Progressives, part 3...

posted by CenterBHSFan

Ben Shapiro, who probably has the softest hands on YouTube, is now also calling to raise the retirement age past 67; barring physical ailments. 

The total disregard for the blue collar class by people with soft hands is catching like wildfire until even Contards have picked it up. While I agree with Shapiro on a few topics, this is the drop off point where he loses favor with people like myself. It's a classism that captures the elite and those with pretensions of elitism.

Imagine telling mechanics, nurses, plumbers, garbage men, the service industry, all the people whose health takes a direct hit way before they even turn 60, that they must continue marching like ants because the people with soft hands won't have the same problems that they do and said so. 

To be fair, if my occupation (or "occupation") was podcast-hosting weenie, I'd never want to retire, either. All I'd have to do is run my mouth about whatever faux-outrage topics pop into my head and occasionally do something wacky like co-perform on the world's worst rap song with some talent-deficient nobody for the lulz, while watching the money roll in.

posted by Heretic

To be fair, if my occupation (or "occupation") was podcast-hosting weenie, I'd never want to retire, either. All I'd have to do is run my mouth about whatever faux-outrage topics pop into my head and occasionally do something wacky like co-perform on the world's worst rap song with some talent-deficient nobody for the lulz, while watching the money roll in.

Ben S did a rap song? That has to be "amazing".

posted by jmog

TSo if you make $250,000 you pay SS tax for the first $168,600 but every $ after that is not taxed for SS (just federal, state, local, medicare, etc). This has been already talked about going away. They want to still cap the max benefit, but eliminate the income level where the "rich" stop paying.

Which is a huge tax increase for a lot of upper middle class folks.  If you make $250k (which is far from rich in expensive cities), they're proposing an additional $5k in FICA for you.

The problem is, there simply aren't enough people making more such that raising the limit higher would bring in the needed revenues.

Similar thresholds are probably prime candidates for reducing or eliminating the benefit, too.  A married couple could lose $60k annually on SS on that, which over 15 years is probably like taking $500k from their retirement nest egg, upfront.  I guess that would make it a de-facto wealth tax, except hitting a lot of people who aren't actually "wealthy".

posted by gut

Which is a huge tax increase for a lot of upper middle class folks.  If you make $250k (which is far from rich in expensive cities), they're proposing an additional $5k in FICA for you.

The problem is, there simply aren't enough people making more such that raising the limit higher would bring in the needed revenues.

Similar thresholds are probably prime candidates for reducing or eliminating the benefit, too.  A married couple could lose $60k annually on SS on that, which over 15 years is probably like taking $500k from their retirement nest egg, upfront.  I guess that would make it a de-facto wealth tax, except hitting a lot of people who aren't actually "wealthy".

Agree with everything you said, I didn't mean to suggest that I agree with any of those 3 changes. I just meant that I see at least 1 of them, if not 2 or all 3 being done in the next 20 years before I am at retirement age.

I purposefully max out my 401k contribution (max IRS allows) each year because I fully assume I will receive $0 from SS at 67 years old. One way or another it will be near $0 for those of us that have prepared for retirement.

It's also why I have drove it into both of my adult sons to start their 401ks early. They both started theirs at 18, putting 10% and adding 1% each year and NEVER touching it (a mistake I made twice).

We need to stop letting big pharma advertise on every commercial breaks. I think that's a good start. If people never knew how much BP ( big pharma in this case) were involved in writing domestic policy before covid, they should have gotten their eyes peeled open during covid. BP is openly salivating anticipating people to work more. It isn't so much about depleting social security at this point as it is about $ for BP. They will not give up that power now that they openly have it.

I agree with several of the possible  solutions listed, but that still won't be enough. IMO, time to start redirected future war money to be utilized domestically.

posted by Devils Advocate

When I first read your post, I thought what a crock of partisan shit. Then I went back and read it, and I thought to myself self there’s some validity to this.. it seems as though they are hiring these people to add credibility to something that has no credibility. So I apologize for thinking that you were an asshole when I was reading it like one..

1.) Well I am an asshole, no need to apologize!

2.) Thanks for taking the time to reread something to make sure you had a clear understanding of something. The past few days have been filled with people not doing that. Clearly.

posted by CenterBHSFan

This is a useless and rather stupid question since nowhere in my post did I suggest that Shapiro made policy. I did, however, give my opinion on the IDEA. See how those two things are not the same? 

Ok, good. Now we can move forward utilizing a message board in the manner it's normally used. I gave my opinion and then after a moment of fuckery, you gave yours. 

YAY!

The point is that who cares what Ben Shapiro thinks.  I hope on that we can agree.

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

The point is that who cares what Ben Shapiro thinks.  I hope on that we can agree.

If you don't care then don't reply and wait for a post that interests you.

OR

Better yet, post something that catches your attention. 

But if being as adept at conversation as geeblock is your intention, by all means, carry on.

posted by CenterBHSFan

If you don't care then don't reply and wait for a post that interests you.

OR

Better yet, post something that catches your attention. 

But if being as adept at conversation as geeblock is your intention, by all means, carry on.

I posted that I’m not against retirement moving back as life expectancy changes.  Retirement was never part of the human experience until well into the 20th century.  This business of 20-30 year retirements is only a few decades old.  

I’m clouded by personal opinion as I think retirement, unless very carefully filled with meaningful activities, is extremely unhealthy. 

posted by CenterBHSFan

If you don't care then don't reply and wait for a post that interests you.

OR

Better yet, post something that catches your attention. 

But if being as adept at conversation as geeblock is your intention, by all means, carry on.

lol your idea of having a conversation is posting long diatribes of something you read somewhere that usually isn’t relevant to the conversation or is about something that wasn’t said. But since you have this idea or conversation you want to have, you say it anyway… but carry on 

posted by geeblock

lol your idea of having a conversation is posting long diatribes of something you read somewhere that usually isn’t relevant to the conversation or is about something that wasn’t said. But since you have this idea or conversation you want to have, you say it anyway… but carry on 

Dude you can't even recognize when somebody is making specific points to specific people. You just demonstrated this inability with your prior post. 

posted by CenterBHSFan

Dude you can't even recognize when somebody is making specific points to specific people. You just demonstrated this inability with your prior post. 

Cool I can’t wait till u cut and paste ur next post  to look smart 

geeblock, I get that you get irritated by the conservative replies that you get from your posts. I agree with some of your posts, but You get suprised and you feelze hurt by the responses?

Logic does not apply,  stay on the subject at hand and realize that the people change the narrative to suit THEIR needs. Stop trying to prove your point from 3 days ago.  And as far as the cut and paste shit, dude look what you have posted. If you can’t see it, you can’t be helped.

posted by Devils Advocate

geeblock, I get that you get irritated by the conservative replies that you get from your posts. I agree with some of your posts, but You get suprised and you feelze hurt by the responses?

Logic does not apply,  stay on the subject at hand and realize that the people change the narrative to suit THEIR needs. Stop trying to prove your point from 3 days ago.  And as far as the cut and paste shit, dude look what you have posted. If you can’t see it, you can’t be helped.

I’m not mad or upset about anything. She dropped my name and threw a shot at me for no reason so I replied that’s it. 

posted by geeblock

I’m not mad or upset about anything. She dropped my name and threw a shot at me for no reason so I replied that’s it. 

You’re fine geeblock.  Also, kudos for writing your response in Big Boy English vs. Middle School Student Textspeak.  😉

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

You’re fine geeblock.  Also, kudos for writing your response in Big Boy English vs. Middle School Student Textspeak.  😉

I guess if that’s how u feel .. I mostly post at stoplights so sorry if it offended anyone 

posted by geeblock

I guess if that’s how u feel .. I mostly post at stoplights so sorry if it offended anyone 

You shouldn't do that. 

I had the same two nights off as my dude so this weekend he helped me fight off a bunch of multi-floral rose briars (anybody familiar with farms will understand the struggle) and attended a family event, but it's great to see the irk levels remain pretty even.

What's happening with the news?

I think its beneficial to point out how quickly paradigms can shift.

What used to fit under the definition of liberal will now get you labeled as a conservative. 

To expound upon this a bit:

 - Wanting to hold govt to fiscal responsibility and accountability is now labeled as a conservative talking point. 

- Not wanting kids to be Frankensteined is now labeled as a conservative talking point.

- Pointing out the clear and obvious two tiered justice system is now labeled as a conservative talking point.

- Not wanting experimental drugs forced upon a population with threats of loss of employment, fines and censorship of speech (this went beyond threats to blatant actions) is now labeled as a conservative talking point.

- Pointing out the crazy amounts of propaganda being churned out by media is now a conservative talking point.

- Voting for people outside of the duopoly and saying that you wish more people would is now considered a conservative talking point.

- Not wanting continuous wars is now labeled as a conservative talking point.

- Saying you believe in equality instead of parity is now labeled as a conservative talking point.

In fact, these were all considered to be liberal values not very long ago. Definitions don't usually change that quickly, but paradigms do. 

Hell, it's so ridiculous that calling somebody a conservative doesn't even have the sting that is intended anymore. Its a complete lack of understanding and critical thinking that drives this behaviour. It's remarkable at how easily this was done because it didn't rely on force. All it required was volunteers for the job.

Just saw a poll that 54% of Republicans believe the traditional family "gives children the best chance to succeed".

Actually seems a little low.  But Democrats?  Only 16% agree.  Unbelievable.  You wouldn't think this would be political or that we would be divided over it, but is the tail wagging the dog here?  Do Democrats push these policies because that's how their voters feel, or do voters feel that way because Dems push these policies?