Have fun being mad at the world. It isn’t good for your blood pressure.

If you haven’t made an effort to get ahead of the potential nonsense around social security with 40-50 years of notice, that’s on you. The Republicans have made it no secret they’ve been wanting to tear it down, especially through the 90s.

I’m not a fan of raising it but you’re just incorrect and ought to look into how this works.

You can start pulling benefits out at 62 but you can collect more per month the longer you wait.

There is nothing stopping you from deciding at age 62 to start collecting if you’re fine with the lower amount.

Next, the amount provided is never promised. You pay into Social Security for current benefit recipients and Social Security gives you an estimated amount of benefits you may see. This is called out many times, and I implore you to utilize the information on its site effectively.

Here’s the disclaimer:

We can’t provide your actual benefit amount until you apply for benefits. And that amount may differ from the retirement estimates because:  …

• Your estimated benefits are based on current law. The law governing benefits amounts may change. Congress has made changes to the law in the past and can do so at any time.

Yeah I completely derped on who this backfired on… That explains my confusion 😂

The BBC should settle down lol, it didn’t backfire. Some group of aides took 900 calls, probably tallied it up on a few sticky notes, and passed them to a rep who tossed it in a bin.

1. it unanimously passed committee (!!!)

2. it’s practically certain to pass the house

3. it’s practically certain to pass the senate

4. it’s guaranteed to be signed by biden

I genuinely am curious where you’re living that everyone’s having a hard time putting a roof over their head. The stats simply don’t match this narrative in the overwhelming majority of areas in the US.

This outrageous hyperbole that you repeat day-in and day-out is just unproductive and, quite frankly, insulting to anyone wanting meaningful political discussion here.

Commenting the same things over and over on a political forum isn’t going to change anything.

Considering the literal hundreds of other poorly reasoned comments you make on here…

Biden was never a progressive president. He wasn’t running on anything close to a progressive platform. I’m not sure why in this, or literally a hundred of your other comments here that get responded to by others, is still a surprise.

I disagree with the logic of complaining about inflation then suggesting all of the money should’ve been distributed to individuals.

This is more of an emotional argument than logical…

deleted by creator

These surveys are next-to-useless. I do surveys for Ipsos all the time and it’s depressing how bad the questions are phrased, especially considering Gallup and Ipsos are generally highly regarded…

Gallup posted their question:

Next, I am going to read you a list of possible threats to the vital interests of the United States in the next 10 years. For each one, please tell me if you see this as a critical threat, an important but not critical threat, or not an important threat at all.

Large numbers of immigrants entering the United States illegally

So if you hold either the opinion:

“The US needs to stop illegal immigration because it impacts the safety of the US”

or

“The US needs to allow more asylum refugees in a more formalized manner because cities are having to pick up the slack and are potentially cutting back services, exacerbating local crisises”

Congratulations! Both people can bucket themselves in the “considers a threat” even though the two people backing these opinions will want completely different government action.

Consider how the “democracy” question might’ve been worded. I’m sure both a pro-Trump-election denier and someone who believes Trump/the Republican Party are a threat to democracy could easily answer the same on that part.

What exact power under the presidency would remotely grant that? The Supreme Court explicitly gave that power back to the states, an EO saying “ignore the SC” wouldn’t hold up under even the most liberal of courts.

The closest/largest thing available was directing the military to facilitate moving servicemembers around for care.

And updating the definition for emergency care for everyone else and telling hospitals that take Medicare to use the federal definition of care:

https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2022/07/11/following-president-bidens-executive-order-protect-access-reproductive-health-care-hhs-announces-guidance-clarify-that-emergency-medical-care-includes-abortion-services.html

Seems to me that they’ve been cautious about which EOs to enact to prevent the courts from further limiting access.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

Disagree that’d be within the realm of possibility at the current trajectory the last few months.

The niche communities are on Reddit or individual forums.

Forums will almost certainly never federate and there’s no point in a community that’s found it’s ground outside of Reddit to take hold here. You’d get people coming in from /All shitting all over the place.

The worst part of the Fediverse are the people and that’s the most important part needed to sell it.

Even the worst of Google searches pull up more relevant content than an empty Fediverse community.

There simply isn’t enough quality content yet.

Rivian’s network is incredibly tiny compared to Tesla’s network but they plug a couple of holes in Tesla’s network coverage.

Exciting news all around.

There’s also a chicken-and-egg problem here. EVs are hard to sell because the infrastructure to support them at scale isn’t there. The infrastructure won’t scale up until there’s sufficient demand to make capital investments in that infrastructure profitable.

A couple years ago, sure, but this just isn’t true anymore. Sure, not everyone’s living situation is ideal for an EV, but let’s take just homeowners. ~60% of Americans own a home, I’d wager a significant percentage of that 60% would either do fine with a standard 120V outlet or add an EV charger in their garage. That’s still a big market.

(I’m a BEV owner who rents and has to use a standard wall outlet)

I’m willing to bet the bigger issue the Biden admin needs to balance is keeping the unions happy, the automakers happy, and not tanking the US automotive industry by nudging them forward.

A shift to EVs means there’s going to be a loss of manufacturing jobs. I can’t imagine the unions being too happy about this, especially going into an election year. That needs to be balanced with the increasing interest in foreign automakers wanting to build factories in Mexico to import vehicles here cheaply.

Uh, what?

deleted by creator

I am disappointed in the carelessness of your reply lol.

Right now this is like refusing an amenity fee because you don’t use the pool. You can disconnect the service, but the $60/mo or whatever charge is still being billed to you.

The FCC is fine with it as long as the landlord bundles the service with your lease and the service provider isn’t blocking other providers.

Nothing is stopping you from also paying for 5G internet while you burn $60/mo on cable service that goes unused.

Is it right or fair in my opinion? Absolutely not.

Sure, you could probably find a lawyer but that’ll only work up till the point a judge goes “well, the state doesn’t block these fees and this is outside of the purview of the FCC”.

…and can’t forget the gamble of paying $300/hr+ for a lawyer.

On what basis?

The FAQ page also mentions “a landlord may refuse to allow other service providers to offer service to tenants.”