Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Fiscally Conservative who wrote (1550621)	8/4/2025 10:15:45 AM
From: IC720	1 Recommendation Recommended By longz Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1570132

Americans Losing Hope in Social Security Young Americans know that they are forced to pay into a system that will produce returns. A new study by AARP found that confidence in Social Security has plummeted to a 15-year low. The government has successfully run this Ponzi Scheme for 90 years, but in due time, it will run out of money. According to the survey, confidence in Social Security fell to 36%, nearing the all-time low of 35% experienced in 2010. Only a quarter of respondents between 18 and 49 expressed confidence in the system, compared to 48% of Americans over 50 who believe they will see a return. Still, 69% of Americans overall felt that Social Security was an important program. Why? Why must we permit the government to claim a portion of our pay only to redistribute it back to us at a loss? Individuals would receive far greater returns if permitted to independently invest those funds. Similar to tax refunds where the government steals a portion of our pay only to hand it back to us at the end of the fiscal year, Social Security is another interest-free loan for the government that does not benefit the people. As of June 2025, 53 million retired Americans and 7.1 million Americans with disabilities received Social Security, with the average monthly payment amounting to $2,005. That is not enough to live on anywhere. Yet, 24 million families rely on Social Security as their primary source of income. The aforementioned study found that 78% of people realize that Social Security will not cover their living expenses upon retirement. A quarter of respondents on 50 said that they are not factoring in Social Security payments in their retirement plans as they know the jig is up. It comes as no surprise that analysts are projecting Social Security to run dry by 2034, aligning closely with the computer’s date of 2032 when the entire world will experience a drastic transformation. Those same analysts believe that the program will need to rely entirely on payroll tax revenue once the general fund becomes depleted. Social Security cannot survive. Social Security invests 100% in government bonds, meaning it does not earn a fair interest rate. I spoke with Congress in the 90s and urged them to transform it into a wealth fund allocated out among managers. The Democrats voted against the privatization of Social Security. The fund would be more than abundant had it been permitted to invest in equities or anything other than government debt. It never should have been a political decision. So those deciding not to factor in Social Security payments are wise. Those who feel angered that they must continue paying into this failing system are also awakened to the truth—Social Security is in its final stages until collapse.

To: Fiscally Conservative who wrote (1550621)	8/4/2025 2:15:19 PM
From: nicewatch	1 Recommendation Recommended By Bill Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1570132

How is this for reality, Bozo? Strike one! Note I chose a source that is left leaning and flattering to pathological liar Dementia's Joe's version of this self-inflicted catastrophe. You have to love Dementia Joe's ability to not only lie to others but perpetually lie to himself. Speaking of which, will you be hosting a big party if and when GLBS breaks below $1? It seems like it wants to and I can only imagine how happy that will make you feel! :-) Should you double down and buy another few hundred thousand shares of GLBS down here? It's only money, right? Flashback: Joe Biden's first presidential run in 1988 cratered amid multiple instances of plagiarism By Joe Perticone - Mar 12, 2019, 5:19 PM ET Former Vice President Joe Biden mounted an unsuccessful presidential campaign in 1988. When incidents of plagiarism in campaign speeches and during his time in law school came to light, his campaign was soon suspended. "My intent was not to deceive anyone' Biden wrote at the time. 'For if it were, I would not have been so blatant.' Biden is mulling another run at president in 2020, of which an announcement could come this month. Before Joe Biden was vice president during the Barack Obama administration, and before he bowed out of the 2008 presidential race, the longtime senator from Delaware unsuccessfully ran for the 1988 Democratic presidential nomination. Incidents of plagiarism both on the campaign trail and during his time at the Syracuse University College of Law became some of the final issues that dogged Biden before he ultimately suspended his floundering campaign. Read more: Joe Biden's long history in public life could come back to haunt him if he decides to run for president During his failed 1988 run, Biden lifted portions of a speech by United Kingdom Labour MP and Margaret Thatcher challenger Neil Kinnock. New York Times reporter Maureen Dowd reported on the fiasco in September 1987. During an event at the Iowa State Fair, Biden mimicked entire portions of Kinnock's speech from earlier in the year. At one moment, Biden repeated the line that he was the first "in a thousand generations" to graduate from college, gesturing to his wife in the exact same way Kinnock did, while also saying the same line about her education and lineage. Biden would later acknowledge that he in fact did have relatives who attended college, directly contrasting the Kinnock lines. As Dowd reported, Biden's staffers were defensive about the allegations of blatant plagiarism. Nevertheless, Biden dropped out of the race by the end of the month. According to another 1987 article in The Times, Biden acknowledged plagiarizing a law review journal for a paper during law school, and asked school administrators not to be expelled. But Biden also said he made a mistake in the citation process. "My intent was not to deceive anyone,' Biden wrote at the time. "For if it were, I would not have been so blatant." The scandal erupted at the same time Biden was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and was overseeing the infamously partisan confirmation process of the failed-Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork. Biden's plagiarism became a hot campaign issue which his 1988 Democratic rival, Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis, used in a video attack ad that was passed around to several media outlets, according to a Washington Post article in 1987. At the time, Biden dismissed the distribution of the video by other campaigns as dirty politics. "Look, I'm a big boy,"he said. "I've been in politics for 15 years. This is not my style. If they want to do it this way, so be it." Dukakis — who would go on to win the nomination but lose the general election to the late-President George HW Bush — ultimately fired his political director Paul Tully and campaign manager John Sasso over the ad. In a telling moment demonstrating how much more collegial primary battles were just three decades ago, Dukakis even held a news conference where he apologized to Biden, "his family and his friends for what happened and for the involvement of my campaign in this whole situation," The Times reported in 1987. Biden reiterated that he was wrong, but did not deliberately intend to plagiarize while in law school. "I was wrong, but I was not malevolent in any way," he said. "I did not intentionally move to mislead anybody. And I didn't. To this day I didn't." "When I was at Syracuse,' Biden added, 'I was married, I was in law school, I wore sports coats. You're looking at a middle-class guy. I am who I am. I'm not big on flak jackets and tie-dyed shirts. You know, that's not me." businessinsider.com