jmog

On Mar 15, 2024:

jmog replied to "Progressives, part 3..." at 01:14 pm
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).

jmog replied to "What is your favorite stank face song" at 12:31 pm
posted by MontyBrunswick

I love Beethoven, but my wife definitely gives the stank face when I play it.

jmog replied to "Progressives, part 3..." at 12:24 pm
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".

jmog replied to "Progressives, part 3..." at 11:07 am
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, in the 1940s-1960s when the full SS retirement age was 66-67 life expectancy was 63-69 (increased from early 1940s to 1960).


So when they created the retirement age for SS they assumed you'd be dead, right or wrong, within a year or 2.


Now the life expectancy is 79/80 in the US. Originally SS was modeled to only have to be paid for a couple years on average, now its supposed to average paying for nearly 15 years.


Something has to change, right or wrong, the system we have all paid into (I'm 45) won't exist by the time we retire if things aren't changed.


I see 1 of 3 things changing in the next few years (maybe 2 of these) to make SS "solvent".


1. Drastically raising the retirement age as discussed above.

2. Means testing, even if you paid in your whole life, if you have a decent amount in a 401k or just money in general, you get $0.

3. Eliminating the salary cap on taxing for SS, but keeping the maximum benefit cap. Currently the amount of SS you get is based off what you made while you were contributing (average). The current maximum is around $4800/month. This is capped so rich people aren't taking home a crap ton from SS. For that same reason, you stop paying SS tax on any income above $168,600 (this goes up each year for inflation). So 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.






On Mar 12, 2024:

jmog replied to "Progressives, part 3..." at 12:05 pm
posted by Heretic

Seems like it to me. As someone who watches none of the above, most of the talk I hear/read about any of them comes from people opposed to their political slants looking to bitch about them. It's a lot more rare to see someone talking about how much they love the shows/personalities on Fox or MSNBC and can't get enough of their viewpoints.

Either this is true, or it just the squeaky wheel gets the grease mantra. We only hear the ones that are adamant about complaining. Maybe its only 10% of MSNBC watchers are Rs looking for something to bitch about and the other 90% are Ds who just agree and don't say anything. Vice versa for Fox.

jmog replied to "Progressives, part 3..." at 11:09 am
posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

This thread always seems to reinforce my impression that a huge chunk of left-wings media’s audience is angry /bitter conservatives looking to fuel their outrage.  Maybe I’m wrong, but the only time I hear about the NYT, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, etc. is when conservatives bring them up in discussions like this.  My opinion is perhaps these outlets peddle in these kinds of stories the keep the outrage brigade as loyal followers.  

You might be correct, bunch of Rs watching CNN/MSNBC to see how stupid they are, and a bunch of Ds watching Fox to see how stupid they are.


Feasible.

On Mar 1, 2024:

jmog replied to "What was the last movie you watched?" at 10:23 am

Stargate-still an 8/10

On Feb 29, 2024:

jmog replied to "Progressives, part 3..." at 02:06 pm
posted by geeblock

First of all it was used way after slavery as the basis for segregation and other laws in this country so no i wasnt just referring to slavery, and Jim crow wasnt just "racism" it was actual LAWS on the books in many states.  You made that inference which was not correct.

 Second, we were discussing religion and government and how religion was at times used in government. The comment really wasnt about slavery or racism but rather religion and government.

 Why would you feel the need to jump in and say it never affected my life and where did i say it did?  How does that even remotely relate to the conversation?  ill answer for you .  It didnt.

Prohibition was also mentioned, I notice u didn’t feel the need to jump in and argue that no one alive today was effected by that so what made u so upset when the same point was made even if I was talking about slavery? U just like to argue with me 

A whole lot of words to avoid the point. 


You made shit up that wasn't actually said. Admit you made it up, that I didn't actually say that black people aren't affected by racism.


Address that point, you keep avoiding it and obfuscating around it.

jmog replied to "Progressives, part 3..." at 10:16 am
posted by geeblock

However at some point “god” said black people did not qualify as real people which was decided by “men”? 


This was a direct reference to how some people in the1600s-1800s justified enslaving black people. Your comment here was an indirect reference to how slavery was justified in North America from 1600s to 1800s. So you did bring up slavery, just didn't say the word slavery. You just mentioned how it was justified.


So yes, I said that no one alive today, including yourself, has been affected by slavery that ended almost 200 years ago now. I did not say racism, I did not say Jim Crow (which is basically the same as racism, it was legally allowed racism).


You made shit up, said that I said "no black person has been affected by racism" when I said "no one alive now has been affected by slavery" which, to be fair, isn't exactly true as there are still slaves across the world, I was obviously referring to the slavery practice specifically in the US from 1600s to 1860s.

jmog replied to "Biden vs. Trump 2024" at 08:52 am
posted by Heretic

I dunno, when it comes to his court cases, he doesn't seem to hire the traditional attorneys and that isn't really working out so well for him!

To be fair, the NY AG and Mayor just came right out and admitted they specifically targeted Trump and wouldn't prosecute ANYONE else for doing the same thing...once they saw real estate investors talking about backing out of NYC.

jmog replied to "Progressives, part 3..." at 08:50 am
posted by geeblock

Ill Try to say it slower..

1. I never mentioned slavery or that it affected my life. Please go back and actually read my posts.  They never mention slavery, they never mention my life.

2. Posters jumped in and brought up slavery and said it never affected my life.  I have no idea why they did that.  The conversation was about being governed by god or man and the relationship with god/government and government using religion for their own purposes.  I said religion was often used for control or to oppress other groups and mentioned black people.  Never said slavery, never said i was talking about myself or anything that was happening or ever happened to me.

3.  Once it was brought up by others not me, i did wonder why it was brought up because it clearly didnt apply to the conversation and was actually never said by me.  So then I responded that the only reason it must have been brought up was to say that the lingering racism and effects of racism didnt have an effect on my life in some ways. So I mentioned a few ways that it did.  I never asked for anyone to feel sorry for me but tried to educate the relationship between slavery and years of oppression that followed.

4. You guys must have been just sitting on the 'no one alive has been affected by slavery' schtick and waiting for a chance to talk to a black person and bring it out, but not once did I mention slavery, not once was i talking about how slavery effected my life or anything even close.  I even clarified it several times that other examples like the crusades or manifest destiny would also apply.  Never played the race card , never brought up slavery, never brought up my life.  I did respond that I think that the statement is "low brow"  meaning very unsophisticated which it is.  Im sorry if you guys are that fragile and the conversation hurt your feelings.  Jesus Christ

You still won't admit that NO ONE said "black people aren't affected by racism" will you? 


Be a man, admit you made shit up that wasn't actually said.


And "I didn't bring up slavery" is half hearted when you didn't say the actual word slavery yet you were talking about how the founding fathers used "god" to say black men weren't fully men/human which is the argument they made for the institution of slavery. 


You somehow took "slavery doesn't affect anyone's lives right now" to mean I meant "racism doesn't exist" which is about the dumbest take you have ever made, which is saying something.


You wrote 4 paragraphs of explaining away why you just plain made shit up, just admit you were wrong and move on. No one said black people aren't affected by racism. Take that statement back as an error made by you.

On Feb 28, 2024:

jmog replied to "Progressives, part 3..." at 11:31 am
posted by geeblock

"I promise slavery has not affected you at all, just like it hasn’t anyone who is alive right now."

This is a low brow statement that is used for a specific purpose and I disagree with it as do most people.  I understand the audience here and the argument you will use to justify the statement, even tho you admit (jim crow) otherwise.  so yes next topic

So now stating facts is “low brow”?


You made up a statement that was never said, pulling the race card to make someone look/sound racist and you got called out on it. Now you just want to move on.


You admit you made BS up and we can move on. You said something that NO ONE said.


Even PTown called you out on it in a much longer worded fashion. 


jmog replied to "Do you watch tv with subtitles on?" at 04:46 am

I am too old to be a millennial but I do have them on at times.  


Mainly because I have some hearing loss from working in industry around loud industrial furnace equipment for decades.


My main loss is if anything or anyone else in the area is talking/making noise I can’t make out what the TV is saying. I can’t concentrate on any one “sound” in the room.

On Feb 27, 2024:

jmog replied to "Progressives, part 3..." at 09:25 pm
posted by geeblock

When yiu say slavery hasn’t affected you at all that that is basically what you are saying. That slavery has no link to Jim Crow or other laws that did affect my life and it simply isn’t true. Half the country wanted to keep slavery. Changing the law didn’t change how people felt clearly. It is one of those statements while I’m sure you can find a way to defend it, it just never sounds very smart to me.  But I’m not going to argue about it. This seems to be a very strong tenet of yours which isn’t likely to change. Have a good night . 


You lie about what people said yet try to play the victim and blame others.


Grow up.


jmog replied to "Progressives, part 3..." at 09:24 pm
posted by geeblock

When yiu say slavery hasn’t affected you at all that that is basically what you are saying. That slavery has no link to Jim Crow or other laws that did affect my life and it simply isn’t true. Half the country wanted to keep slavery. Changing the law didn’t change how people felt clearly. It is one of those statements while I’m sure you can find a way to defend it, it just never sounds very smart to me.  But I’m not going to argue about it. This seems to be a very strong tenet of yours which isn’t likely to change. Have a good night . 


You can’t read 100 things into something that wasn’t actually said, it makes you look stupid.


Admit you made shit up or stop yapping.  You played the race card and people, not just me, called you out on it. 




jmog replied to "Progressives, part 3..." at 09:23 pm
posted by geeblock

If you will admit that saying s”no one was alive during slavery” is almost never a good point to make during any ar


Didn’t think you’d admit to lying.


I made a valid point even if you don’t like it.


You made shit up to make it look like I said something racist that was never said by ANYONE (even the far right wingers) on this board.


Be a better person and admit you made 💩 up to play the race card.


jmog replied to "Progressives, part 3..." at 03:28 pm
posted by geeblock

My whole comment while once again hijacked by something that wasn’t the point was based on Justin’s comment that he wanted to be governed by god and not man. My point was that it is impossible because man will always and  have have always interpreted his will for their own purposes and control, on top of that  man is imperfect. It really had nothing to do with slavery or racism that was just an example, I could have used many others 

Care to admit you just made up the part about someone saying black people don’t experience racism, or however dumb way you said it?


jmog replied to "Progressives, part 3..." at 12:31 pm
posted by geeblock

Side note. White people telling black people how they haven’t had to experience racism will never not be funny to me. 

Just admit when you say something stupid.


Where did ANYONE say, especially myself, that black people haven't had to experience racism?


I'm sorry Geeblock, but admit you just made that up or quote me or ANYONE on this board that has said that. 


jmog replied to "Progressives, part 3..." at 12:30 pm
posted by ptown_trojans_1

Slavery and racism aren't exactly the same as I think that is the disconnect. 

You are combining the two.

I also think you are being too general about slavery and religion in the Constitution. The founding fathers were all over the place faith wise, but all agreed in some sort of higher power. See Jeffersons Bible as one example. 

 If you have to condemn religion for slavery you must also acknowledge it had a big hand in its defeat here. The anti-slavery movement of the 19th century was mostly driven by Christians and people from the north. 

I get what you are saying, I think, but you are just combining a lot and making broad generalizations.


Ptown and I actually agree here.


Slavery has had zero to do with religion in most parts of the world. Slavery has existed in about every civilization ever, most of which weren't Christian.


Yes, some Christians used parts of the Bible to support slavery, while others properly used the Bible to fight against slavery during the Civil War and the Abolitionist Era before/after it. 



jmog replied to "Progressives, part 3..." at 12:26 pm
posted by geeblock

Well they had to bring the national guard to the schools so my father could attend a decent school and there were riots when he attended college, my parents were married 9 months after interracial marriage was made legal in 1968, so yea I wouldn’t have to mention slavery.  That argument about no one being alive when there were slaves has to be the top 10 dumbest arguments someone could make. Great job  .

 However the driving force behind much of the hatred was backed by religion which was more my point than anything having to do with my life but thanks for chiming in with something that wasn’t said. 

The whole point had very little to do with slavery but the fact that religion all over the world was often used for man’s objectives. Weather we look at Israel/palestine, the crusades, nazis, manifest destiny or *gasp*slavery. I wasn’t alive for most of those but see how easy it is to reference something I wasn’t around for? Do better. 


I didn't say no one alive has been affected by racism or Jim Crowe laws. So before you call someone else stupid, actually read what they typed.



Login

Register

Already have an account? Login