-
Posts
12,346 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
28
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Articles
Downloads
Everything posted by Larry
-
Yeah, I'm under the impression that, in order to get a stay on a court's ruling (that he owes this money), the person appealing has to show 1) That irreparable harm will occur if the ruling is enforced, while being appealed. 2) And that the appellant has a reasonable chance of winning the appeal. Now, I can kind of see how the first might be true. That, if the AG begins attempting to place tax liens on Trump properties, this could cause foreclosures and other sudden forced sales. It could trigger Trump being forced to sell properties, at well below market value. (Or at least, people will CLAIM it's well below market value.) I have no clue how a judge can rule that the second part is true.
-
Actually, I'm all right with raising the SS age. Although I'll point out, the words "Raising SS age" can have multiple meanings. To illustrate, I'm going to create an imaginary person who's "full SS" is 1,000/mo. And I'm going to pretend that "retirement age" is 67, and raise it to 70. What I'm in favor of is: Age (Current plan) 65 66 67 68 69 70 Age (My proposal) 68 69 70 71 72 73 Income 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 In my proposal, the "payouts" don't change. it's just 3 years later when you get them. The system becomes more solvent, due to people paying into the system for 3 more years, and collecting (the same) benefits for 3 years less. And yes, people can make decisions based on their own circumstances. They can still retire early (although the definition of "early" has moved), and collect less. And people have the option of working till 73, and collecting more. But from what I've seen, when Republicans talk about "raising the retirement age", what they're talking about is: Age 65 66 67 68 69 70 Income (Current plan) 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 Income (GOP plan) 500 600 700 800 900 1000 Yes, under the GOP plan, the guy who retires at 70 gets the same amount as the guy who retired at 67 used to get. But they haven't "raised the ages". They've "cut the payouts, but you can compensate for the cut by working till 70". What used to be "full income, but you can get more by working later" has become "that's the most you can get". They're not proposing "raising the retirement age by 3 years". They're proposing "cutting benefits by 30%".
-
"Please, sir. May I have some more?"
-
I'm pretty sure that a lot of people are buying the notion(s) that The economy sucks. (And specifically, because of Biden). People should vote against Biden because he's anti-Muslim. People should vote against Biden because he's antisemitic. People should vote against Biden because he's mentally incompetent. ----- Among other things, people in here should not underestimate the power that a group of anonymous Internet posters can have, to influence people.
-
Margie trying to block Israel funding? Here I thought the R's were all gung ho to demand that Israel gets trillions. And Palestine and Ukraine get nothing. And claiming that people who want to fund all of them are being antisemitic.
-
That was my point, about "indirectly" If Team Red won't allow the voters to legalize abortion, then they'll just have to vote Team Red out of power.
-
Directly or indirectly?
-
"Did his attorney inform him otherwise?" Edit: And did his attorney inform him it was illegal, after he solicited political help from Russia? Or after Ukraine?
-
Still remember Jon Stewart reacting to the FNC host who asked "Is Warren Buffet a socialist?" (After Buffet said that rich people aren't taxed enough.) Stewart: "Is Warren Buffet a socialist? You have no idea what that word means, do you? 'Yeah, that George Clooney, always bangin different broads. What a queer.'"
-
I assume the Dems don't want to just certify Biden now, because they want lots of primaries, to bring Dem voters to lots of other state ballot initiatives.