Livelystone01:

But it continued right? And by the look of it, nothing will be found.

I think the Dems are smarter than the GOP, the GOP members were played to waste money, time and made them to fool themselves chasing the wind.

Nothing will be found. How did you conclude this. What fo you base this on?

budaatum:
Still sounds like an insurrection to me, unless you are talking about the small group who calmly stood outside eating icecream on the day while some were insurrecting, but that would require the covering of ones eyes in order to only see the icecream eaters and nobody else I would think, and would only be acceptable by those who are determined to believe in conspiracies instead of what we all saw happening live on the day.

During Kavanaugh inquisition, BLM stormed the capitol., Got into offices, etc.
Was that an insurection or is an insurrection the act of protesting voter fraud?

Here at the supreme court.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRnmnxVtDqg

Here they swarm the hearing. Insurrection No?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfWJGTwiP28

basilico:


During Kavanaugh inquisition, BLM stormed the capitol., Got into offices, etc.
Was that an insurection or is an insurrection the act of protesting voter fraud?

They have stopped sponsoring riots all over the country

basilico:


During Kavanaugh inquisition, BLM stormed the capitol., Got into offices, etc.
Was that an insurection or is an insurrection the act of protesting voter fraud?

Here at the supreme court.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRnmnxVtDqg

Here they swarm the hearing. Insurrection No?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfWJGTwiP28

Do you see the Police standing at the door? See how threatened they seem to you and how those protesters are not attacking the police nor the door?

Now post me those at the door on Jan 6 so we can compare please and decide if we are seeing something similar or if one seems more like an insurrection than the other.

Meanwhile, and while you are doing the above,
https://abcnews.go.com/US/false-equivalency-black-lives-matter-capitol-siege-experts/story?id=75251279

basilico:


Amplified by media. Here is the video in full. In context he was saying what most stars do, try to get into as many pants as possible, then go bragging about it to their friends. Human nature , men have done this for eons.
Media had the tape for years and chose the most opportune. time do damage Trump


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhsSzIS84ks


And when you are star they let you do it. You can do anything. Whatever you want.. Grab them by the pusßy...

Does that change anything? Generally stars especially wealthy people have hundreds of ladies wanting them.

"I moved on her and I did try and fuq her", is drumptf talking about what most stars do basilico, or about what he said he did?

Remember now that it is Sunday, our one day of being honest with each other.

budaatum:


"I moved on her and I did try and fuq her", is drumptf talking about what most stars do basilico, or about what he said he did?

Remember now that it is Sunday, our one day of being honest with each other.

Ever heard men bragging about their 'conquests'. Their language is in many cases unprintable.
In this case was a question of getting caught on tape. The guys in the background were laughing loudly.

Locker room talk.

budaatum:


Do you see the Police standing at the door? See how threatened they seem to you and how those protesters are not attacking the police nor the door?

Now post me those at the door on Jan 6 so we can compare please and decide if we are seeing something similar or if one seems more like an insurrection than the other.

Meanwhile, and while you are doing the above,
https://abcnews.go.com/US/false-equivalency-black-lives-matter-capitol-siege-experts/story?id=75251279

An insurrection is a violent protest. Jan 6 there was only one death , a protester shot by a black. I repeat a black cop.
Cops allowing protesters in..

And you need to explain why Trump requested for 5000 National Guard that day, a request that Nancy Pelosi turned down. Why did she turn it down only to call tens of thousands of them the following day. What was her motive. A setup to me it seeems.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lX2gQsQElJY

basilico:


Ever heard men bragging about their 'conquests'. Their language is in many cases unprintable.
In this case was a question of getting caught on tape. The guys in the background were laughing loudly.

Locker room talk.

Budaatum like chasing ambulance so he will never get it. I am sure if trump was grabbing girls by their pussy without consent we would have heard about it long before he ever thought about being the president.

Locker room talk. Nothing to see here

If a white republican does this it will be white power sign. When a Democrat or anyone else do it then it means something nice

budaatum:


"I moved on her and I did try and fuq her", is drumptf talking about what most stars do basilico, or about what he said he did?

Remember now that it is Sunday, our one day of being honest with each other.

Who did not know that Trump made profanity laden speeches long before he won.
Fault his ideas herein a 10 year old speech. Not his f bombs please


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=entZMVV-X6o

benalvino2:


Let's see if...

blacks have tended to have larger families than whites, thereby creating a larger share of taxpayers receiving lower returns on their contributions relative to parent and grandparent beneficiaries who got higher returns.

And?
does this excerpt of yours suddenly support any contrary position you might take? I wonder who liked your post. I wonder, how does that excerpt interpret to you?

Alternatively, these are a few notable highlights

1. Social Security’s pay-as-you-go financing
redistributes from younger to older generations. Benefits are based on earnings history rather than contributions, and each succeeding cohort of workers has faced higher average lifetime OASDI tax
rates than the cohorts already retired.

2. The program’s progressive benefit formula redistributes from high earners to low earners. The first dollar of indexed earnings contributes more to one’s final benefit than the last dollar.

3. Forced annuitization—the requirement
to claim benefits as a perpetual stream of payments on or after reaching the eligibility age rather than as a lump sum—redistributes from those with shorter lifespans to those with longer lifespans because those who live longer in retirement get benefits for more years.

4. DI redistributes from the healthy to the less healthy.

5. Divorce, spousal, and survivor benefits redistributes to married couples from never-married households (and those with marriages too short to qualify for such auxiliary benefits). No additional tax is paid to receive those benefits, and groups with higher proportions of single household heads have less access to them, even though they share in the costs. Spousal and survivor benefits further tend to redistribute “upward” since these “free” additional benefits are not level but roughly proportional to the worker’s benefit, so the biggest winners tend to be those who marry the richest workers.

6. Benefits to dependents of the elderly, disabled, or deceased redistribute from smaller families to larger families. The effect of this is more limited, however, as these dependent (mainlychild) benefits form only a small portion of Social
2006).

7. By crediting only a limited number of years of contributions toward workers’ benefits, Social Security redistributes from longer-term workers (those who work more than 35years) to shorter-term workers (Steuerle and Spiro 1999).

Because of these and other design features, differences among racial and ethnic groups in incomes, life expectancy, years paying tax, and other factors will subject them to multiple progressive and regressive forces. On average, blacks are more likely to be low income and shortlived and are less likely to marry than whites. Blacks also are more likely to be disabled. Given this, one would expect forced annuitization and auxiliary benefits related to marriage and divorce to redistribute from blacks to whites.

DI and a progressive benefit formula, on the other hand, should on net redistribute from whites to blacks. Hispanics, meanwhile, tend to have higher life expectancies and lower disability rates than the general population. However, they tend to have lower educational attainment and wages. Non-native Hispanics tend to have fewer years of earnings covered by Social Security, and some will lack the required 10 years of coverage to qualify for Social Security disability or retirement benefits. Thus, the progressive benefit formula tends to favor those Hispanics eligible for benefits, because of both lower annual income and a lower measured lifetime income due to fewer years of coverage, but disfavor those ineligible for benefits. US-born Hispanics are a much younger population as well, so most working Hispanics have contributed at today’s higher OASDI tax rates, and relatively few contributed at the lower historical rates
Previous research has sorted through some of these relationships and come to the following conclusions:
gave larger absolute transfers net of taxes to upper-income families. When allowing mortality to vary by income, the disparities in net OASI transfers increased further for stylized high and low income
households. On the basis of net transfers, then, in the early generations OASI was regressive at least for stylized households.
Projected increases in progressivity were primarily the result of lower net transfers for high income groups, not higher net transfers for low income groups (Steuerle and Bakija1994).

•Using the Modeling Income in Near Term (MINT) model, Steuerle, Carasso, and Cohen (2004a) examined internal rates of return as a measure of progressivity in Social Security, first only under OASI. They found that higher benefits under the system’s progressive benefit formula did not significantly raise returns for high mortality, low education, and low income groups, among which minorities have high representation relative to their proportion in the overall population.
Roughly speaking, the two biggest redistributive factors—the progressivity induced by the benefit formula and the regressivity induced by annuitization offset each other. When analysis was expanded to include DI (Steuerle, Carasso, andCohen 2004b), some progressivity was restored to the system, especially for blackmen. However, black and Hispanic women in the 1931–40 and 1956-64 birth cohorts received lower rates of return than white women under both OASI and OASDI (Cohorts between 1940 and 1954 were not shown.) •ACBO (2006) study showed how life-time benefit to tax ratios vary with lifetime household earnings in the 1960s birth cohort. Its results confirmed overall worker benefits.
Others have analyzed how these redistributions play out in the living standards of retirees. Recent studies have found that certain subpopulations of Social Security beneficiaries remain vulnerable to poverty in old age. Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians (another high recent-immigration group) have lower Social Security wealth and median payouts than whites, even as some of those groups rely more heavily on Social Security for income security in retirement (Bridges and Choudhury 2009). Poverty rates remain high for the unmarried over 65—those widowed, divorced, or never married. Poverty rates for both minority men and women over age 65 are between 10 and 20 percentage points higher than for their white counterparts (Favreault and Mermin 2008)

These findings illustrate the limits of trying to assess the progressivity of Social Security based solely on a single factor, particularly the progressive benefit formula that guarantees higher replacement rates for lower wage workers. Someone also must pay for the regressive portions of the system, whether due to the higher net benefits for the richer members of early generations; the differential mortality that pays more benefits to longer lived, high income beneficiaries; or the design of spousal and survivor benefits that pays higher benefits to non working spouses of high income workers.

None of these analyses looks at redistributions from a multigenerational family perspective. To simplify matters, think of a two family economy where both families have equal earnings. Family A, with two living parents and have three children and family B with two living parents and only one child, when the families get older they create a social compact to support both sets of parents, and they do this by assessing all four children equally. Looking at this compact multigenerationally, Family A, which pays the benefits for its own parents and one of Family B’s as well, redistributes substantial amounts to Family B. Even if the four children later all got equal benefits, Family B is permanently ahead.
Of course, Social Security is much more complex, as it contains many of the other types of redistributions discussed above. But, in some respects, it operated at its beginning like the simplistic model noted above. The first (parent) generation or two paid very little in tax at low rates for a few years, so most of its Social Security benefits were nearly pure transfers from the next generations. But then the process continued. Succeeding generations also got increases in benefits for which they contributed little or nothing for only a portion of their careers. For instance, as noted in the intergenerational literature cited, a benefit increase financed by an across-the-board tax rate increase meant that someone age 50 would pay at the higher rate for at most 15years if retiring at age 65, whereas someone age 20 would pay at the higher rate for as much as 45 years. These successive windfalls continued to redistribute among families of different sizes when considered multigenerationally. Children of larger families were left paying higher tax rates for the benefits of both their parents and the parents of smaller families.
If the system had somehow only provided windfalls to the first generation, then the transfers from smaller to larger families might have been limited or might have been offset through other redistributive forces. This is not what happened, largely because new windfalls kept being created and paid for by taxes assessed disproportionately on succeeding generations

benalvino2:


Budaatum like chasing ambulance so he will never get it. I am sure if trump was grabbing girls by their pussy without consent we would have heard about it long before he ever thought about being the president.

Locker room talk. Nothing to see here

but we did hear about it, didn't we?

basilico:


An insurrection is a violent protest. Jan 6 there was only one death , a protester shot by a black. I repeat a black cop.
Cops allowing protesters in..

And you need to explain why Trump requested for 5000 National Guard that day, a request that Nancy Pelosi turned down. Why did she turn it down only to call tens of thousands of them the following day. What was her motive. A setup to me it seeems.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lX2gQsQElJY

are you sure congressional republicans have this evidence? If yes then why did they vote against a bipartisan enquiry into the insurrection where they'd have had the chance to present this evidence?
Your arguments most times are much ado about nothing. A big great nothing burger

AmazonTopaz:


Imagine seeing people like Peterson,Stowell and Owens as geniuses they are only geniuses to dull people even the white supremacists they try to please don't see them as such but they are seen as useful idiots to feel good about their racism.

Genuises it can never be intelligent people like me only dull people will see it that way.



*Spits*

Culver itching girl.

Go back to the ashawo beer parlour thread you came from.

You're not intelligent, except you're equating frustrated outbursts as intelligence

basilico:


Who did not know that Trump made profanity laden speeches long before he won.
Fault his ideas herein a 10 year old speech. Not his f bombs please

https://youtu.be/en tZMVV-X6o

Because he is the incompetent fool that he is half a million Americans died on his watch bas, and that is enough for me to not vote for him apart from everything else I found disturbing about him even before that many people started dying.

A person who boasts that he can get away with killing people on the streets of New York should not get a second term nor get away with it, and America have thankfully decided at the ballot box that he definitely shouldn't and wouldn't and isn't getting away with it by kicking his orange turdy ass out of the White House, which must be hurting him like hell because he only got to serve half the amount of time his nemesis Obama served.

basilico:


An insurrection is a violent protest. Jan 6 there was only one death , a protester shot by a black. I repeat a black cop.
Cops allowing protesters in..

And how many deaths were there at the Kavanaugh protests again, shot by any cop, I forget?

GalaticHorde:
but we did hear about it, didn't we?

Citation please

benalvino2:
If a white republican does this it will be white power sign. When a Democrat or anyone else do it then it means something nice

This would confuse you.

GalaticHorde:

And?
does this excerpt of yours suddenly support any contrary position you might take? I wonder who liked your post. I wonder, how does that excerpt interpret to you?

Alternatively, these are a few notable highlights

1. Social Security’s pay-as-you-go financing
redistributes from younger to older generations. Benefits are based on earnings history rather than contributions, and each succeeding cohort of workers has faced higher average lifetime OASDI tax
rates than the cohorts already retired.

2. The program’s progressive benefit formula redistributes from high earners to low earners. The first dollar of indexed earnings contributes more to one’s final benefit than the last dollar.

3. Forced annuitization—the requirement
to claim benefits as a perpetual stream of payments on or after reaching the eligibility age rather than as a lump sum—redistributes from those with shorter lifespans to those with longer lifespans because those who live longer in retirement get benefits for more years.

4. DI redistributes from the healthy to the less healthy.

5. Divorce, spousal, and survivor benefits redistributes to married couples from never-married households (and those with marriages too short to qualify for such auxiliary benefits). No additional tax is paid to receive those benefits, and groups with higher proportions of single household heads have less access to them, even though they share in the costs. Spousal and survivor benefits further tend to redistribute “upward” since these “free” additional benefits are not level but roughly proportional to the worker’s benefit, so the biggest winners tend to be those who marry the richest workers.

6. Benefits to dependents of the elderly, disabled, or deceased redistribute from smaller families to larger families. The effect of this is more limited, however, as these dependent (mainlychild) benefits form only a small portion of Social
2006).

7. By crediting only a limited number of years of contributions toward workers’ benefits, Social Security redistributes from longer-term workers (those who work more than 35years) to shorter-term workers (Steuerle and Spiro 1999).

[b][/b]

DI and a progressive benefit formula, on the other hand, should on net redistribute from whites to blacks. Hispanics, meanwhile, tend to have higher life expectancies and lower disability rates than the general population. However, they tend to have lower educational attainment and wages. Non-native Hispanics tend to have fewer years of earnings covered by Social Security, and some will lack the required 10 years of coverage to qualify for Social Security disability or retirement benefits. Thus, the progressive benefit formula tends to favor those Hispanics eligible for benefits, because of both lower annual income and a lower measured lifetime income due to fewer years of coverage, but disfavor those ineligible for benefits. US-born Hispanics are a much younger population as well, so most working Hispanics have contributed at today’s higher OASDI tax rates, and relatively few contributed at the lower historical rates
Previous research has sorted through some of these relationships and come to the following conclusions:
gave larger absolute transfers net of taxes to upper-income families. When allowing mortality to vary by income, the disparities in net OASI transfers increased further for stylized high and low income
households. On the basis of net transfers, then, in the early generations OASI was regressive at least for stylized households.
Projected increases in progressivity were primarily the result of lower net transfers for high income groups, not higher net transfers for low income groups (Steuerle and Bakija1994).

•Using the Modeling Income in Near Term (MINT) model, Steuerle, Carasso, and Cohen (2004a) examined internal rates of return as a measure of progressivity in Social Security, first only under OASI. They found that higher benefits under the system’s progressive benefit formula did not significantly raise returns for high mortality, low education, and low income groups, among which minorities have high representation relative to their proportion in the overall population.
Roughly speaking, the two biggest redistributive factors—the progressivity induced by the benefit formula and the regressivity induced by annuitization offset each other. When analysis was expanded to include DI (Steuerle, Carasso, andCohen 2004b), some progressivity was restored to the system, especially for blackmen. However, black and Hispanic women in the 1931–40 and 1956-64 birth cohorts received lower rates of return than white women under both OASI and OASDI (Cohorts between 1940 and 1954 were not shown.) •ACBO (2006) study showed how life-time benefit to tax ratios vary with lifetime household earnings in the 1960s birth cohort. Its results confirmed overall worker benefits.
Others have analyzed how these redistributions play out in the living standards of retirees. Recent studies have found that certain subpopulations of Social Security beneficiaries remain vulnerable to poverty in old age. Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians (another high recent-immigration group) have lower Social Security wealth and median payouts than whites, even as some of those groups rely more heavily on Social Security for income security in retirement (Bridges and Choudhury 2009). Poverty rates remain high for the unmarried over 65—those widowed, divorced, or never married. Poverty rates for both minority men and women over age 65 are between 10 and 20 percentage points higher than for their white counterparts (Favreault and Mermin 2008)

These findings illustrate the limits of trying to assess the progressivity of Social Security based solely on a single factor, particularly the progressive benefit formula that guarantees higher replacement rates for lower wage workers. Someone also must pay for the regressive portions of the system, whether due to the higher net benefits for the richer members of early generations; the differential mortality that pays more benefits to longer lived, high income beneficiaries; or the design of spousal and survivor benefits that pays higher benefits to non working spouses of high income workers.

None of these analyses looks at redistributions from a multigenerational family perspective. To simplify matters, think of a two family economy where both families have equal earnings. Family A, with two living parents and have three children and family B with two living parents and only one child, when the families get older they create a social compact to support both sets of parents, and they do this by assessing all four children equally. Looking at this compact multigenerationally, Family A, which pays the benefits for its own parents and one of Family B’s as well, redistributes substantial amounts to Family B. Even if the four children later all got equal benefits, Family B is permanently ahead.
Of course, Social Security is much more complex, as it contains many of the other types of redistributions discussed above. But, in some respects, it operated at its beginning like the simplistic model noted above. The first (parent) generation or two paid very little in tax at low rates for a few years, so most of its Social Security benefits were nearly pure transfers from the next generations. But then the process continued. Succeeding generations also got increases in benefits for which they contributed little or nothing for only a portion of their careers. For instance, as noted in the intergenerational literature cited, a benefit increase financed by an across-the-board tax rate increase meant that someone age 50 would pay at the higher rate for at most 15years if retiring at age 65, whereas someone age 20 would pay at the higher rate for as much as 45 years. These successive windfalls continued to redistribute among families of different sizes when considered multigenerationally. Children of larger families were left paying higher tax rates for the benefits of both their parents and the parents of smaller families.
If the system had somehow only provided windfalls to the first generation, then the transfers from smaller to larger families might have been limited or might have been offset through other redistributive forces. This is not what happened, largely because new windfalls kept being created and paid for by taxes assessed disproportionately on succeeding generations

Lol. I set a trap and he fell for it. I said let's see if...

If I complete the above it would be lets see if he understood or even read the pdf he presented. So I took a portion from the link or pdf he provide and just present it as my argument.

And behold, he disagrees with it

He disagrees with a portion in the article explaining what he claims.

If you read the pdf you will see that he made it white vs blacks neglecting Hispanics, immigrants etc.

budaatum:


Because he is the incompetent fool that he is half a million Americans died on his watch bas, and that is enough for me to not vote for him apart from everything else I found disturbing about him even before that many people started dying.

A person who boasts that he can get away with killing people on the streets of New York should not get a second term nor get away with it, and America have thankfully decided at the ballot box that he definitely shouldn't and wouldn't and isn't getting away with it by kicking his orange turdy ass out of the White House, which must be hurting him like hell because he only got to serve half the amount of time his nemesis Obama served.

GalaticHorde:
are you sure congressional republicans have this evidence? If yes then why did they vote against a bipartisan enquiry into the insurrection where they'd have had the chance to present this evidence?
Your arguments most times are much ado about nothing. A big great nothing burger

The commission is political
Designed to keep the spotlight on Trump and his followers. Subpoena everyone , leak to media, lead witnesses to perjure themselves.
Hundreds in jail some in solitary because they entered the capitol. Meanwhile Guantanamo terrorists are about to be freed.

budaatum:


And how many deaths were there at the Kavanaugh protests again, shot by any cop, I forget?

Jan 6 One Unarmed protester dead. Shot by a cop with no prior warning. DoJ refused to prosecute the case

budaatum:


Because he is the incompetent fool that he is half a million Americans died on his watch bas, and that is enough for me to not vote for him apart from everything else I found disturbing about him even before that many people started dying.

A person who boasts that he can get away with killing people on the streets of New York should not get a second term nor get away with it, and America have thankfully decided at the ballot box that he definitely shouldn't and wouldn't and isn't getting away with it by kicking his orange turdy ass out of the White House, which must be hurting him like hell because he only got to serve half the amount of time his nemesis Obama served.

Falling for the media again about shooting
He and I watched said he is seeing such great positive response to his agenda that if he shot someone in broad daylight, his supporters would not desert him.

Maybe you can explain why news of the vaccine to covid-19 was released after Joe Biden was declared the disputed winner.

basilico:

Jan 6 One dead. Shot by a cop. DoJ refused to prosecute the case

Good riddance to bad rubbish. She is a dumbass that got shot for being foolish. You don't break into people's house let alone the capitol.

I know you would go ahead and call NY Post never trumpers just as you called the Hills never trumpers.

Tdotbluejays1:

Good riddance to bad rubbish. She is a dumbass that got shot for being foolish. You don't break into people's house let alone the capitol.

I know you would go ahead and call NY Post never trumpers just as you called the Hills never trumpers.

BLM burnt down a hell lotto buildings Where is the commission

Tdotbluejays1:

Good riddance to bad rubbish. She is a dumbass that got shot for being foolish. You don't break into people's house let alone the capitol.

I know you would go ahead and call NY Post never trumpers just as you called the Hills never trumpers.

The same person who was defending a girl that tried to kill another girl in front of a police, the same person who defends antifa, the same person who hates Kyle Rittenhouse for defending himself from his potential murderers. But because someone from trump's camp was killed by the police, the person is a terrorist and all kinds of bad character

basilico:


Falling for the media again about shooting
He and I watched said he is seeing such great positive response to his agenda that if he shot someone in broad daylight, his supporters would not desert him.

Maybe you can explain why news of the vaccine to covid-19 was released after Joe Biden was declared the disputed winner.

More conspiracy theory eh.

benalvino2:


The same person who was defending a girl that tried to kill another girl in front of a police, the same person who defends antifa, the same person who hates Kyle Rittenhouse for defending himself from his potential murderers. But because someone from trump's camp was killed by the police, the person is a terrorist and all kinds of bad character

Deflection as usual.

basilico:


Falling for the media again about shooting
He and I watched said he is seeing such great positive response to his agenda that if he shot someone in broad daylight, his supporters would not desert him.

Maybe you can explain why news of the vaccine to covid-19 was released after Joe Biden was declared the disputed winner.

You keep avoiding my questions and changing the topic of discussion. Do you not see how inept your drumptf must be if as President of the USA he could ​not even get departments he presides over to release news of the vaccine to COVID-19?

All he had to do was call a press conference to show himself receiving the vaccine, but did he not receive it in secret whilst telling his magas not to receive it at all even, because Gates was trying to chip them with 5G and they should do something with bleach instead?

Go on, remind me of the kraken you were peddling for him at the time because I sure have difficulty keeping up with all your conspiracies!

Tdotbluejays1:

Kyle was not defending his house dumb as

You call me dumb as. You can protect your home not your life right? You are the dumbass

Tdotbluejays1:

More conspiracy theory eh.

Getting the wrong point. I asked why they deciared the vaccine news after the elections. Trump had said there would be a vaxx before the end of the year but media disapproved him repeatedly.

basilico:


BLM burnt down a hell lotto buildings Where is the commission

Hell lotto buildings?
Could have been the umbrella man.

Hell lotto building NOT capitol Building.

Oya start defending your white supremacist below.