Hot Topic: Social Security

FutureNomad said:

So even the OP was aimed at "other party". Yet, it is allowed to remain. I'd be more than happy to discuss this in PM. I'm new here and just trying to figure out "the rules".

Click to expand...

I don't know what's going on with this '''other party"' stuff, but the basics are don't be rude to other folks... it's okay to argue, but in a friendly manner without trashing each other. Try to keep politics out of it if possible, and if you have to, keep it civil and to a minimum. You can get in trouble really fast talking about politics, even if others are doing it. A lot of this seems silly, but I have run forums and still have a gaming forum; it's not fun; human nature, unchained, is a frightening thing to behold. Good luck.

Cajunwolf said:

I don't know what's going on with this '''other party"' stuff, but the basics are don't be rude to other folks... it's okay to argue, but in a friendly manner without trashing each other. Try to keep politics out of it if possible, and if you have to, keep it civil and to a minimum. You can get in trouble really fast talking about politics, even if others are doing it. A lot of this seems silly, but I have run forums and still have a gaming forum; it's not fun; human nature, unchained, is a frightening thing to behold. Good luck.

Click to expand...

My replies that were deleted were not aimed at any person, not even the OPer. I merely corrected a long running misleading lie that was being repeated by the OP. It's not their fault, it's what's fed to us. I'd be glad to explain further in a PM but if I go into anymore detail in here it will probably get deleted again. Even though like 90% of the posts in this thread are way more political than mine were.

I'm fine with leaving politics out of it, but I'm not fine with that rule only being applied to one side of the political spectrum.

FutureNomad said:

My replies that were deleted were not aimed at any person, not even the OPer. I merely corrected a long running misleading lie that was being repeated by the OP. It's not their fault, it's what's fed to us. I'd be glad to explain further in a PM but if I go into anymore detail in here it will probably get deleted again. Even though like 90% of the posts in this thread are way more political than mine were.

I'm fine with leaving politics out of it, but I'm not fine with that rule only being applied to one side of the political spectrum.

Click to expand...

I even created a whole new thread and purposely avoided any reference to either political party, I just corrected the misleading information. Guess it didn't fit into the moderators political views either because that whole thread just got deleted too.

I merged the new thread into the existing thread.

Opening a new hot topic thread about an already existing hot topic thread will not solve the problem. It's just more work for us all to jump around and figure out what to post and where to post it.

It's always a mod's judgement call when removing comments, and despite suggestions to the contrary, we don't delete comments because we dont agree with them. Comments get deleted when they disparage ANY group of people, because of ANY criteria the commenter is using.

In the first post the OP mentioned the new house majority and I quote:

"Right away,the new house majority declares their intention to cut Social Security and Medicare.How are us poor folks going to survive?"

That is not a disparaging post, any more than saying "the DOT is declaring they wont fix bridges anymore" as an example. It may or may not be acccurate, so that is for all of our members to discuss. In a civil manner.

But a claim that the "so and so party" is 'lying' or that "so and so party" is ruining the country or anything similar will get removed. And yes, we can't catch every single transgression, so that is why there is a 'Report' button.

Please keep it civil. We'd hate to close the thread based on a few impassioned members expressing their frustrations here.

tx2sturgis said:

I merged the new thread into the existing thread.

Opening a new hot topic thread about an already existing hot topic thread will not solve the problem. It's just more work for us all to jump around and figure out what to post and where to post it.

It's always a mod's judgement call when removing comments, and despite suggestions to the contrary, we don't delete comments because we dont agree with them. Comments get deleted when they disparage ANY group of people, because of ANY criteria the commenter is using.

In the first post the OP mentioned the new house majority and I quote:

"Right away,the new house majority declares their intention to cut Social Security and Medicare.How are us poor folks going to survive?"

That is not a disparaging post, any more than saying "the DOT is declaring they wont fix bridges anymore" as an example.

But a claim that the "so and so party" is 'lying' or that "so and so party" is ruining the country or anything similar will get removed.

Please keep it civil. We'd hate to close the thread based on a few impassioned members expressing their frustrations here.

Click to expand...

So just because the OP didn't specifically use the word "Republican" but made it obvious that's who they were talking about it's ok?

Show me anywhere in the posts you deleted of mine where I "disparage any group of people".

Maybe if I said, "the people that use the donkey as a mascot" instead of saying "Democrat" it would have been ok?

tx2sturgis said:

I merged the new thread into the existing thread.

Opening a new hot topic thread about an already existing hot topic thread will not solve the problem. It's just more work for us all to jump around and figure out what to post and where to post it.

It's always a mod's judgement call when removing comments, and despite suggestions to the contrary, we don't delete comments because we dont agree with them. Comments get deleted when they disparage ANY group of people, because of ANY criteria the commenter is using.

In the first post the OP mentioned the new house majority and I quote:

"Right away,the new house majority declares their intention to cut Social Security and Medicare.How are us poor folks going to survive?"

That is not a disparaging post, any more than saying "the DOT is declaring they wont fix bridges anymore" as an example.

But a claim that the "so and so party" is 'lying' or that "so and so party" is ruining the country or anything similar will get removed.

Please keep it civil. We'd hate to close the thread based on a few impassioned members expressing their frustrations here.

Click to expand...

And by the way, I tried to move this discussion in private instead of airing it in this thread. YOU are the one choosing to air it out in here instead of PM.

FutureNomad said:

My replies that were deleted were not aimed at any person, not even the OPer. I merely corrected a long running misleading lie that was being repeated by the OP. It's not their fault, it's what's fed to us. I'd be glad to explain further in a PM but if I go into anymore detail in here it will probably get deleted again. Even though like 90% of the posts in this thread are way more political than mine were.

I'm fine with leaving politics out of it, but I'm not fine with that rule only being applied to one side of the political spectrum.

Click to expand...

Sometimes it's better to understand that many feel as you do and feel as they do. Still, most keep it to themselves to avoid negative attention from rabid posters, and moderators, depending on how many mods are "at work" (it's usually 99% voluntary), are following many threads, often missing the context of some, but there's a fire that needs putting out; dump a bucket of water on it so that you can chase two more is often the reality. Mistakes are made; it is what it is, and nothing is ever perfect.

lol...I've been too busy on the public facing side of the forum to answer all of the incoming private messages. I will try to type faster.

tx2sturgis said:

lol...I've been too busy on the public facing side of the forum to answer all of the incoming private messages. I will try to type faster.

Click to expand...

Don't bother. The way you are responding to me in here I doubt a PM discussion would do any good.

FutureNomad said:

Yes, they want to change SS. But those changes would be for younger workers who just started paying into the system. Everyone keeps wanting Congress to "save SS", yet whenever a Congressmen/party proposes a solution it's met with these misleading lies. I would be more specific, but I've already had some of my posts deleted by the bias moderators.

If you are on SS or about to become eligible... there are no plans to change what you will receive... NONE.

Click to expand...

The highlighted comment above does not correspond to the statements of some GOP Senators or Congressmen. Senators Johnson and Scott have suggested subjecting social security and medicare to "renewal votes" in Congress, which could affect people currently receiving benefits, not just "younger workers." ("Mr. Biden and other Democrats have also criticized a plan from Senator Rick Scott of Florida, the chairman of the Senate Republicans’ campaign arm, who has proposed subjecting nearly all federal spending programs to a renewal vote every five years. Like Mr. Johnson’s plan, that would make Medicare and Social Security more vulnerable to budget cuts." and "Mr. Johnson has proposed subjecting Social Security and Medicare to annual congressional spending bills instead of operating essentially on autopilot as they do now. That would leave the programs susceptible to Washington’s frequent and fraught debates over funding the government, making it more difficult for retirees to count on a steady stream of benefits." Republicans, Eyeing Majority, Float Changes to Social Security and Medicare ).

SLB_SA said:

The highlighted comment above does not correspond to the statements of some GOP Senators or Congressmen. Senators Johnson and Scott have suggested subjecting social security and medicare to "renewal votes" in Congress, which could affect people currently receiving benefits, not just "younger workers." ("Mr. Biden and other Democrats have also criticized a plan from Senator Rick Scott of Florida, the chairman of the Senate Republicans’ campaign arm, who has proposed subjecting nearly all federal spending programs to a renewal vote every five years. Like Mr. Johnson’s plan, that would make Medicare and Social Security more vulnerable to budget cuts." and "Mr. Johnson has proposed subjecting Social Security and Medicare to annual congressional spending bills instead of operating essentially on autopilot as they do now. That would leave the programs susceptible to Washington’s frequent and fraught debates over funding the government, making it more difficult for retirees to count on a steady stream of benefits." Republicans, Eyeing Majority, Float Changes to Social Security and Medicare ).

Click to expand...

I'd be happy to explain myself in a PM. I'm not posting anything else on this thread.

FutureNomad said:

I'd be happy to explain myself in a PM. I'm not posting anything else on this thread.

Click to expand...

I was posting to everyone else (i.e. not you) to inform them that your statement might be incorrect. I have no information that the leadership of the GOP plans to modify social security or medicare benefits of current recipients but some GOP leaders (senators or congressmen) have suggested actions which could lead to benefit cuts to current recipients. With the rapidity of political change, people in Congress not currently in the leadership could become the majority leader of the Senate or the Speaker of the House in a few years. If voters are informed of the possible effects of particular political choices, then they can cast their votes as educated voters.

I doubt anything will be done; it's all talk designed to garner votes from both sides. Still, something needs to be done to manage the behemoth known as the social security administration because it is becoming more entropic every year. That said, quit going into vapors over everything the media throughs out there to garner clicks; there's rarely any truth to be found therein. Even the most unbiased journalists are biased toward getting paid for their work. Be sure you take anything you hear, read, or see with a pinch... no, a box of salt. I'm just an old man, an engineering type; this is my 70th year of existence on this rock, and I've learned a thing or two. I'll leave you with this... you can put all of the lipstick you want on a pig, but in the end, it's still just a pig with lipstick.

I was going to reply to the political squabble that was deleted but I still think it is appropriate. Spiff's rules:

1. Never let one side of a debate define the other side's position.
2. If you are not getting your news from multiple perspectives, you are not being informed, you are being indoctrinated. The Buddhist story of the 7 blind men describing an elephant is relevant here.
3. Just because something is true from your perspective doesn't mean that another's perspective is false.
4. Be wary of people who assign a moral value to another's position on an issue.

I'm closing the thread. I'll discuss this with tx2sturgis and if he does not agree with my decision to close the thread it may be reopened.