Honestly, I don't think I've ever seen that phrase in written text in my entire life. I think I only ever heard someone say it. I just literally have always used it wrong. Though always pronounced it as "keel". Probably related to my dyslexia in some way. Thanks.

yeah they meant kill legacy

Nope, she would have been "Silent Generation", I believe.

The silent generation is essentially the same. The vast vast majority didn't fight in WW2 and reached adulthood just in time for the benefits of a post WW2 America.

You missed the point by thi________________________s much.

The ONLY reason billionaires have the power they have is because of conservatives (including neo-liberals). Conservatives have always protected the wealthy. They worship the rich.

If not for conservatives, the normal people would be able to charge billionaires with crimes. If not for conservatives, billionaires would be required to pay fair taxes. As long as conservatives continue to breathe our air, billionaires will remain untouchable.

We cannot defeat the boss until his foot-soldiers are dead.

Question if you asked a multi-millionaire boomer to give up there social security to someone who needs it. Say the family makes $400k a year which includes $40,000 in social security. Do you think they would willingly give that up? Do you think thats an easy political goal?

"hey social security is intended for people who depend on it financially and not a buffer to your large portfolio"

We could solve social security by capping the OUTFLOWs at $250k. Go poll some boomers on that lmao let me know if you still think they are working class.

Boomers are not working class since most of them are actually taking money from the working class right now, and are incentivized to keep electing these god awful politicians. They were working class now they live off investments, and social security, both held up by the actual working people.

The 1% owns a bit over 30% of the country's wealth, people over 55 own over 70%. Billionaires are but a symptom of an even bigger problem.

One failure of the Democratic party is not an excuse for another failure. Obama had the same power under the reading of the constitution to appoint a Judge without Congress if Congress refuses to hold a vote.

When the constitution was written they didn't write down specifically about what happens if Congress refuses to do its job. That's the exact reasoning that the Republicans were acting on.

The Democrats have lost so much for this country by standing by and "following the rules". They get dunked on by a dog playing basketball while the Republicans say "nothing in the rules that says a dog can't play basketball".

You'd benefit from watching this nearly 8 year old video. It will give you a lot of perspective on how we have gotten to where we are today and why we continue to see the same thing.

https://youtu.be/MAbab8aP4_A

I’m not disagreeing.

If you really believe that, then you have a child's understanding of the Supreme Court. It is anything but as simple as you seem to believe.

SCOTUS has original jurisdiction over a few narrow kinds of cases. These are powers Congress can't amend or change. Disputes between the states and disputes involving ambassadors are examples of these. But there's also appellate jurisdiction - where a court has a right to appeal decisions made by other courts. This authority isn't absolute. The Constitution states:

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

Congress can just flat out say, "SCOTUS isn't allowed to rule on this topic," and it can't. This has been done multiple times in US history.