You say this, yet all you do is obsess over Biden and the democrats. You are a loser.
Totally off topic - Social Security
- Thread starter Loyal Coug1
- Start date
If you had said spending money judiciously and wisely would make our society stronger, I could agree with you. Spending money to buy votes and power, not so much. Dumping money into giveaways that make it easier for able workers to stay home does NOT make the society stronger.
I was going to shut up, but I can't...
Flat, I think you're MOSTLY right, missing a bigger concept.
If we have a government that's pointing towards having tax dollars going to forcing people to pay for sex changes on 3rd graders and hiding name changes from parents while blocking "Merry Christmas" settings on city property...
I'm not in favor of them for much of anything.
And don't tell me that's coming from the Koch Brothers.
I know you're going to tell me this is completely irrelevant to social security, but at least to me... it isn't.
Is it right to want a GREATER society? You bet! I think we are getting way off course.
Not asking you this question directly Flat (more to the board), but am I wrong for thinking the Super Bowl Halftime Show was just wrong? (and horrible)
That is us getting a greater society?
Elderly, yes. Poor, disabled, and children...less yes.
One big issue is that, while SS was always intended to provide a retirement income for the 65+ crowd, in 1935 there weren't that many who were expected to draw it. At that time, life expectancy was just under 60 years for men, and under 64 for women. That's life expectancy at birth, so it's slightly deceptive due to the relatively large numbers of infants & kids who died young in the first half of the century. But still, of the people who made it to adulthood, in 1940 less than 60% of those who lived to adulthood made it to 65. Now it's more like 80%.
And, in 1950, if you made it to 65 you could expect to last about another 12-13 years. Now it's more like 20.
Bottom line is, the system was build for a much smaller number of people to draw for a shorter period. Now we have a strong majority who are reaching retirement and drawing for long periods. The math can't work.
The reality is - like someone else said earlier - the only fix to it is to raise the tax. Sure, there's also some wasteful government spending that can get cut (we could stop paying Congress, since they're not doing anything anyway), but that's going to have to be accompanied by a tax hike.
I was a bit concerned about the safety of the aerial platforms, since there were no handrails and nobody appeared to be tied off. Not sure about the rest though, I muted the sound to protect my sanity, and barely paid attention while I folded laundry. I get things done during halftime.
I definitely have a problem with a lot of the liberal messaging going too far and too hard. I didn't care for a bunch of dudes in baggy pants hip thrusting at Rihanna. Thought it was dumb. I thought the Last of Us did a good job of expanding Bill & Frank's story...but felt it was gratuitous and annoying to show Frank starting to go down on Bill. It's one thing to have a point and it's another to go too far and start poking someone in the eye just to say, "Screw your viewpoint!"
Where it gets complicated is that the counter-response by the GOP is just as heavy handed and in many cases, moreso. Sometime in the last 10 years, compromise became a dirty word.
Yes, that is what it is really for. I think you disagree. Where do you believe that goal is failing?
Personally thought it was a pretty tame dancing experience. Were you expecting dancers in tailored pants standing stoically?
Compromise
verb
intransitive verb
1a: to come to agreement by mutual concession
1b: to find or follow a way between extremes
The two sides were unwilling to compromise.
The union and employer agreed to compromise.
2: to make a shameful or disreputable concession
wouldn't compromise with their principles
I think the big problem is that there's too much focus on definition #2 and not enough on definition #1.
