It is important to remember that Republicans (and a certain Democrat) support means testing as the initial salvo in ending programs completely. It is far easier to decrease funding for or completely eliminate a program when those that benefit have little or no political influence (e.g., those living at or below the poverty limit). Social Security and Medicare benefit everyone and both have tremendous support among voters. Changing them into programs that only benefit a portion of the population through means testing makes them far easier to attack.
The "Greatest Generation" never really existed - that is, the name was sent back in time so to speak because of the title of a book by Tom Brokaw. Before that book that name was never used. Idiot demographers like to use bullshit names so they can congratulate themselves and fellate each other.
Other rime example - baby boomers - the majority of people the demogaphers place in that category were NOT born because of a baby boom from soldiers returing from WWII, The years are 1946-1964, and I can assure you that people born in 1964 and 1964, or 1955 for that matter have very few things in common.
"She's not all Amurican"....yep, that would be right-winger logic...(Even though TWO of Senator Duckworth's ancestors fought for the USA in the Revolutionary War.)
or expand the scope of the military.for example they could be trained to put out forest firesdeal with floods and tornado damageHelp rebuild cities and farms.restart factories and distributions,treat the sickprovide for the homeless.
You are talking about a recurring strip within a strip that is run occasioanlly in Ruben Bolling's "Tom The Dancind Bug" which is run weekly and is great even when not using "Lucky Ducky".
Does this answer Trump's musing about "what's in it for them"? That sweet $6920/year? The tax system *is* broken and inequitable. That Fox examines that with screeching about Duckworth while ignoring the billionaire caucus is just their bottom line mendacity.
The problem is that the policy is based upon a false choice driven by exceptional circumstances that might not even actually exist and disguise the real motive (asset and wealth protection)
The unasked question is why do we want that 85 year old to remain in a house that likely is poorly suited to meet current needs? Is it to serve the interests of the 85 year old or the interests of the heirs of the 85 year old?
Take a typical suburban house - two floors, about 2000 square feet, good sized yard, valued at about $300,000 - let's say the 85 year old got the home new at the age of 25 - 60 years ago - there is at least $250,000 in equity - the home therefore is aging and has extensive upkeep needs. Does it actually serve the interest of the 85 year old to stay there rather then selling the home and moving to a smaller one level place with maintenance included and no yard? Probably not. But that would cost the heirs a huge chunk of change.
The tax breaks for elderly exist because of flawed (and racist) policy choices made in the 1940s to promote home ownership by white people. They also exist because of tax policy choices that make selling homes to downsize when appropriate exist. They don't fix anything - they are ultimately a huge giveaway to the haves at the expense of the have nots.
And yeah, you're hypothetical 85 year old in the average home with a quarter mill in equity and pensions/investments/Social Security that comes from always having been comfortable won't end up homeless - the 25 year old renting because houses are too expensive because we value keeping well off retirees in homes that don't meet their current needs so they can leave then to their children more than affordable housing might.
They're fine with the RIGHT KIND of disabled veteran. <<dogwhistle>> Which Duckworth is not.
It is important to remember that Republicans (and a certain Democrat) support means testing as the initial salvo in ending programs completely. It is far easier to decrease funding for or completely eliminate a program when those that benefit have little or no political influence (e.g., those living at or below the poverty limit). Social Security and Medicare benefit everyone and both have tremendous support among voters. Changing them into programs that only benefit a portion of the population through means testing makes them far easier to attack.
Original Meaning of The Post.A safe place.a fortan outpoost,town or village, or ship.
The "Greatest Generation" never really existed - that is, the name was sent back in time so to speak because of the title of a book by Tom Brokaw. Before that book that name was never used. Idiot demographers like to use bullshit names so they can congratulate themselves and fellate each other.
Other rime example - baby boomers - the majority of people the demogaphers place in that category were NOT born because of a baby boom from soldiers returing from WWII, The years are 1946-1964, and I can assure you that people born in 1964 and 1964, or 1955 for that matter have very few things in common.
The parties were differentWE had hawks and doves in both parties.Race separated the two parties.
Integration v segregation.We are integrated today by lawbut still segregated defacto.
And there you have the economic gap.right down spit between black and white.not much vertical integration.
bubble up v trickle down, still today.Except now, the middle class is eroding into poverty.
"She's not all Amurican"....yep, that would be right-winger logic...(Even though TWO of Senator Duckworth's ancestors fought for the USA in the Revolutionary War.)
or expand the scope of the military.for example they could be trained to put out forest firesdeal with floods and tornado damageHelp rebuild cities and farms.restart factories and distributions,treat the sickprovide for the homeless.
WE could hire and hire.
You are talking about a recurring strip within a strip that is run occasioanlly in Ruben Bolling's "Tom The Dancind Bug" which is run weekly and is great even when not using "Lucky Ducky".
She makes me proud that i am also American.
Never had children.
Ever been a kid?
None of the guys who came back wanted more of it.
"But those other ancestors, they worked for the Chinese Commies!"Yes, I know her heritage is part Thai, but I'm sure they don't.
They won't - they will become more Madison Cawthorns.
Does this answer Trump's musing about "what's in it for them"? That sweet $6920/year? The tax system *is* broken and inequitable. That Fox examines that with screeching about Duckworth while ignoring the billionaire caucus is just their bottom line mendacity.
The problem is that the policy is based upon a false choice driven by exceptional circumstances that might not even actually exist and disguise the real motive (asset and wealth protection)
The unasked question is why do we want that 85 year old to remain in a house that likely is poorly suited to meet current needs? Is it to serve the interests of the 85 year old or the interests of the heirs of the 85 year old?
Take a typical suburban house - two floors, about 2000 square feet, good sized yard, valued at about $300,000 - let's say the 85 year old got the home new at the age of 25 - 60 years ago - there is at least $250,000 in equity - the home therefore is aging and has extensive upkeep needs. Does it actually serve the interest of the 85 year old to stay there rather then selling the home and moving to a smaller one level place with maintenance included and no yard? Probably not. But that would cost the heirs a huge chunk of change.
The tax breaks for elderly exist because of flawed (and racist) policy choices made in the 1940s to promote home ownership by white people. They also exist because of tax policy choices that make selling homes to downsize when appropriate exist. They don't fix anything - they are ultimately a huge giveaway to the haves at the expense of the have nots.
And yeah, you're hypothetical 85 year old in the average home with a quarter mill in equity and pensions/investments/Social Security that comes from always having been comfortable won't end up homeless - the 25 year old renting because houses are too expensive because we value keeping well off retirees in homes that don't meet their current needs so they can leave then to their children more than affordable housing might.
Higher taxes because:Multimillion dollar churches pay no taxesMillionaire Preachers pay no taxes