Congress shouldn't have had the legal right to touch that money for anything other than what it was intended for. They should have been threatened with jail time for doing so. They suffered no penalty.
This is the Republican Party
- Thread starter astonmartin708
- Start date
You’re fighting against a program with arguments that were defeated almost 100 years ago now.
Do you have anything new to communicate?
the government took 10k from my paycheck each year for ss. if I had been able to put it into my own private retirement account for 50 years at 4%, my account would be wotth more than $1,000,000.00 for my retirement, and when I die, my heirs get it, Not the gov
everybody already has ss deducted for their paychecks so it's not a new fincial burden.
Anyone remember a few months ago when the Argentine PM was being likened to an American Libertarian?
That hasn’t lasted long….
Argentina will use AI to ‘predict future crimes’ but experts worry for citizens’ rights
www.theguardian.com
That hasn’t lasted long….
Argentina will use AI to ‘predict future crimes’ but experts worry for citizens’ rights
Argentina will use AI to ‘predict future crimes’ but experts worry for citizens’ rights
President Javier Milei creates security unit as some say certain groups may be overly scrutinized by the technology
Exactly…. And why does the gov get it? Come on….Sound it out….
I don't understand, why does the government need to be involved in my retirement.
Why do any governments need to be involved in their citizens retirement? First, all first world countries have their version of social security/retirement. The majority of workers, especially those who earn less money, do not plan well for retirement. So the government plans the minimum for them, so they are not destitute &/or in poor health. If left to their own designs our retirees in general, would weigh down the government thru poor planning, and need of emergency help. You are better off this way, than with emergency room type help for the system.
But you go ahead and think you have a better plan than all of the people in the world who have designed and instituted first world governments, including your own. You being the mental giant that you are.
I'm better off with my own retirement account that I control.
let me take the 10k a year that the gov already takes and put it in my own account. at 4% for 50 years I have over 1m.
I can draw 40k a year and never touch the principle or at 60k/yr it will last nearly 50years. Upon my death any reminder go to my heirs, not the gov.
it's not rocket science. just basic math
Okay, now take the mentally disabled McDonald’s worker who worked there for 30+ years and never made enough to save 10K a year.
And if you say a damned thing about charity so help me god….
By the way…. In order to put 10K into an account equal to the 6% that SS takes out of your check each month…. You would need to make 160K, or 83K if you wanted to include the employers 6% as well…. Most workers would never even sniff that number.
Last edited:
He doesn't even back down from his bravado. I mean.... on the one hand he'd probably be lying if he said he didn't believe his stardom allowed him the freedom to do anything he wanted to women.... so kudos? on telling the truth for once in his life.... but on the other hand he's totally admitting to being a sexual predator and that his boasting wasn't just "locker room talk" (P.S. My apologies for MSNBC.... but the video is straight from the deposition)
Speaking of weird... I had no idea that if I didn't want to buy something that I could be sued for the vendors losses. Really? Filing in a Texas federal court....who knows?
Elon Musk Declares War on Advertisers as X Sues Over ‘Boycott’
Elon Musk declared war on advertisers and called on other companies to sue those who have “systematically boycotted” them. Musk made the declaration on X after it sued advertisers claiming they violated antitrust laws by working together to boycott the social media platform after Musk bought it in 2022.A consumer not buying an android phone is fine. Bestbuy, Walmart, Target colluding together to not offer android phones for sale is a problem. Now I have no idea if companies colluded to not buy advertising on X. Elon will need a smoking gun.
I have no idea how collusion can be applied here, but I would think the reason behind the collusion matters. Whether it gains an advantage for the colluding businesses, or was through vengeance for how they thought were treated by the business they are colluding against, etc., etc. Colluding for a legal, moral, or religious principle that they thought was attempted to be broken by the person they were colluding against(in words or actions) would seem to be something not prosecutable. I wouldn't think collusion as a blanket prosecution would be just.
That is not the same thing at all. Collectively deciding to not advertise on a platform that recently told other peer advertisers to publicly "go **** themselves" is not the same thing as locking an honest phone company out of the market. (Partially because Elon still controls access to the market)
If the New York Times started printing Swastikas or Hammers and Sickles on the top right corner every morning, you don't believe that paying advertisers would have the right to collectively pull their business and to tell their other business partners that they were doing so? I think they should be able to write a full page article in a competitor's media platform (paper, website whatever) declaring to everyone in the public that they were no longer doing business with any company they want, explaining their values.
Your ridiculous example has zero to do with the antitrust suit. The advertising group stopped advertising almost immediately after Elon bought Twitter. Well before any of those actions occurred. Read the petition.
So you're saying we should take away some freedoms from the businesses by mandating that they continue business with a person they don't share values with or could harm their financial bottom lines due to placing their advertisements alongside content they don't support?
I'll make sure to tell the Colorado wedding cake bakers you said hi.
The freedom of speech or association is really safe in the hands of the conservative movement. /s They pretend to support it until it hurts their feelings. Elon is a POS. He did this to himself.
Also, their argument is complete horse
....The conduct of Defendants and their co-conspirators is a naked restraint of tradewithout countervailing benefits to competition or consumers. In a competitive market, each socialmedia platform would set the brand safety standards that are optimal for that platform and for itsusers, and advertisers would unilaterally select the platforms on which they advertise. Socialmedia platforms that select efficient brand safety standards will thrive; platforms that selectinefficient standards will lag behind. Through this competitive process, platforms will discoverand adopt the brand safety practices that best promote consumer welfare. But collective actionamong competing advertisers to dictate brand safety standards to be applied by social mediaplatforms shortcuts the competitive process and allows the collective views of a group ofadvertisers with market power to override the interests of consumers. The Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.§ 1, does not allow this. The brand safety standards set by GARM should succeed or fail in themarketplace on their own merits and not through the coercive exercise of market power byadvertisers acting collectively to promote their own economic interests through commercial restraints at the expense of social media platforms and their users.
It is essentially arguing that industry cooperatives should not be able to decide collectively that they don't want to advertise on a platform until such platform adopts standards such as not showing their ads next to questionable moral content like Swastikas, Hateful Rhetoric, etc.... which is exactly what Elon has turned Twitter into. Enforcing this viewpoint is not a reasonable market outcome and wasn't the intent of the Sherman Antitrust Act. If anything this entity's efforts to moderate discourse that its members' advertisements would be displayed next to would encourage a more fair and balanced marketplace where certain advertisers weren't disadvantaged against competitors because of their association with what has become a poorly moderated platform, and because the changing user base of that platform may not fit the audience that their members ads are targeted at anymore.
Moreover, the industry group was not colluding to get better prices for ads or to have better ad placement for its members. It was not trying to kill reasonably moderated advertising on X. What it was trying to do was express the dissatisfaction of its members' to the strategic direction of the media platform so that the appropriate modifications could be made for those placing ads could feel comfortable doing so without risk of financial consequences to their brands or businesses. They wanted this so they could resume competing in a fair and reasonable marketplace rather than one suddenly tilted to their disadvantage by Musk's controversial opinions, questionable business decisions, and general antics.
Last edited:
If a baker must make a wedding cake for a gay wedding, even though gay marriage is against the bakers religious belief, then the outlets must accept his ads.
I have no opinion as to validity of the suit or even his claims. I simply corrected WATU by pointing out this suit was an antitrust claim. I also corrected you in that the claim is the alledged collusion began shortly after Twitter was purchased which was well prior to any of the activity you brought up. Again….I have no idea if he has a valid antitrust claim. Your reading much more into my post than you should.So you're saying we should take away some freedoms from the businesses by mandating that they continue business with a person they don't share values with or could harm their financial bottom lines due to placing their advertisements alongside content they don't support?
I'll make sure to tell the Colorado wedding cake bakers you said hi.
The freedom of speech or association is really safe in the hands of the conservative movement. /s They pretend to support it until it hurts their feelings. Elon is a POS. He did this to himself.
Also, their argument is complete horse
The conduct of Defendants and their co-conspirators is a naked restraint of tradewithout countervailing benefits to competition or consumers. In a competitive market, each socialmedia platform would set the brand safety standards that are optimal for that platform and for itsusers, and advertisers would unilaterally select the platforms on which they advertise. Socialmedia platforms that select efficient brand safety standards will thrive; platforms that selectinefficient standards will lag behind. Through this competitive process, platforms will discoverand adopt the brand safety practices that best promote consumer welfare. But collective actionamong competing advertisers to dictate brand safety standards to be applied by social mediaplatforms shortcuts the competitive process and allows the collective views of a group ofadvertisers with market power to override the interests of consumers. The Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.§ 1, does not allow this. The brand safety standards set by GARM should succeed or fail in themarketplace on their own merits and not through the coercive exercise of market power byadvertisers acting collectively to promote their own economic interests through commercial restraints at the expense of social media platforms and their users.
It is essentially arguing that industry cooperatives should not be able to decide collectively that they don't want to advertise on a platform until such platform adopts standards such as not showing their ads next to questionable moral content like Swastikas, Hateful Rhetoric, etc.... which is exactly what Elon has turned Twitter into. Enforcing this viewpoint is not a reasonable market outcome and wasn't the intent of the Sherman Antitrust Act. If anything this entity's efforts to moderate discourse that its members' advertisements would be displayed next to would encourage a more fair and balanced marketplace where certain advertisers weren't disadvantaged against competitors because of their association with what has become a poorly moderated platform, and because the changing user base of that platform may not fit the audience that their members ads are targeted at anymore.
Moreover, the industry group was not colluding to get better prices for ads or to have better ad placement for its members. It was not trying to kill reasonably moderated advertising on X. What it was trying to do was express the dissatisfaction of its members' to the strategic direction of the media platform so that the appropriate modifications could be made for those placing ads could feel comfortable doing so without risk of financial consequences to their brands or businesses. They wanted this so they could resume competing in a fair and reasonable marketplace rather than one suddenly tilted to their disadvantage by Musk's controversial opinions, questionable business decisions, and general antics.
The suit is a joke. Elon is quickly becoming a joke. He is getting himself in places he doesn't need to go.
You can't force advertisers to advertise with you. Elon regularly promotes conspiracy theories, engages with questionable characters, and completely embraces Trump. He thinks Twitter and single weirdo supposed online journos and commentators like Mike Cernovich, Tulsi Gabbard, and Tucker Carlson are the purveyors of truth, only to be repeatedly proven wrong.
Many brands don't want to be associated with it. It is pretty friggin basic.
Elon said he was going to stop policing the stuff they wanted to be policing, so they said adios muchacho. He likes libertarian free-market ideas. Welcome to them.
You can't force advertisers to advertise with you. Elon regularly promotes conspiracy theories, engages with questionable characters, and completely embraces Trump. He thinks Twitter and single weirdo supposed online journos and commentators like Mike Cernovich, Tulsi Gabbard, and Tucker Carlson are the purveyors of truth, only to be repeatedly proven wrong.
Many brands don't want to be associated with it. It is pretty friggin basic.
Elon said he was going to stop policing the stuff they wanted to be policing, so they said adios muchacho. He likes libertarian free-market ideas. Welcome to them.
And you take that as an admission of guilt?
Maybe it’s just the fact that a nonprofit with limited cooperative funding can’t sustain a legal battle against the richest man in the world who wants to strong arm advertisers onto his crappy platform.
Funny thing is though, there’s no worse way to entice adverts than to sue a bunch of industry peers. Why would I enter a deal with your litigious company now?
Maybe it’s just the fact that a nonprofit with limited cooperative funding can’t sustain a legal battle against the richest man in the world who wants to strong arm advertisers onto his crappy platform.
Funny thing is though, there’s no worse way to entice adverts than to sue a bunch of industry peers. Why would I enter a deal with your litigious company now?
I take it as they were either worried about the outcome of the lawsuit or didn’t want to spend the money to defend it. Also tells me they didn’t believe they could win on Summary Judgement and would have to spend large legal fees to defend the claims if costs were the deciding factor.
We used to call making purchasing decisions "voting with your dollars" and a key to the way markets are supposed to work. Claiming "collusion" or 'antitrust' is just putting lip stick on a pig. It doesn't change the underlying facts that not wanting to buy a new owners revised product is anything other than a purchasing decision.
The group was not the only named entity in the suit…. It also names specific companies who were participants…. I don’t think the parties in the suit have admitted fault, I think the fact is that the organizations you’re talking about tend to be very lightly funded cooperatives between a few companies which have like 5 staffers.
I know my company participates in a few of those. If they were to get taken to court the cooperative entity would likely fold because there’s no budget to fight lawsuits… that’s not what the organization was meant for. It was meant to share best practices and drive industry improvement.
I never said anyone had admitted fault. I do disagree that WFA is a “lightly funded cooperative”. They have the resources to litigate the claim against their initiative if they so desired.
My understanding is that the WFA formed and operated GARM. Please correct me if I’m wrong. I haven’t done much research here and to be honest really don’t care too
.
I think you’re correct, that WFA was a parent. But I also have seen where the WFA basically stated “this isn’t over” and committed to continuing the lawsuit with Musk.My understanding is that the WFA formed and operated GARM. Please correct me if I’m wrong. I haven’t done much research here and to be honest really don’t care too
FYI, the GARM group had 2 FTE’s
Elon continues legal harassment using Texas judge owning Tesla stock. If you're one of the richest people in the world, why not? Particularly if you're Elon and all in on Donnie.
Some more targets for Elon to sue. This time in Europe.
Fortune
While many of Musk’s controversial thoughts eventually fizzle out, his support for Trump is having a tangible impact on his EV company, Tesla, in Europe.
On Tuesday, Rossmann, one of Europe’s largest drugstore chains, said it was suspending Tesla vehicle purchases “with immediate effect.”
Its reason? Musk’s vocal support of Trump.
“Elon Musk makes no secret of his support for Donald Trump. Trump has repeatedly described climate change as a hoax—this attitude is in stark contrast to Tesla’s mission to contribute to environmental protection through the production of electric cars,” Raoul Rossmann, Rossmann’s spokesman for the management, said in a statement.
Fortune
While many of Musk’s controversial thoughts eventually fizzle out, his support for Trump is having a tangible impact on his EV company, Tesla, in Europe.
On Tuesday, Rossmann, one of Europe’s largest drugstore chains, said it was suspending Tesla vehicle purchases “with immediate effect.”
Its reason? Musk’s vocal support of Trump.
“Elon Musk makes no secret of his support for Donald Trump. Trump has repeatedly described climate change as a hoax—this attitude is in stark contrast to Tesla’s mission to contribute to environmental protection through the production of electric cars,” Raoul Rossmann, Rossmann’s spokesman for the management, said in a statement.
Last edited:
I’d be willing to bet that judge isn’t even aware that he owns Tesla stock. I will take a limitless bet out with whoever that Elon didn’t know the judge owned Tesla stock until this article was being written &/or published.
It is a program to keep infirm older people who cannot care for themselves out of dire poverty. Or said otherwise, to provide a baseline of income for older people.
not what it was sold as. if you work, the gov takes x% of your paycheck. for retirememts Contributors
First, you were not alive in 1935 when the bill was passed. Second, you likely heard what you wanted to hear out of the explanation that you received. It was a bit more complex than that.
It was sold as a way to alleviate elderly poverty and reduce strain on the elderly's families during the depression.
Someone making not much more than minimum wage most of their life, is not going to be able to support themselves in their old age, no matter how much you think they can save.
I
"designed to provide money into retirement"
Usung the current fica paycheck deduction ( any income level), Government social security only provides monthly about 2/3 of what a private retirement account would.
Everybody does not have access to a private retirement account. Everybody does not work for a corporation.
You have selective hearing.
