WTF?
The fact that certain individuals or groups doesn't get an immediate reduction certainly doesn't translate to "no cuts" except in the most narrow definition. Future cuts are still cuts. If you want to play whack-the-definition, fine - I'm just not likely who will play. If you really want to know the proposed future of the overall Social Security program, read/listen to your own party members.
WTF?
The fact that certain individuals or groups doesn't get an immediate reduction certainly doesn't translate to "no cuts" except in the most narrow definition. Future cuts are still cuts. If you want to play whack-the-definition, fine - I'm just not likely who will play. If you really want to know the proposed future of the overall Social Security program, read/listen to your own party members.
O Really is in CA. Only in Washington is it OK to call a reduction in a plan a "cut". Nice try.
WTF?
The fact that certain individuals or groups doesn't get an immediate reduction certainly doesn't translate to "no cuts" except in the most narrow definition. Future cuts are still cuts. If you want to play whack-the-definition, fine - I'm just not likely who will play. If you really want to know the proposed future of the overall Social Security program, read/listen to your own party members.
Not to mention the sideways way they are cutting service to delay or mitigate new applications and claims or non service existing recipients.
It's abhorrent.
Eamus Catuli~AC 000000000101010202020303010304 020405....Ahhhh, forget it, it's gonna be a while.
WTF?
The fact that certain individuals or groups doesn't get an immediate reduction certainly doesn't translate to "no cuts" except in the most narrow definition. Future cuts are still cuts. If you want to play whack-the-definition, fine - I'm just not likely who will play. If you really want to know the proposed future of the overall Social Security program, read/listen to your own party members.
O Really is in CA. Only in Washington is it OK to call a reduction in a plan a "cut". Nice try.
Only in your gated community in NC is it ok to think that words have different meanings in CA than they do in DC. Are you putting that out in defense of the recent howling from right wing nutjobs about how federal judges should not be allwoed to issue nationwide injunctions? Or are you just gullible?
So Supes - you were in insurance, right? If a policy increased the deductible, it would be a reduction/cut in benefits, right? And it would be a cut in benefits even for those who might not be immediately or directly affected only because they didn't file a claim. And if the plan excluded some procedures it had previously covered, it would be a reduction/cut in benefits for everyone, even those who didn't have the procedure. Tell ya what, you define "cut" the way you want and we'll work with that definition. But don't take a generic broadly understood term and accept only one very narrow use.
Supes is caught by his wife in bed with another woman. Wife: "You're cheating on me, you scum!" Supes: This isn't me. Are you going to believe me or your own lying eyes?"
WTF?
The fact that certain individuals or groups doesn't get an immediate reduction certainly doesn't translate to "no cuts" except in the most narrow definition. Future cuts are still cuts. If you want to play whack-the-definition, fine - I'm just not likely who will play. If you really want to know the proposed future of the overall Social Security program, read/listen to your own party members.
O Really is in CA. Only in Washington is it OK to call a reduction in a plan a "cut". Nice try.
Only in your gated community in NC is it ok to think that words have different meanings in CA than they do in DC. Are you putting that out in defense of the recent howling from right wing nutjobs about how federal judges should not be allwoed to issue nationwide injunctions? Or are you just gullible?
How are words any more different in gated communities in Tennessee than CA? Not welcomed can only mean one thing.
So Supes - you were in insurance, right? If a policy increased the deductible, it would be a reduction/cut in benefits, right? And it would be a cut in benefits even for those who might not be immediately or directly affected only because they didn't file a claim. And if the plan excluded some procedures it had previously covered, it would be a reduction/cut in benefits for everyone, even those who didn't have the procedure. Tell ya what, you define "cut" the way you want and we'll work with that definition. But don't take a generic broadly understood term and accept only one very narrow use.
Apples and oranges. SS recipients ARE receiving their benefits and those will not be affected. A change in policy terms is not cutting anything they are receiving. Also, a change in a deductible should have an change in premiums charged for the protection.
. Also, a change in a deductible should have an change in premiums charged for the protection.
Haven't been involved with employee benefits for a while now, I'm guessing. Cost of insurance always goes up. To try to avoid paying more, companies routinely make a decision between raising employee contribution or reducing benefits.
Just wondering, if you can't compare apples to oranges, how would you know the difference between the two?
So I get the impression that the only definition of benefit cut that you'll accept is a direct reduction in cash payment that is being made to Social Security retirement participants who are receiving benefits as of right now. That's a lot like saying the price of gas isn't going up because it hasn't gone up at your station down the street. But, if that's all you want to talk about, then I'll join you in hoping that that benefit is not reduced; however, that is by no means a guarantee, nor would any guarantee provided by this ummm "Administration" be reliable.
. Also, a change in a deductible should have an change in premiums charged for the protection.
Haven't been involved with employee benefits for a while now, I'm guessing. Cost of insurance always goes up. To try to avoid paying more, companies routinely make a decision between raising employee contribution or reducing benefits.
Just wondering, if you can't compare apples to oranges, how would you know the difference between the two?
So I get the impression that the only definition of benefit cut that you'll accept is a direct reduction in cash payment that is being made to Social Security retirement participants who are receiving benefits as of right now. That's a lot like saying the price of gas isn't going up because it hasn't gone up at your station down the street. But, if that's all you want to talk about, then I'll join you in hoping that that benefit is not reduced; however, that is by no means a guarantee, nor would any guarantee provided by this ummm "Administration" be reliable.
You haven't been completely honest with the IRS have you?
Then again, your Superstar Cultmaster and you, both could be lying.
. Also, a change in a deductible should have an change in premiums charged for the protection.
Haven't been involved with employee benefits for a while now, I'm guessing. Cost of insurance always goes up. To try to avoid paying more, companies routinely make a decision between raising employee contribution or reducing benefits.
Just wondering, if you can't compare apples to oranges, how would you know the difference between the two?
So I get the impression that the only definition of benefit cut that you'll accept is a direct reduction in cash payment that is being made to Social Security retirement participants who are receiving benefits as of right now. That's a lot like saying the price of gas isn't going up because it hasn't gone up at your station down the street. But, if that's all you want to talk about, then I'll join you in hoping that that benefit is not reduced; however, that is by no means a guarantee, nor would any guarantee provided by this ummm "Administration" be reliable.
"So I get the impression that the only definition of benefit cut that you'll accept is a direct reduction in cash payment that is being made to Social Security retirement participants who are receiving benefits as of right now."
Correct. If you say the GOP is proposing a different payout to future benefits I would not argue the point. Just don't call it a cut.
That's a hoot that you are still explaining the definition of 'cut'. MAGA literacy.
Yeah, maybe he doesn't understand the term "benefit" has more than one definition. Sure, in social security to " receive benefits" means to get a monthly payment from SSA. But the term also applies rightfully to the overall program as in, " a retirement benefit program." So if he wants to use a very narrow and exclusive definition to be able to defend his fellow Republicans and Trumpsters, fine. But clearly there have been efforts for years to "cut" social security, no matter how you look at it.
That's a hoot that you are still explaining the definition of 'cut'. MAGA literacy.
Yeah, maybe he doesn't understand the term "benefit" has more than one definition. Sure, in social security to " receive benefits" means to get a monthly payment from SSA. But the term also applies rightfully to the overall program as in, " a retirement benefit program." So if he wants to use a very narrow and exclusive definition to be able to defend his fellow Republicans and Trumpsters, fine. But clearly there have been efforts for years to "cut" social security, no matter how you look at it.
