This is what happens when one side refuses to come to the negotiating table
Say for the sake of argument, I am President of the NRA and I can persuade my members to agree with whatever comes out of negotiations and you are on the other side, seeking a ‘reasonable compromise’ on gun ownership and some ‘common sense’ gun control legislation.
What are you willing to compromise on? What are you willing to give up??
I’m coming back way late to this party but… I got this from the EPA’s website: https://www.epa.gov/planandbudget/budget – the EPA actually has had it’s budget decreased from the previous year several times since the year 2000. Although it hasn’t been cut since 2018. TIL.
You can start your own worker’s collective. I’m sure many liked minded people would like to join a company were risk and reward are shared equally.
If we just let a self selected group of people have total control of our economy, things will turn out better this time. They promise.
“The previous attempts failed because they didn’t do it right. We will get it right, this time.”
I once read a sci-fi story (I don’t recall the title) that posed the same question you are asking. The short answer is “Historians would want to revive at least some of the frozen”.
Also, assuming mass media entertainment still exists in the future, I can see a reality show being created where someone is revived and cameras follow him around as he tries to adapt to the future.
What political opponents have been killed? Of any political stripe??
Gaia appreciates your sacrifice.
When is the last time a government agency was eliminated or had its budget cut?
If the US created it in the 1980s, how did a guy in the Congo catch it in 1959?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_early_HIV/AIDS_cases
Could it be that not as many potential serial killers are being born? I believe there is a link between criminality and childhood abuse. Less unwanted kids are being born. Less abuse. Less criminals of all kinds, including serial killers.
Now who has no idea what Social Security is? If this proposal passes, I can still retire at 62 (with reduced monthly benefits). The proposal is to increase the age at which you receive ***full ***benefits.
“You will no longer be getting paid for those 2 years” - That is absolutely not true. I would not receive full benefits for those two years if this proposal passes.
One additional fun fact I gleemed from the article that no one here has mentioned: according to this article, if this proposal passes, it would amount to a 14% cut. But if nothing changes, the Social Security trust fund will become insolvent in 2033 (just 9 years away!!) which will result in a 23% cut.
I did read the article. The current age to collect full benefits is 67. They are proposing it be raised to 69. Please illuminate for me what I am missing.
If you read the article, it says the Republicans are proposing raising the age to collect full Social Security benefits to 69 (it is now currently 67). That’s not quite the same as ‘cutting’ social security.
BTW, the surplus SS currently has in its account will run dry in about 10 years. Once that happens, Social Security will become a pay as you go program if nothing changes, which means benefits will be reduced by about 25% (i.e. the amount of money coming in from SS taxes will only cover about 75% of projected outlays).
They are continuing the tradition from Reddit.