade graveyard.

I want to make it clear to Miranda7 that the way you're behaving in this thread is why your credibility as an impartial observer is highly suspect.

#58 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-03-10 11:24 AM | Reply

"the Republicans have nothing to gain by eliminating social security. It is electoral suicide"

And just LOOK how that stopped Republicans on abortion rights!

#59 | Posted by Danforth at 2024-03-10 11:35 AM | Reply

"It can't really be called a serious attempt: every time people learned more about it, its approval rate dropped."

And I'll bet folks have forgotten the "If your investments make too much, you must pay some of that back to Social Security" provision. Care to explain that one? Or had you already given up by that point?

Again: No credit is given for "Attempting to Fix the Problem" if you've been forced to admit your "fix" wouldn't even address the central issue.

#60 | Posted by Danforth at 2024-03-10 11:47 AM | Reply

Danforth,

You missed my point entirely. W with majorities in both chambers made a hard push to change the program and it never even became a bill in either chamber. This is just simple fear mongering.

#61 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-03-10 12:33 PM | Reply

"it never even became a bill in either chamber"

So if there is a bill in either chamber, Republicans are closer to dismantling Social Security. Right?

House Panel Advances Bill to 'Fast Track' Social Security Cuts
January 18, 2024

The House Budget Committee advanced Thursday by a 22-12 vote H.R. 5779, the Fiscal Commission Act of 2023, legislation that would set up a fiscal commission to address the nation's national debt and make "fast track" changes to Social Security, according to critics, including possible cuts to the program.

www.thinkadvisor.com

#62 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-03-10 12:43 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"This is just simple fear mongering."

H.R. 5779 is just simple fear mongering?

What are Republicans hoping to accomplish by fear mongering changes to Social Security?
Please explain it to us, since you two seem to know what's going on.

#63 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-03-10 12:46 PM | Reply

"You missed my point entirely."

And you missed mine: that George W. Bush MISSED THE POINT ENTIRELY.

You don't get to call it a "plan" if it exacerbates the central problem.

#64 | Posted by Danforth at 2024-03-10 01:50 PM | Reply

Why is the GOP still trying to kill Social Security?

Did you stop beating your wife yet?

#65 | Posted by libs_of_dr at 2024-03-10 02:29 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Congress should have to participate in their mandatory-for-everybody-else schemes.

#66 | Posted by libs_of_dr at 2024-03-10 02:32 PM | Reply

"Did you stop beating your wife yet?"

Fun fact: 74,223,975 million people voted for a rapist in 2020.

#67 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-03-10 02:36 PM | Reply

Is pretending this didn't happen:

"Republicans advanced a sweeping resolution Thursday from the U.S. House Budget Committee that would gut crucial programs such as Social Security and Medicare."

#68 | Posted by Corky at 2024-03-10 02:42 PM | Reply

Miranda- now do Roe V Wade ...

#41 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2024-03-09 05:24 PM | Reply |

FFS Roe V Wade was basically using SCOTUS as a legislative body. Just stop. It's now in the hands of states to decide how they want to handle it.

#69 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2024-03-10 02:48 PM | Reply

"Roe V Wade was basically using SCOTUS as a legislative body."

Exactly.

And Republicans will use the Supreme Court to repeal Social Security, if they can just find the right avenue.

#70 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-03-10 02:50 PM | Reply

"It's now in the hands of states to decide how they want to handle it."

Republicans have promised a Federal ban, which is now a possibility, thanks to Republicans.

#71 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-03-10 02:52 PM | Reply

Republicans have promised a Federal ban, which is now a possibility, thanks to Republicans.

#71 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-03-10 02:52 PM | Reply | Flag

And what does that have to do with SCOTUS being used as a legislative body?

#72 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2024-03-10 02:54 PM | Reply

And Republicans will use the Supreme Court to repeal Social Security, if they can just find the right avenue.

#70 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-03-10 02:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

Yeah sure. If you've failed to notice, now that the court is top heavy on conservatives they've began to ------ the systematic abuses of the court.

#73 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2024-03-10 02:57 PM | Reply

slate.com
Republican Leaders Might Not Be Trying to Kill Social Security and Medicare. But Their Judges Are.
Far-right judges are crafting a theory that would empower courts to strike down trillions of dollars in federal spending.

Perhaps these Republicans really do disagree with a plan put forth by a member of their leadership mandating periodic expiration of popular entitlement spending. But at least some of their judges are all for it -- and want to transform the idea into constitution law. Recently, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals crafted a theory that would empower courts to strike down mandatory spending on federal programs, compelling Congress to either reappropriate the money or let the programs die. This radical and antidemocratic reading of the Constitution would threaten Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, the Affordable Care Act, unemployment benefits, child nutrition assistance, and so much more. Democrats and Republicans would be foolish to ignore the rebellion against federal spending that's brewing in the 5th Circuit.

^
Go on, deny that it's true.
Tell us that it's not happening.

#74 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-03-10 03:02 PM | Reply

"they've began to ------ the systematic abuses of the court."

^
Indeed they are.
Allowing Social Security to exist is one of those huge systemic abuses, according to Republicans.

#75 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-03-10 03:03 PM | Reply

And what does that have to do with SCOTUS being used as a legislative body?
#72 | POSTED BY LFTHNDTHRDS

By repealing Roe, Republicans on the Supreme Court opened the door for Republicans in Congress to ban abortion nationwide.
Thanks for reading and understanding.

#76 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-03-10 03:04 PM | Reply

Yeah sure. If you've failed to notice, now that the court is top heavy on conservatives they've began to ------ the systematic abuses of the court.

#73 | POSTED BY LFTHNDTHRDS

ROFLOL

From taking cases they shouldn't be taking (student loan) to cherry picking history (Dobbs) to inventing harm (5th district's mifepristone case) to the "major questions doctrine" to the out and out corruption of Thomas, etal.

That was seriously funny right there.

#77 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-03-10 03:05 PM | Reply

And Republicans will use the Supreme Court to repeal Social Security, if they can just find the right avenue.

#70 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-03-10 02:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

You're barking up the wrong tree, junior.

I can only wish I could have exited the system many years ago. I'd have a lot more money and that's a fact.

Why? ROI.Much better ROI on my own investments.

#78 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2024-03-10 03:08 PM | Reply

"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."
George Orwell, 1984

#79 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-03-10 03:08 PM | Reply

That was seriously funny right there.

#77 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-03-10 03:05 PM | Reply | Flag

Really? Abortion? EPA? Affirmative Action? It was time, and the conservatives got it right again. Keep laughing, you lunatic.

#80 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2024-03-10 03:10 PM | Reply

"Really? Abortion? EPA? Affirmative Action? It was time, and the conservatives got it right"

Exactly!
Republicans also want to "correct" Social Security.
You are saying the same thing we are saying.

#81 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-03-10 03:13 PM | Reply

And what does that have to do with SCOTUS being used as a legislative body?

#72 | POSTED BY LFTHNDTHRDS

Can someone explain the major questions doctrine to --------------?

Hey --------------, how come congress can't delegate authority?

#82 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-03-10 03:14 PM | Reply

Why are these two Deplorables so intent on denying something that is so obvious?

#83 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-03-10 03:15 PM | Reply

Why? ROI.Much better ROI on my own investments.

#78 | POSTED BY LFTHNDTHRDS A

SS is not an investment scheme.

SS survived the Great Depression quite well, would have thought it would have taught you a thing or two about wall street bubbles.

#84 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-03-10 03:15 PM | Reply

correction Great Recession

#85 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-03-10 03:15 PM | Reply

Really? Abortion? EPA? Affirmative Action? It was time, and the conservatives got it right again. Keep laughing, you lunatic.

#80 | POSTED BY LFTHNDTHRDS

Dobbs was decided on the musings of a 13th Century british politician who believed in witches.

Yep, women share the same rights as men.

Do you understand the concept of cherry picking?

Do you not WANT bodily autonomy?

Can't wait for a state's concerted effort at forced organ donation.

#86 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-03-10 03:17 PM | Reply

" 64 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2024-03-10 01:50 PM | FLAG: "

You're still missing it. I'll try again. The GOP is not going to dismantle SS. Their one big swing, when the stars aligned, failed big time.

They will always have a handful of idiots who will talk about it but it will never come to fruition.

The Overton Window isn't there and the GOP is absolutely spineless and completely lacking in cohesion.

Not going to happen.

#87 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-03-10 03:18 PM | Reply

Please name for me a stronger push by a prominent Republican leader to fundamentally change SS than what W pushed.
#53 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

So many weasel words in this demand it's not even funny. You could name anything and the outs are infinite.

That's not "stronger" (subjective)
That wasn't a "push"
He wasn't "prominent"
He's not a "leader"
That doesn't "fundamentally" change it
Etc etc etc

#88 | Posted by JOE at 2024-03-10 03:18 PM | Reply

Really? Abortion? EPA? Affirmative Action? It was time, and the conservatives got it right again. Keep laughing, you lunatic.

#80 | POSTED BY LFTHNDTHRDS

EPA? You mean where the SC ignored that fact that water flows downhill and allowed people to fill in wetlands, assuming that won't impact other people's properties? Oh yeah childish selfishness is a central tenant of conservatism-who cares who pays, I want what I want when I want it and I don't want to pay for it.

Affirmative Action? Are you saying systematic racism is solved? or that it never existed? Either way you and the SC should have to prove that.

#89 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-03-10 03:20 PM | Reply

#88 Yep.
Everything about his "question" is disingenuous.

#90 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-03-10 03:23 PM | Reply

"The GOP is not going to dismantle SS."

^
The Supreme Court is going to do it.

#91 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-03-10 03:24 PM | Reply

"Their one big swing, when the stars aligned, failed big time."

Big swing? What are you referring to, was there legislation proposed under W?
No. They didn't even swing at it. They floated a trial balloon which was quickly shot down.

And that's why they are trying to undo it through the judiciary!

#92 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-03-10 03:27 PM | Reply

" #88 | POSTED BY JOE AT 2024-03-10 03:18 PM | FLAG: "

If you have a point, please articulate it.

#93 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-03-10 03:44 PM | Reply

I think Joe was calling you a weasel.

#94 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-03-10 04:25 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

SS survived the Great Depression quite well, would have thought it would have taught you a thing or two about wall street bubbles.

#84 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-03-10 03:15 PM | Reply | Flag

If you understand how to invest as you age, you will secure more of your wealth as you get older and not leave it risky ------. even if I was a ------y investor and only made 2% over time, I would still have a helluva lot more money than I'll ever get from Socialist's Insecurity.

#95 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2024-03-10 04:35 PM | Reply

"If you understand how to invest as you age,"

If you understand how to invest, then you ought to understand that Social Security is not an investment program.
Or are you too dumb to understand that?

#96 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-03-10 04:36 PM | Reply

"you will secure more of your wealth as you get older"

LOL again.
Social Security achieves that objective because Social Security is a secure income stream.

#97 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-03-10 04:41 PM | Reply

SS survived the Great Depression quite well, would have thought it would have taught you a thing or two about wall street bubbles.
#84 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-03-10 03:15 PM | Reply | Flag
If you understand how to invest as you age, you will secure more of your wealth as you get older and not leave it risky ------. even if I was a ------y investor and only made 2% over time, I would still have a helluva lot more money than I'll ever get from Socialist's Insecurity.

#95 | POSTED BY LFTHNDTHRDS

SS is not an investment mechanism.

How many times do you have to be told SS is not an investment mechanism.

Because, SS is not an investment mechanism.

One more time for the cheap seats

SS is not an investment mechanism.

It is a program that assures a basic income for older Americans. An income that is separate from:

1. the whims of wall street
2. the peaks and valleys of wall street
3. the conmen of wall street
4. the inability of many, many, many, many, many people to invest-it takes a certain privilege to think that most people can even afford even 5% of their income being set aside for retirement.
5. a total crash of the economy by bankers and wall street people.

And since SS is not an investment mechanism, the comparison to investing is, well, sorry to say, just plain stupid.

Oh, did I say SS is not an investment mechanism?

#98 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-03-10 04:42 PM | Reply

SS is more like an insurance plan.

In fact, the part of SS that retires receive is called the Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) program.

It is NOT an investment plan.

It is federally funded insurance that you will receive a monthly benefit upon reaching a certain age.

It is NOT an investment mechanism.

#99 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-03-10 04:46 PM | Reply

The rate of return on SS is still competitive with what you'd get with a financial advisor.
5.7% for SS is an average return rate.
For a financial advisor 5-7% is more likely.

You add in that it's insurance, that CPI is part of it, and it's guaranteed, it doesn't go up and down with the markets, then you should be able to see why so many people aren't interested in seeing it mucked with.

#100 | Posted by YAV at 2024-03-10 04:57 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The Overton Window isn't there and the GOP is absolutely spineless and completely lacking in cohesion.
Not going to happen.

#87 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

That's a lot of words just to say "the party I've aligned myself with is stupid and cruel."

Say, if you ever lay your weapons down and stop fighting you can go and ---- yourself.

No one else wants you.

#101 | Posted by tres_flechas at 2024-03-10 04:58 PM | Reply

It sounds like LftHndThrds does not know what an annuity is!

10 Best Fixed Annuity Rates Of March 2024.
None of them are over 6%. www.forbes.com

#102 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-03-10 05:05 PM | Reply

Why? ROI.Much better ROI on my own investments.

#78 | POSTED BY LFTHNDTHRDS

For the past 4 years I've averaged around 9% a year. For most of the 25 years prior to that I was living hand to mouth and the few times I got ahead and managed to start saving life smacked me in the face and my savings were drained. Usually with some additional debt added on for icing on he get wrecked cake life seemed to be baking for me.

So yeah I'm doing way better than SS right now but I'm so far behind that without SS even at 9% for the next 15 years I doubt I could actually retire.

Of course that's kind of the point of getting rid of SS isn't it.

#103 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2024-03-10 06:17 PM | Reply

No one is trying to "kill" or "gut" social security.
Those are lies.

The headline is a logical fallacy

This thread is irrational propaganda.

#104 | Posted by libs_of_dr at 2024-03-10 06:20 PM | Reply

Social security was never an investment. It was survival insurance that you need a stake in and that is the way it should stay.

One segment of our population has no clue about insurance except to give it up to future Dem illegal welfare hucksters but do nothing responsible for society.

Democrats are generally stupid about common sense, but see themselves as righteous about silliness. I can't stand listening to their low single digit IQ nonsense because it is never about society but always them. Public schools are Dem owned and operated and they fail in everything.

#105 | Posted by Robson at 2024-03-10 06:34 PM | Reply

" No one is trying to "kill" or "gut" social security.
Those are lies."

Huh???

How can you possibly read Ron Johnson's plan and come to that conclusion? They haven't gutted it because they haven't had the power ... Yet.

The lies seem to be coming from the folks who are informing you.

#106 | Posted by Danforth at 2024-03-10 06:34 PM | Reply

"low single digit IQ nonsense"

Self-Retorting Retort.

#107 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-03-10 06:39 PM | Reply

Go on, deny that it's true.
Tell us that it's not happening.
#74 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

No one is trying to "kill" or "gut" social security.
Those are lies.
The headline is a logical fallacy
This thread is irrational propaganda.
#104 | POSTED BY LIBS_OF_DR

^
Perfect. That's exactly how Deplorables embrace the Big Lie. By tripling down on it.

#108 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-03-10 06:41 PM | Reply

" How can you possibly read Ron Johnson's plan and come to that conclusion? They haven't gutted it because they haven't had the power ... Yet. "

When they had the power and made a real attempt to partly privatize it the plan went nowhere. Folks will tolerate a slight reduction in cost in the form of raising the eligibility age gradually by a couple of years and/or a slight bump, maybe a half point on each side, in FICA, toward solvency.

SS can be fixed without too much pain and within its current structure. Medicare is a much bigger problem.

#109 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-03-10 06:42 PM | Reply

"and made a real attempt to partly privatize it the plan went nowhere"

What's this "real attempt" you're referring to?
Was there a bill introduced? Was there an Executive Order introduced?
What are you lying about now?

#110 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-03-10 06:43 PM | Reply

You didn't answer this question:
"How can you possibly read Ron Johnson's plan and come to that conclusion?

It doesn't sound like you even read Ron Johnson's plan.
Prove you read it by giving a one or two sentence summary.

#111 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-03-10 06:44 PM | Reply

" When they had the power and made a real attempt to partly privatize it the plan went nowhere."

That was NOT an attempt.

At least not an attempt to address the central problem.

And the reason it went nowhere was it was a lousy plan. Witnessed the fact the more people learned about it the lower the approval rating dropped. By the end even Republicans were running away from it.

That's not a serious attempt to address the problem. W admitted as much. And look at you, denying what they admitted was the truth! Aren't you a good little partisan hack!

#112 | Posted by Danforth at 2024-03-10 06:46 PM | Reply

Danforth!

Take off the hate goggles. I actually agree with you on this.

#113 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-03-10 07:27 PM | Reply

Are you deliberately avoiding my point or do you not understand it?

#114 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-03-10 07:27 PM | Reply

"You're still missing it. I'll try again. The GOP is not going to dismantle SS."

YOU'RE still missing it. If/when the GOP gets enough control, bank on it. For proof, ask just about any woman of childbearing years if the Republicans can be trusted.

"They will always have a handful of idiots who will talk about it "

I'll take Things Also Said About Abortion for $2,000, Mr. Jennings.

#115 | Posted by Danforth at 2024-03-10 10:18 PM | Reply

"Are you deliberately avoiding my point "

Your point is GWB's attempt was a serious one. That's not a serious point.

You either never read, or never understood his "plan". The central aspect DIDN'T ADDRESS THE PROBLEM, IT EXACERBATED IT.

That's not a serious attempt. Not from him, and not from you.

#116 | Posted by Danforth at 2024-03-10 10:25 PM | Reply

@#115 ... YOU'RE still missing it. If/when the GOP gets enough control, bank on it. ...

Yup.

Eliminating Social Security has been a priority for Republicans for a while.

OK, here is a mere year or so ago...

Republicans Are Bringing Back Their Plan to Gut Social Security and Medicare
newrepublic.com

... Republicans have claimed over and over again that they are not trying to cut Social Security and Medicare. Heck, Joe Biden got them to agree they would not make cuts to the programs, in a memorable verbal maneuver during his State of the Union speech earlier this year.

And yet the Republican Study Committee (of which some three-quarters of House Republicans are members) just released its desired 2024 budget, in which the party seeks to, you guessed it, cut Social Security and Medicare.

And note their seriousness. "The RSC Budget is more than just a financial statement. It is a statement of priorities," the party assures in the document, released Wednesday.

The proposed budget would effectively make cuts to Social Security ...

#117 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-03-10 10:27 PM | Reply

@#117

That comment cites an article from June 2023.

Apologies for not including the date in the headline, as I usually try to do.

#118 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-03-10 10:29 PM | Reply

#117 Your link points to an article which is loaded with hyperbole, and points to the RSC Budget as the source for this hysteria. Wierdthough, the RSC Budget doesn't support seem to the hyperbole at all. Did you read the budget? Maybe you could help me find the part where it guts Social Securiy and Medicare.

#119 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2024-03-10 11:52 PM | Reply

SS survived the Great Depression quite well.
#84 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-03-10 03:15 PM | Reply | Flag

Really? You sure about that?

#120 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2024-03-10 11:57 PM | Reply

Did you read 85 Moronda?

#121 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-03-10 11:57 PM | Reply

@#119 ... Your link points to an article which is loaded with hyperbole, ...

How is an article quoting the Republican document "hyperbole?"

#122 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-03-11 12:08 AM | Reply

#122 That's my point. It cherry picked a few snipped phrases then spun them up with unsupported hyperbole. Did you read the budget? Maybe you can provide better quotes. Where is the part about gutting social security and Medicare?

#123 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2024-03-11 12:28 AM | Reply

@#123 ... It cherry picked a few snipped phrases ...

Have you read the document cited?

(PDF)
hern.house.gov

The article does not look like cherry-picking to me.

#124 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-03-11 12:54 AM | Reply

If you have a point, please articulate it.
#93 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

The point was, your question was not framed in a manner so as to gain information, further the discussion, or even make a valid point. Your sole aim was to "be right" regardless of how anyone responded to you.

#125 | Posted by JOE at 2024-03-11 10:39 AM | Reply

Where is the part about gutting social security and Medicare?
#123 | POSTED BY MIRANDA7

I'm honest enough to admit that the Resolution does not expressly do anything like that. What it does do is state that the US has a debt crisis, the drivers of which include SS and Medicare, and then expresses support for a Republican bill called the Fiscal Commission Act of 2024, which would spend $12 Million holding hearings to study these issues and issuing recommendations.

But let's just cut to the chase. What do you predict the preferred Republican "fix" to this alleged crisis would be? If Republicans had uninhibited power to tinker with these programs, what would they do?

#126 | Posted by JOE at 2024-03-11 10:46 AM | Reply

Because i think what's going on here is, everyone knows when Republicans want to stick their hands into these programs, their goal is not to leave benefits the way they are, much less expand them. So it's not that unreasonable to call their initial attempt to open the door for what it eventually will be.

#127 | Posted by JOE at 2024-03-11 10:49 AM | Reply

The demented orange pedo says he wants to cut spending on retirement benefits.

www.nbcnews.com

#128 | Posted by reinheitsgebot at 2024-03-11 11:53 AM | Reply

" YOU'RE still missing it. If/when the GOP gets enough control, bank on it. For proof, ask just about any woman of childbearing years if the Republicans can be trusted." - Danforth

Yet when they had the political capital to do so and made a serious attempt, it died. The battle to kill SS was lost decades ago. It's funding needs to b solvent by a simpl could knock nation of minimal cuts and minimal tax increases.

Medicare and Medicaid are the real elephants in the room.

#129 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-03-11 12:25 PM | Reply

Could knock nation = combination

I hate my phone and my thumbs.

#130 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-03-11 12:26 PM | Reply

" when they had the political capital to do so and made a serious attempt, it died."

I'll add "serious attempt" to the list of words and phrases you either don't understand, or purposely misuse.

W's plan to exacerbate the problem is anything but a serious attempt.

#131 | Posted by Danforth at 2024-03-11 12:30 PM | Reply

minimal cuts and minimal tax increases.

How many decades of solvency at current day benefit levels could we buy by eliminating the ludicrous FICA income cap?

We don't need to cut benefits by a dime. Stop trying to cheat Americans out of an even semi decent retirement.

#132 | Posted by JOE at 2024-03-11 02:36 PM | Reply

strong words....."kill" and "gut".

which is it, BTW....and what exactly are they trying to do?

completely eliminate the social security program?

100% or what?

#133 | Posted by eberly at 2024-03-11 02:57 PM | Reply

I asked earlier what changes are being proposed...no responses.

just the drama.

Oh, and we have another thread where using the term "open border" is just a lie lie lie lie.

but "kill" social security here is fine?

really?

#134 | Posted by eberly at 2024-03-11 03:01 PM | Reply

did you read the article or were you blinded by jeffs taint?

#135 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2024-03-11 03:04 PM | Reply

"but "kill" social security here is fine?"

What's a better word for your party's ambitions?

#136 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-03-11 03:05 PM | Reply

" strong words....."kill" and "gut".

which is it, BTW....and what exactly are they trying to do?"

Gutting an animal kills it.

#137 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2024-03-11 03:06 PM | Reply

------- himself seems to suggest something:

"So first of all, there is a lot you can do in terms of entitlements, in terms of cutting -- and in terms of also, the theft and the bad management of entitlements, tremendous bad management of entitlements," Trump replied.

"There's tremendous amounts of things and numbers of things you can do, so I don't necessarily agree with the statement," he said. "I know that they're going to end up weakening Social Security because the country is weak."

Like so often, it is hard to make sense of the diarrhea that flows from his mouth.

#138 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-03-11 03:21 PM | Reply

I asked earlier what changes are being proposed...no responses.

I responded to someone else with the same question at #126. You could also just click through the links and eventually find the resolution yourself if you were actually curious about what it said. But as usual you're just using your "questions" as a substitute for argument.

#139 | Posted by JOE at 2024-03-11 04:01 PM | Reply

Joe- I already posted the changes.

#140 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2024-03-11 04:04 PM | Reply

in a different thread, oops.

here they are again:

www.americanprogress.org

#141 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2024-03-11 04:06 PM | Reply

Eberly up here arguing
"Right To Work" doesn't "kill" unions.
Dude loves dancing on the head of a pin.
He really thinks he's contributing when he minces words.

I'm guessing that is what happens to your brain when you spend your life reading the fine print of insurance policies, yes?

#142 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-03-11 04:07 PM | Reply

-But as usual you're just using your "questions" as a substitute for argument.

So you don't have a clue what's proposed.

You could say that.

I deliberately avoided addressing you so you wouldn't cry I was being mean to you.

But you like to think you up to it...so here you are....nothing but an insult.

No substance.

#143 | Posted by eberly at 2024-03-11 07:08 PM | Reply

thank you Alex.

"According to Roll Call, the RSC budget proposes to increase the age for full retirement benefits from 67 to 69 over an eight-year period beginning in 2026. More specifically, the age at which workers who retire could receive full benefits would increase by three months per year for those who will reach age 62 from 2026 to 2033. For workers who reach age 62 after 2033, the age for receiving full benefits would remain at 69. Thus, all workers who are now ages 59 or younger would see an increase in the age at which they could draw full retirement benefits. Current retirees or those who have reached age 62"the age of earliest eligibility for retirement benefits"by 2025 would be exempt from the increase."

Those are not good. They are quite unfavorable.

#144 | Posted by eberly at 2024-03-11 07:13 PM | Reply

"if you were actually curious about what it said."

I don't know how much ---- you suck....but it has to be a lot.

the substance is the only thing I'm interested in.

You're only interested in the drama.

------- queen.

#145 | Posted by eberly at 2024-03-11 07:15 PM | Reply