Remember, sharpening the Guillotine is for the benefit of the guillotinee, not the user.

This is like the opposite of when people complain that when ever anyone tries to talk about women issues, men have to suddenly make it about them. I don’t know why this has to be a zero sum event here.

That’s what we said last time, and we are still paying for it. We can’t rely on that to save democracy. Though neither can we trust democrats.

Running Kamala Harris is a good start!

I’m not voting democrat again, so they can run her without me.

You got it backwards. He said he would bet that the republicans would wait till 40%, wile democrats are at 27%…. So even when trump gets below 40, the democrats will do nothing and sit there preparing their “i told you so speech” assuming that some republicans will walk over to them to receive it. He is playing completely passive.

No party has a vested interest in bleeding political power to another. You have to take control of the Democratic party first

They are not alone in this thought.

What is this? A stuffed crust commercial? Who eats pizza from the outside in? The reaper will completely mar your capability to taste the other layers of hell’!

I know of three attempts in less then a year. One success

They would rather usher the death of their site then allow someone to answer a question on their watch, it’s true.

You are arguing against claims I never made.

I didn’t say 401(k)s are the primary method for everyone, but for those who have them, they are a primary tool for closing the gap Social Security leaves. The fact that not everyone has one doesn’t change that reality. The discussion is about that gap, not whether 401(k)s should replace Social Security.

You’re shifting the goalposts. The issue isn’t whether the stock market has been in a bull run—it’s that wages haven’t kept up with inflation or the cost of living, making retirement savings difficult for many. A strong market doesn’t erase the fact that people still struggle to save enough.

Again I never argued against the importance of social security, just that it’s insufficient. You are trying to sell Social Security as if I claimed it shouldn’t exist, which I didn’t. It’s already factored into retirement plans, meaning it’s not an additional source of funds—it’s the baseline. That’s why bringing it up as if it changes the discussion is moot.

Whether Musk’s attempts to undermine Social Security are ‘illegal’ is irrelevant to the point that he is trying to do it. Saying I ‘bought into a theory’ when he’s explicitly stated his position is just a weak deflection.

I don’t know why you are talking as if i think social security should be removed. I have already said that Its not enough there has to be more. Sure its important to be there. But because it’s not capable of sustaining the elderly, a 401k is a primary method to pay the gap. This whole discussion is that gap, and is why in this discussion about 401k bringing up social security is moot. I do not know why you are trying to sell how important it is, when bringing it up in the first place does not effect the discussion about 401k at all. It’s already been factored in to available funds to retire on, you can’t invoke it a second time

I am not the one who put social security on the chopping block, Elon Musk is. Go talk to him about social security.

Yes.

I am not against making the wealthy pay more in social security as they uniquely benefit from the exploitation of the average workers.

i am not saying social security isn’t important. I am saying that in a discussion about the risk to the 401k, mentioning social security is irrelevant. Social security has already failed to cover expenses, the 401k was to cover that gap. And in the future social security will get weaker, as ‘40%’ of wages which have been stagnant, refuse to keep up with inflation. They make tax payers pay for the lack of funds to maintain the ‘40%’? Cool, but that does not cover the growing gap the 401k needs to cover.

I agree with that, or a ubi, or taxing the rich. All that jazz

You would have the tax payers pay even more of the burden now, with out the benefit of even having it contribute to their social security… to pay the gap in social security, damning the tax payers twice. That’s not a permanent solution on top of that! I’m not saying social security should be attached to the market. I mean we are talking about the market fall after all! I am saying that being flippant that everyone Just needs to remember they have social security is dismissive and not relevant.

You are being untruthful and dismissive: https://www.ssa.gov/oact/tr/2024/tr2024.pdf Page 9 is the jist.

They are going to have to change something either raise the retirement age or lower the payments both which make it more unobtainable then it already is. And that 40% is based what people make… in a time of rising inflation and stagnant wages…

The fact that social security is not tied to the market is super irrelevant, when the argument was that the 401k is in danger, when social security already is not enough to live on. so it’s important that people have a successful 401k to supplement it.

Social security is not enough to live off of. Is projected to be unobtainable for future generations who are paying into it, and is currently on the chopping block

Or charge them after midnight