Pence criticizes DeSantis over Disney interference

Of course, in the same breath practically, he supports state interference in local and college education. Then he mischaracterizes the Linn-Mar, Iowa school as allowing a gender transition plan, which does no such thing (it only says the school will respect the student's identity, which is a far cry from surgery). He's as bigoted as ever. He's full of crap. The GOP hasn't been about small government in years. They want government all up in your healthcare autonomy and your education. In the same interview, Pence wants to take down "entitlements" without saying going after social security, which is bull****, because we all pay into that. If we're entitled to it, it's because we've paid for it. I'm well over six figures in SS taxes, so you're damn right I want that back.

Social security is a flawed system in this day and age. Birth rates are declining and average life expectancy has increased. I will be amazed if I see a dime of it back.

Wish the privatization efforts would have panned out 20 years ago, I could have been sitting on a nice chunk by now, instead of pissing it away to the government to manage.

In other news the various politicians are getting more ballsy and creative, hopefully they can aggravate the people enough that they actually get off their butts and do something about it. We see these protests and riots etc, we should be dragging these politicians out and stringing them up. But sadly everyone is so focused on infighting and other pointless endeavors that the people in power want them to be tied up in they don’t have time or energy to see the real issues and causes at hand.

I'm pretty sure "stringing up" anyone is not in fact the way we do things, given due process.

How did the last attempt at dragging politicians out and stringing them up work out?

Due process seems to be working out well, bet the people in East Palastine are happy with due process.

Just saying, maybe its time for a bigger response from the majority, instead of continuing to let the one percenters run the show.

what ever happened to government working for the people, instead of covering for their own interests and those who bribe them.

When I was a kid...I mean really a kid, maybe 11 or 12 years old and had no reason to care about such things, I heard on the radio that Social Security was expected to not be able to make its obligations by 2037.

Over the years, things have been done to try and fix the situation, and yet, every time it's projected when Social Security will be unable to meet its obligations, the date is the same: 2037.

I was born in 1970. Doing the math, that's when I turn 67. Through my entire working life I've been assuming I won't see a dime of the money I have pumped into that legalized ponzi scheme. It annoys me that I won't see any of that money when I retire, and it won't have gone into the funds I will have to live off of.

At least I'll have a pittance of a pension from the first five years at my current job...

--Dave Althoff, Jr.

My goodness. Did this take a real turn back there or am I wrong?

It did. It doesn't seem unusual for c-buzz anymore. There seems to be more talk about politics than coasters or amusement parks. It used to be a special place with great conversations about the amusement industry. It's kinda sad what it's devolved into. It sucks that politics bleeds into and ruins so many great things.

In fairness, this particular thread is specifically about politics. There are other threads that currently have some engagement that are focused only on the rolley coasteys.

Social Security is a popular program despite what a few Republicans say. Even if they did manage to pass legislation to end it, they’ll keep it alive for those of us who have paid into it already because the bill would never pass if they did. I’m cynical about a lot of things but not this.

If it is ended, where would the money come from to "keep it alive"?

RideMan:

I was born in 1970. Doing the math, that's when I turn 67. Through my entire working life I've been assuming I won't see a dime

'69, and (a) I remember hearing the same things over and over and (b) I made the same assumptions and plans. I've been fortunate enough to have an employer with a generous 403b match. We also have some sole-proprietor income, and we max out our SEP contributions every year. It will be nice if social security kicks in a few bucks later, but I am not counting on it.

Bakeman31092:

where would the money come from to "keep it alive"?

The same place all of the other money comes from.

Devolved is correct. This place has become nothing more than an echo chamber where we get to listen to the admin's crappy hot takes on politics

Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees submit reports each year on the solvency of each program. Solvency of each fund varies from year to year somewhat. Its been extended a year or two and then is accelerated a year or two depending on the year. Latest one indicates that social security (on a combined basis in terms of retirement/survivors benefits and disability) is "solvent" until 2035 and Medicare is "solvent" until 2028. Social security would be able to pay about 80% of scheduled benefits with current taxes after 2035. And Medicare would be able to pay about 90% of scheduled benefits after 2028.

https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR...index.html

We have known each program has solvency issues on the horizon but its the third rail of politics in terms of being able to do anything about it. Pushed out retirement age in the 1980s to 67 (for people born in and after 1960). Could do that again but at some point there are limits to how much higher you can increase it. Combo of benefits cuts (hugely unpopular) or tax increases most likely to extend solvency of the programs. And both programs (along with interest costs on debt) are big drivers of deficits/federal debt on long term basis. Costs of addressing issues increases each year and boomers retiring already is a huge missed opportunity.

You know, to bring this back full circle and more on topic. What ever happened with Disney in CA, there was a feud a few years back over their tax status, but I don't recall the outcome. I feel like they are a big enough company that will sway the government as needed.

As far as Florida, why mess with one of your top draws for tourism in the state. Seems silly, I did however read that their tax breaks have been untouched. So it looks to be just Reedy Creek. Who plans to foot the bill if the state takes over the district instead of letting Disney do its thing. I assume taxpayers?

People (including the governor, apparently) don't seem to understand how Disney and Reedy Creek works. DeSantis keeps saying stupid things like "Disney has to pay their fair share of taxes," when in reality, they pay more than they would have to if the district didn't exist. It's the price they pay for controlling infrastructure. They would pay taxes to the counties either way, but with the district, they pay additional "taxes" to the district to pay for the infrastructure. If the district didn't exist, the counties would pick up that cost, and they would pay marginally more to the counties, but none of the district taxes, and probably far less robust infrastructure. So for all the silly criticism of the arrangement, it actually benefits everyone.

extremecoasterdad:

Devolved is correct.

Aw, you're triggered again by people who don't care for bigotry and prefer equality.

What has happened to CoasterBuzz, indeed.

Blackie:

There seems to be more talk about politics than coasters or amusement parks. It used to be a special place with great conversations about the amusement industry.

If Coasterbuzz could support conversations about the amusement industry, those conversations would already be happening.

GoBucks89:

Combo of benefits cuts (hugely unpopular) or tax increases most likely to extend solvency of the programs.

One potential way out (or at least, part of the way out) would be to raise the cap on income subject to social security taxes. That is more targeted than a general increase, and even though I'd be paying more if they did, I'm also supportive of more progressive tax schemes. I won't miss it all that much, but it might help a lot of folks.