Over the course of human history, more nations are torn apart by internal division than by external threats:


https://andrewmtanner.medium.com/fourth-america-is-almost-over-americans-want-a-divorce-9367a5d50df7


Most of you are decades older than I am. My version of "normal" is probably very different than than yours. People born after 1980 have experienced several massive economic downturns in their lives, most have never worked for the same company for more than two to five years, do not own a home, constantly move for work or other economic reasons, have massive student debt loads, and consider themselves fortunate if they own their own vehicle. Many are unemployed or underemployed with advanced degrees in low wage jobs. Economic success today is driven by specific knowledge in technical fields. Gone are the days when when companies wanted eager, intelligent, well-rounded young people they could train for any given job. Nowadays, everyone is disposable.


Due to curmstance and life, I've lived most of my life in the zone between rural red state America and urban America -- first amongst Evangelicals and then Mormons. Cites were places I would visit, but not reside in. In my lifetime, I've seen the rise of multimillion-dollar megachuches and louder and louder calls for christian dominionist theocratic rule. Racist appeals once thought of as extremist nonsense out of books like "The Turner Diaries" or "The Camp Of The Saints" are now commonplace on "conservative" media outlets. Things are so bad now than many so-called "christans" take pride in not vaccinating themselves against a deadly airborne virus and continue deny its existence even as they lay dying on their deathbeds —- as many doctors and nurses have said recently. I won't even mention the absurdity of people who have lost their homes or had their lives destroyed by extreme weather events driven by anthropogenic climate change and still reject that it exists.


When you have a situation where many young people are well educated, can't get ahead, have no faith in the future or believe that it's being stolen from them or believe in things their elders deny, reject, or refuse to accept, that spells revolution. Things Change. You can't force people to live as they did fifty or sixty years ago just because you think that it's "godly" or "right." Bad things don't happen to you or anyone else because a black man is married a white woman, or a woman is married to a woman, or a man is married to a man. People born in the 21st century simply don't care about who sleeps with whom or what genitals they have or what colour they are. The 1950s ended a long time ago.


All of these very loud (and very noisy and theatrical) attempts to try and turn back time will fail. Attempts to install fascist, theocratic rule will not succeed either. America is not Iran or Afghanistan. But America is awash with guns, and there are lot of hot-headed people who simply can't see themselves living in a secular multiracial democracy as non-dominant equal citizens. White nationalist christofascist terrorism is the greatest internal security threat our nation has faced since the Civil War. Unlike 1861-65, the situation we face is more like 1990s Yugoslavia -- and that was very, very bloody indeed. If they keep amping up the extremist rhetoric, things are going to get out of control —— just as they did not so long ago in Rwanda.


So that's why I'm afraid.

Very afraid.

I read "The Handmaid's Tale" in high school, and it's a work of fiction.

I don't want to see it happen in real life.

I empathize with your, very well put, concerns. The great teapot is whistling loudly and everyone would be well served to turn down the rhetoric and take the pot away from the flame. Alas, there are those who individually benefit from the division and hatred. The teapot's whistle is the tyrants call.

We should be kind. That's it. That is all. Greatness is old people who plant trees, the shade of which they will never enjoy. Socially it seems that we have become petulant teenagers who want what we want, when we want it (which is always NOW). Delaying gratification and investing in future generations is absent for the most part. We may need to go through some horrible conditions before a large majority realize that it is better to be happy and at peace, than be a crusader for what we (most often wrongly) believe to be "right."

However, such crises have happened in the past. And, at all points Goodness and Kindness eventually have prevailed. The track record is perfect, but littered with the corpses of the murdered and tortured who suffered while change occurred. IF we survive this coming tumult, there is every reason to believe that growth will occur again, and Americans will re-adopt a way of life that embraces delayed gratification and re-unification.

Until then, keep doing exactly what you did in your OP. Speak your mind... share your thoughts and fears... and let others be influenced by the sharing.

Warmest Wishes,

HH =)

I share your thoughts but my panic needle is not at your level. I remember a different America also but a free capitalistic society is a double edged sword. Currently there is an amped up rhetoric and we'll see how far it goes. A few thoughts:
-2020 Election reminded me of the 68 election
-There are people who don't take advantage of educational system in America. It's out there and a lot of 80's kids are doing just fine.
-I see a lot of people with opinions until it effects them
-I remember stem cell research as a big political argument in the 80s, it's barley a blip on the radar now.
-How about the satanical scare of the 80s (you will have to google)
-Gay marriage, that issue has died down
-Legal Marijuana? I remember when it was the gateway drug.
-How about smoking on airplanes and in restaurants?
America has it's issues but we do progress at times.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/26/2021 10:57AM by moehoward.

it is 1021 vs. 2021.
All else is merely secondary consequence.

(Articulate thinking OP)

after the collapse of the 6th Century.

I hope I don't live to see the beginning of a new Dark Age.

What's particularly interesting in that chart is the fact that the region most intent upon secession is the place where the original secesh resided: namely, the South.

But there's something else as well. If 2/3 of the South wants to secede, that figure is inevitably depressed by those African Americans who would fear nothing more than being ruled by the Trump nationalists. So if you subtract their number from the denominator, you end up with proportion of whites aspiring to secession considerably higher than 57%.

The United States is presently engulfed in a war over civility. But under the surface lurks a continuation of the forces that produced the Civil War.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If 2/3 of the
> South wants to secede, that figure is inevitably
> depressed by those African Americans who would
> fear nothing more than being ruled by the Trump
> nationalists.
===============================
Makes sense.

However, factoring the way it is going,
- I believe they will not need to secede.

Now I am afraid. Very afraid.

It's 19th Century Manifest Destiny America vs. 21st Century Multi-Ethnic America.

The thing that is driving all this is the need for racial and ethnic exclusion.

I've lived in places right here in America where most people did not speak English as their first language and lived very differently than I did.

Did I think my existence was threatened? No.
Did I think "they" were taking over? No.
Did I fly into a rage because people were speaking Spanish instead of English? No.

When the El Paso shooting happened at what was called in the media "the Mexican WalMart," I knew exactly where it was because I'd been there many times.

Gen. Mark Milley said recently that he "didn't understand white rage." Well, I don't either. I don't get it. But that's what we are dealing with. It's not just people who can't have a rational argument or debate. It's crazy guys (and some gals too) who are driven crazy by -- something,

You are right to be afraid --- be very afraid!!!

Along with the other presenters I would add my observation

Societies tend to cycle about every 200 or so years.
Here is my perception of the sequence of events that implimates it.

Cycle of Civilizations
Civilizations tend to follow a pattern. This pattern seems to go along the following steps:
(1) From bondage to spiritual faith
(2) From spiritual faith to great courage
(3) From great courage to liberty
(4) From liberty to abundance
(5) From abundance to selfishness
(6) From selfishness to complacency
(7) From complacency to apathy
(8) From apathy to dependency
(9) From dependency back to bondage.
In most societies this cycle has consumed around 200 years.
Even the famous Ming dynasty lasted 228 years.
WHERE ARE WE?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/26/2021 03:53PM by thedesertrat1.

thedesertrat1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> (1) From bondage to spiritual faith
> (2) From spiritual faith to great courage
> (3) From great courage to liberty
> (4) From liberty to abundance
> (5) From abundance to selfishness
> (6) From selfishness to complacency
> (7) From complacency to apathy
> (8) From apathy to dependency
> (9) From dependency back to bondage.
==============================
and it's never been delineated like this (to my knowledge)

-- But where is the spin cycle?
Figure that's where we are

Dr. No Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> thedesertrat1 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > (1) From bondage to spiritual faith
> > (2) From spiritual faith to great courage
> > (3) From great courage to liberty
> > (4) From liberty to abundance
> > (5) From abundance to selfishness
> > (6) From selfishness to complacency
> > (7) From complacency to apathy
> > (8) From apathy to dependency
> > (9) From dependency back to bondage.
> ==============================
> and it's never been delineated like this (to my
> knowledge)
>
> -- But where is the spin cycle?
that comes right after the rinse water is extracted

The fact that the country is awash in guns gives me hope that the rich will move heaven and earth to keep them from being used in a complete social breakdown. That’s assuming that their secure archipelago would have a hard time getting by without the rest of us. Seeing how Mexico works I wouldn’t be too sure.

The only thing that is sure is that the end of one thing is the beginning of another. Life always goes on.

Might I recommend courage in the face of adversity?

Just a thought from an old guy that was raised not to live in fear.

I think that the largest threat to our society is from the teaching of the young, about an entitlement mentality, as opposed to teaching the young how to recognize and embrace opportunities for themselves. Properly educating of the young is the biggest investment that we can make toward our society's future. We can either teach the young to be self-sufficient or to be dependant on others who can control them through only giving them food and money if they obey the given ideaology. Today's educational institutions tend not to teach self-sufficiency nor critical thinking to the students. They seem more interested in stiring-up racial tensions and resentments based on long-past history. The universal solution too-often tends to be that the young should give up their power and subscribe to some collective solution that requires them to trust forces that have proven to be unreliable to us in the past. But they are too young to remember that past. Sometimes, they even use the word "progressive" to describe the repeating of unfortunate mistakes of the past. The Soviets proved that taking wealth through force doesn't re-distribute the wealth, it simply destroys the wealth. And yet rather than striving to create new value propositions, a significant number of the young today still choose professions that are known to not be capable of supporting a family, while they fight to raise the wage using political means, instead of finding a more meaningful trade to offer back to society that will command higher compensation itself.

It appears that at some point back in history, that a deal was hatched to create a one-world government. Whether it's George Bush's new world order and thousand point of light or the Clinton trade deals that disadvantage the USA, neither myself nor anyone who legitimately represents my best interests, has ever explained to me any legitimate reason why my nation should surrender its sovereignty to a world-government of any kind. So the way I see it, we've been at war for quite some time now. Every losing trade deal, every new trillion dollars in debt, leaves me with the impression that my country is being sold out from under me. Those who have not been adequately prepared for life want dependency and entitlements. If they can get their needs met that way, their needs will come free and easy to obtain. They want to seceed from the nation if they can't have those things free and easy because the hard-work method looks even less feasible. Some of them have never been taught what equitable trade deals and paying your own way are supposed to feel like. Those things are too unobtainable in most cases for those individuals. You certainly can't be an effective capitalist if you've been taught to hate capitalists. And my definition of capitalist is pretty fluid. If someone is new to the country, doesn't yet speak the language, but he has saved-up enough money to buy ten lawnmores and can teach others how to use a lawnmore, that person is also a capitalist.

I think the answer to feel less afraid is to focus on what we can control and not on what others think we should be doing. You always have to think for yourself and often not listen to what others are saying and doing.

azsteve Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think that the largest threat to our society is
> from the teaching of the young, about an
> entitlement mentality

The young can learn about entitlement simply by watching their elders. Let's take you. You relied on public assistance for an important time but resist the provision of that to others who face temporary discomfiture.

You presumably take your mortgage tax deduction, which is a transfer of wealth from those who are too poor to own houses to those who already possess them. There is no economic logic for that preferential redistribution of money. Yet people of your political hue ignore your own massive entitlements and focus instead on depriving those of other hues of much more modest state benefits.

You expect to collect social security--do you not?--despite the fact that your generation did not fund their own accounts. If you take a penny of that money, you are doing so on the basis of YOUR entitlement mentality and nothing else. The same goes for Medicare.

The bottom line is that if you are going to talk about entitlement mentality, you have to look at all entitlements on strictly economic and moral terms. You can't pretend that your entitlements are sacrosanct and capitalistically pure, for they are quite the opposite: a regressive transfer of wealth and welfare from the poor to the rich.

The only entitlements you truly oppose are other people's.

A hearty Atheist AMEN sister!

HH =)

People justify their mortgage interest tax benefit by saying it encourages home ownership, which is a benefit to society. That's a dubious claim, but even if I stipulate that it is a benefit to society, Canada has no mortgage tax deduction, and the rate of home ownership is about the same as it is in the US.

Similarly, there is considerable sentiment that people on food stamps (SNAP) should be drug-tested, because, you know, if they can afford pot, they don't need food stamps.

OTOH, those same people calling for the drug testing get a child tax credit, a higher standard deduction if they are head of household filing status, they also likely receive Earned Income Credit refundable tax credit. But they don't think they should be drug tested, even though what they receive in federal entitlement is several times larger than the food stamp benefit.

In the most recent tax cut, people with an earned income of a million dollars got a $64,000 tax cut. True, that is a pretty rarefied income level, but a couple of married doctors in the right specialties would be in that bracket.

The rationale for that tax cut was that it goes to "the job creators". OK, fine. Do the people who got that benefit have to do a damn thing to prove that they used the $64K to create jobs? No, they do not. Do they have to take a drug test, because if they can afford pot, they don't need government money to help create jobs? No, they do not. Such punitive tests are only needed for people on food stamps.

Basically the same logic applies to the highly preferential capital gains tax rates. It's all about "job creation", which is largely baloney. The capital gains tax rate is highly preferential because people who make their money by owning stuff rather than doing stuff, are the people who have the most influence in writing the tax code. They write themselves the best deals. Hence billionaires paying nothing. Nice work if you can get it.

When people use economic arguments to defend policies that do not make economic sense, it's best to look for other explanations. There's a ton of analysis on this point.

The problem lies in the electoral system. We started the post-WWII era with a consensus that it was wrong to let too many people fall through the cracks both morally but also politically, since that almost inevitably leads to social strife and sometime even to revolution. And despite the ecstatic writhings and keenings of extremists on the right and the left, revolution almost always results in dictatorship and considerable losses in terms of both economics and personal liberty.

So what went wrong? First, initially the Dems and then the Republicans abandoned fiscal rectitude. It's easy to do: you just find semi-plausible explanations for why cutting taxes and increasing spending is the "moral" thing to do. Under your moral banner you then use your money and political power to expand your own advantages at the expense of others. And guess what? the people with the wealth and political power to pull that off were 1) those who were already wealthy, and 2) those who are alive. What do I mean by the latter quip? That the unborn don't get to vote; in fact, those under 18 don't get to vote. So they cannot resist the power of the older and wealthier who cut taxes and expand spending.

Consider the Reagan tax reforms of 1986. While Reagan was the greatest deficit dove the country had seen since WWII, he was also a sincere believer in the necessity of simplifying the tax code--and he did that. Soon thereafter, however, rich individuals and corporations and their lobbyists started ripping all sorts of holes in what was now a simpler and in some ways more equitable tax code. The result was the mess we have now, with its massive inequalities, class of super-wealthy who pay lower tax rates than secretaries and construction workers, and enormous deficits in the national accounts and the SS and Medicare systems--all of which represent transfers of wealth from the poor and the unborn to today's upper class. That is not what Friedman wanted to see, nor Hayek, nor even Reagan. It's a monstrosity.

And the monstrosity is political, not economic. Economic logic and the analysis of the country's best economists--in many cases the ones who today grace the flags of the various "me first" religions of right and left--do not in any way support either the unfunded national debt or the vast middle- and upper-class entitlements. It's ironic; it's Orwellian that Friedman would be denounced as a liberal fraud by today's conservatives and Reagan could not win a Republican primary.

We are where Franklin predicted when he said, “When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.”

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-----------------------------------------------------
>
> The young can learn about entitlement simply by
> watching their elders. Let's take you. You
> relied on public assistance for an important time
> but resist the provision of that to others who
> face temporary discomfiture.

So I'll repeat once again, what I have said in the past. Entitlements that are qualified for and are genuinely needed should be taken. No harm done there and maybe lots of good can be done. But especially public assistance entitlements in-general are an exception, a stop-gap, and not so much a way of life. Truthfully, I wanted the hell off of disability as quickly as possible and it was a short period, while there. I saw it as a trap and not an ideal place to be. I feel bad for those who land there and even worse for them if they aspire to remain there for longer than necessary.

>
> You presumably take your mortgage tax deduction,
> which is a transfer of wealth from those who are
> too poor to own houses to those who already
> possess them. There is no economic logic for that
> preferential redistribution of money. Yet people
> of your political hue ignore your own massive
> entitlements and focus instead on depriving those
> of other hues of much more modest state benefits.

I think you're mixed up about the difference between a tax deduction and an entitlement. Early in your mortgage while the interest is high, that interest is used to lower the tax burden on new income. The goal is to make it more possible for people to own houses, not to prevent the poor from home ownership. These are not entitlements. If we remove the mortgage interest deduction from the tax code, the effect would be to create an even more crushing burden on the poor, esentially locking them out of the dream of home ownership. Everyone should take advantage of this tax deduction by buying a home. This is one example where the poor stay poor because of bad teachings. Rather than become one of those son-of-a-bitch oppressive home-owners, they'll die on their sword of ignorance. It's like I said previously. You can't be a good capitalist if you hate capitalists. The money is there for the taking and it's not even an entitlement. You can either needlessly give your own money to the government voluntarily or not. I choose not to donate to the government,anymore than is required. And by the way, there is no redistribution of money involved in a tax deduction. In fact, the lack of redistribution of money is the whole idea. You keep your money and most likely still pay more in taxes in many cases than do the poor. The poor too often give themselves that unfortunate label, all because of 'poor' thought. No one has to stay poor. Anyone that says otherwise is the oppressor.

>
> You expect to collect social security--do you
> not?--despite the fact that your generation did
> not fund their own accounts. If you take a penny
> of that money, you are doing so on the basis of
> YOUR entitlement mentality and nothing else. The
> same goes for Medicare.,

Everyone who pays in to social security should collect social security benefits when the time comes. The fact that our legislators have squandered our lifetime of deposits has nothing to do with our entitlement when the time comes. But their squandering of those funds does speak volumes about all that is wrong with having our government manage the economy.

>
> The bottom line is that if you are going to talk
> about entitlement mentality, you have to look at
> all entitlements on strictly economic and moral
> terms. You can't pretend that your entitlements
> are sacrosanct and capitalistically pure, for they
> are quite the opposite: a regressive transfer of
> wealth and welfare from the poor to the rich.

The existing system of entitlements is good. The coming system (if successful) is likely not going to be good. Free everything and a Universal Basic Income are concepts that young people should have too much pride to even suggest as serious ideas. Why work when everything of value is free? And by the way if it is free, who was it taken from? Societies quickly fall in to oppression when governments take and re-distribute money. They remain free when there is opportunity.

>
> The only entitlements you truly oppose are other
> people's.

That doesn't really fit anything I have said. In fact, the opposite is true.

I think we're largely missing the point here. I spent the vast majority of my life, trying to find ways to add value to the economy and hopefully along the way enrich myself also in the process. Much of what I tried was ultimately unsuccessful, despite some very big efforts. But many of those who encountered me or who worked with me did experience gains because of my work. Most of the time, I was compensated. Sometimes I was compensated well. Somewhere in the process, I never even considered needing an entitlement until I actually needed help for a brief period. Then I moved past it like a bad chapter in life, and a short one at that. For the young, this is how it should be. As long as you can work, there is generally no need for entitlements. Exceptions are military veterans who collect on their justly earned entitlements after they complete their service. There are other valid exceptions. But the idea that everyone should get free money because they want it, and because the politicians want to give it to them to buy their votes, is pretty radical. Our society seems to be coming unhinged as everyone just wants to grab at as much money as they think they can get, and to hell with ethics in many cases. You don't even have to be born here. Just move-in and start demanding what you want. Anyone who disagrees with you is obviously a racist. There are no longer many rules to this game. The country is becoming a mob-ocracy and that should scare everyone.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/26/2021 07:56PM by azsteve.

azsteve Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think you're mixed up about the difference
> between a tax deduction and an entitlement.

No, the definition of an entitlement is a subsidy to a group of people that is required by law. A tax advantage to home owners as opposed to renters is an entitlement.


-------------------

> If we
> remove the mortgage interest deduction from the
> tax code, the effect would be to create an even
> more crushing burden on the poor, esentially
> locking them out of the dream of home ownership.
> Everyone should take advantage of this tax
> deduction by buying a home.

That is incorrect. If the government removed the deduction, the price of homes would fall because demand for homes because demand at every point along the price curve would decrease as the after-tax spending power fell. Why? Because without the federal subsidy people's financial resources decrease.

This is point is well understood on both sides of the political divide.


------------------
> This is one example
> where the poor stay poor because of bad teachings.
> Rather than become one of those son-of-a-bitch
> oppressive home-owners, they'll die on their sword
> of ignorance.

Can you provide evidence that anyone is so foolish? I seriously don't think you can.


---------------
> It's like I said previously. You
> can't be a good capitalist if you hate
> capitalists.

Steve, the mortgage interest deduction is not at all capitalist. It is social engineering; it is socialist.


--------------
> And by the
> way, there is no redistribution of money involved
> in a tax deduction.

You have an MBA, right? So you should know that a tax on an activity is burden on that activity; and a subsidy to one group is a burden on everyone else who pays taxes. The only way you can avoid that is if you pay for the subsidy not with taxes but with a greater national debt--but that is then increasing the burden on future taxpayers, which is naturally a subsidy. In either case you are transferring resources from a disadvantaged group--non-homeowners or future generations--and to an advantaged group, meaning those who have outstanding mortgages.

This too is well known on either side of the aisle.



------------
> In fact, the lack of
> redistribution of money is the whole idea. You
> keep your money and most likely still pay more in
> taxes in many cases than do the poor.

That's nonsensical. The purpose of the deduction is explicitly to transfer money, which it is justified as BoJ says. Government decided they liked the stability of home ownership, so they subsidized it at (present or future) taxpayer expense.


----------------
> Everyone who pays in to social security should
> collect social security benefits when the time
> comes. The fact that our legislators have
> squandered our lifetime of deposits has nothing to
> do with our entitlement when the time comes.

My heavens. What is wrong with the statement that "everyone who pays into social security should be entitled to their share of the wealth generated by that money?"

That would be fair. But it is not what happens. The SS system takes money from most workers and promises to pay a fixed benefit whether the money is there or not. That is the entitlement. You get what is promised regardless of whether it exists. Remember when the private sector moved from defined benefit to defined contribution? The latter is a fair system, the former is not. And SS is the former.


----------
> The existing system of entitlements is good. The
> coming system (if successful) is likely not going
> to be good. Free everything and a Universal Basic
> Income are concepts that young people should have
> too much pride to even suggest as serious ideas.

There you go again. Milton Friedman, who is more libertarian than you, thought that the only way to make capitalism work efficiently and fairly was through a UBI. Put simply, a UBI is a lot more efficient than the congeries of public programs now in place and subject to extreme managerial complication. In addition, a UBI would remove the anti-work incentives implicit in means-based welfare systems. Conservatives consider Friedman a prophet but ignore what he actually said and wrote, which is a pity because he was remarkably wise.


------------------
> Why work when everything of value is free? A

Nothing is free under a UBI. Nothing at all. A UBI, like the mortgage income deduction, is a source of revenue for the target group. They must still decide how to spend their limited resources.


----------------
> And by
> the way if it is free, who was it taken from?
> Societies quickly fall in to oppression when
> governments take and re-distribute money. They
> remain free when there is opportunity.

The irony is that you don't realize that the mortgage interest deduction is a redistribution of wealth. It is a socialist institution designed to promote a certain social outcome at the expense of other people. You can deny that if you want, but it is a mathematical fact.

That's what I object to in your and others' thinking. You reckon a subsidy to you is capitalist and all other subsides are not. If you applied a consistent standard, one that virtually the entire economics profession uses, you would arrive at the opposite conclusion.



---------------
> That doesn't really fit anything I have said. In
> fact, the opposite is true.

Only if you use idiosyncratic definitions. The dictionary, the federal government, and any economist worth his salt describe social security and medicare as an entitlement and a socially-motivated intervention against market forces. You can deny that if you want, but you are wrong.

AZ Steve, you are proving my point.

Please tell us what "one-world government" is doing to people when there is no one world goverment as of yet.

As a kind of "connoisieur" of conspiracy theories, I've heard about the "one-world" government stuff for years.

Most of it is just re-hashed anti-Semitism straight out of the "Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion" and other racist horse poop.

Go back through all of the post-1789 revolutions and you'll find the same themes: vast income inequality, unemployed youth, a struggling and/or frightened middle class unsure of the future, social, religious, and ethnic tension, etc., etc, etc.

Anthropogenic climate change *is* making today's youth feel that they won't have a future if things continue as they are. Religious extremism is driving them from organised religion -- especially American Protestant denominations which are anti-LGBTQIA+ and reject racial and social justice. It's a feedback loop. As more young people agitate and protest against injustice, far-right religious "conservatives" become even more radical and extreme, and white christian idenitity ideologues become more and more radicalized. Eventually, some of these people will not want to wait and will take matters into their own hands and commit acts of terrorist violence -- like the Mother Emmanuel, Pittsburgh, and El Paso shooters.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/26/2021 04:42PM by anybody.

After our unceremonious exits from Afghanistan and Iraq, the trillions down a rat hole, I have doubts about any “one world order” unless it’s China in 2050. It would have been so much cheaper to outsource US national security to the PLA the way we did our economy, but of course the defense contractors are better connected.

Re: Lot’s Wife’s assertion that “your generation did not fund these accounts”. If my memory serves, I had money taken from my paycheck (involuntarily) every week. It was called FICA. The government used my money to earn interest and spend on warfare and other non-productive activities. Others did not?

If I had been able to manage that money (salary that I earned) over the years, I suspect that it would have been quite sufficient to carry me through my ‘useless eater’ years.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/26/2021 05:56PM by csuprovograd.

The amount paid in is a small fraction of what is eventually paid out, even allowing for inflation and interest.

As for FICA being involuntary, citizenship is voluntary. It can be renounced. It is like having to pay "involuntary" HOA fees. If you don't like the fees, don't live there. The fees are part of the deal. Same thing with citizenship (or earning income in a particular country) and taxes. It's part of the deal.

BTW, earned income is taxed for SS and Medicare starting with the first dollar. No "standard deduction" for that. For capital gains, the first $37K is completely tax free, and nearly all capital gain income is completely free from any SS and Medicare tax (there is medicare tax for unearned income above about $200K)

If the employee contribution is added to the employer’s required matching amount, it is a tad more than just the employee’s contribution.

If the employer did not send the matching funds to the fed and added it to my paycheck, perhaps my money management skills would have done even better…

Not complaining about the ‘fees’ as a citizen, merely drawing an imaginary alternate scenario to address the insinuation that I did not contribute to my own Social Security account.

csuprovograd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Re: Lot’s Wife’s assertion that “your
> generation did not fund these accounts”. If my
> memory serves, I had money taken from my paycheck
> (involuntarily) every week.

This is the sort of self-righteous nonsense that I was describing above. You never paid anywhere near enough to pay for the benefits you are receiving and will receive. In normal human terms your position would be viewed as immoral, but when you dress it up in terms of being robbed by an evil government (that you supported every time you voted for a Republican or a Democrat) everyone is supposed to act like it is a persuasive argument.

It is not.


-----------------
> It was called FICA.
> The government used my money to earn interest and
> spend on warfare and other non-productive
> activities. Others did not?

*Sigh*.

I wish you bothered from time to time to check the data to see if your arguments are factually correct. In "fact," your money went to pay for national defense, social security, medicare, and increasingly the interest on the debts incurred by those items. Those categories of expenditure explain the vast majority of the national debt and ALL of the deficits in the entitlement accounts. The rest of the discretionary items in the budget are increasingly a rounding error.

You can blame poor people and "non-productive activities," whatever that means, till the cows come home. But that does not change the data.

I would be interested to learn what data you rely on to support your assertions.

If it is not too much trouble, since your assertions seem to be definitive, could you refer me to those budget sources you use?


ETA:

I just checked my own SSA account.
Between my deducted contributions and my employer’s contributions, my account balance for SSA AND Medicare is in excess of $350,000. My monthly “entitlement” would be sufficient to pay me up to age 81. Many useless eaters don’t outlive their contributions and lose their contributions to the ozone, presumably. Or, perhaps in the governments fiscal efficiency, if I should outlive my contributions, the funds from other’s less fortunate shorter lives could be utilized to reward me for being a long-lived leach on society.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 07/26/2021 06:57PM by csuprovograd.

Not hard.

Google the following topics:

"US budget deficits over time,"

"Federal budget component projections,"

"US national debt over time,"

"Medicare accounts over time,"

"Medicare solvency projections,"

"Social security accounts over time," and

"Social security solvency projections.

You can find a lot of the data on the websites managed by the Bureau of Economic Analysis and St. Louis Fed, which is the best of the branches for domestic analysis.

I assume you have studied all of those topics thoroughly and are able to make the statements you make based on the countless hours you’ve invested in poring over that data.

I’m afraid I did not. I took the lazy man’s approach and applied my own personal account data.

csuprovograd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I assume you have studied all of those topics
> thoroughly and are able to make the statements you
> make based on the countless hours you’ve
> invested in poring over that data.

There's a reason I know exactly what topics to suggest in answer to your question. You can glean a sense of my familiarity by how quickly I answered your question.

It's also easy for you to check my claims since I just gave you the instructions you need. In fact, if you plug in those terms and search merely for images you'll get most of your answers just from the pictures.


----------------
> I’m afraid I did not. I took the lazy man’s
> approach and applied my own personal account data.

There's no reason for any individual to research the macro data since it's beyond his daily responsibilities and interests. But it would be nice if people were familiar with the basics since that would (hopefully) influence their voting behavior.

My ETA in the post upthread sorta conflicts with your assertion that Social Security is an entitlement. My contribution is sufficient to allow me to not be a social burden to the younger generation.

(My own actuarial estimate indicates that I will NOT collect the full sum of money I contributed)

Social security is by definition an "entitlement," meaning a program of benefits for a class of people that the government is legally required to provide.

If you disagree, your argument is not with me but with the dictionary and with US law.

Social Security Benefits are just that-a benefit for contributors. It has been called that for years. Recently, there has been a terminology shift that now defines the program as an entitlement, when in reality it is a benefit based on one’s own contribution.

I blame the people who insist on redefining programs with new names so people will see the program as charity, when indeed it is not.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/26/2021 07:27PM by csuprovograd.

That's just further evidence of your ignorance. Social security has been categorized as an entitlement since the 1960s. No one changed the definition while you weren't looking: you just weren't looking.

The national debt over time. Notice the significance of the Reagan administration's policies.

https://www.statista.com/chart/19131/federal-debt-held-by-the-public-as-a-percentage-of-gdp/

--------------
The national budget in 2018. The sum medicare, social security, defense, and interest payments was already 66% of the total budget and discretionary spending was only 15%. The situation has worsened considerably since then and will get much worse due to demographics.

https://www.kff.org/medicare/issue-brief/the-facts-on-medicare-spending-and-financing/


--------------
Budget balance over time, running since the Trump tax cuts at over a trillion dollars a year for the next decade according to the Congressional Budget Office.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7939615/Budget-deficit-break-1-trillion-despite-strong-economy.html?ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490&ito=1490


--------------
I could go on, but the point is I know what I am talking about--and secondarily, you are free to check my math.

Well, hell. I thought you’d have gone to the GAO for your data, not the Daily Mail.

Well hell, I thought a press summary of a CBO report might do the trick since I'm doing this on the fly.

Do you have any objections regarding the Kaiser report or the Statista data?

More importantly, have you done any research on your own?

csuprovograd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ETA:
>
> I just checked my own SSA account.
> Between my deducted contributions and my
> employer’s contributions, my account balance for
> SSA AND Medicare is in excess of $350,000. My
> monthly “entitlement” would be sufficient to
> pay me up to age 81.

And what happens if you live beyond 81? Are you still a net positive for the system?

What happens if you get cancer or otherwise incur medicare costs that are greater than what remains of your $350,000?

And are you providing in your will to reimburse the nation for your share of the national defense that was deficit-financed?


---------------
> Many useless eaters don’t
> outlive their contributions and lose their
> contributions to the ozone, presumably.

That sentence speaks says more than one thing about you, doesn't it?


------------------
> Or,
> perhaps in the governments fiscal efficiency,

Is it your view that you are entitled to what the government should have earned if it operated at peak economic efficiency? Because that would be evidence that you view government resources as an entitlement to which you are, well, entitled.

Does it change your calculus if you had the right and privilege of voting for those governments? Or are you only responsible if your preferred candidates win election?

And what if your choices are among the worst spendthrifts, including perhaps Reagan, GWB, and Trump? (See the Statista and DM sources I provided below.)


----------------
> if I
> should outlive my contributions, the funds from
> other’s less fortunate shorter lives could be
> utilized to reward me for being a long-lived leach
> on society.

Assuming you live past 81, that is exactly what will happen. And if you develop a health problem, it will happen earlier and to a greater extent.

Csuprovograd, you don't seem very concerned about society or your descendants. I think you are right to avoid doing any actual research since cognitive dissonance might then become a problem.

Thank you for your judgment. I assume that you are cognizant of what I do and do not research, not to mention my societal concerns.

The SSA program operated at a surplus for quite a few years of it’s existence. These days it is facing deficits. A concerned political body would determine that payroll and employer contributions should be increased to pace the payouts. Kicking the can down the road often results in dire consequences, such as the problem faced by the SSA.

My contributions were calculated by actuaries predicting the future. If I am guilty of undercontributing, there isn’t much I can do after the fact, is there?

To return to your original assertion that social security beneficiaries are getting something for nothing is categorically incorrect, in spite of all the arguments you persist in presenting.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/26/2021 07:50PM by csuprovograd.

csuprovograd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thank you for your judgment. I assume that you are
> cognizant of what I do and do not research, not to
> mention my societal concerns.

I sense plenty of moral judgment in what you write to me, so I'm not worried about doing the same to you. If anything, I've been generous in taking your arguments seriously when you have no interest in considering anything contrary to your own self-conception.

As for my knowing what you "do and do not research," your economic views, unfamiliarity with the data and even the basic definitions, and refusal to even peruse the sources I provided at your request say all that is necessary.


-----------------
> The SSA program operated at a surplus for quite a
> few years of it’s existence. These days it is
> facing deficits. A concerned political body would
> determine that payroll and employer contributions
> should be increased to pace the payouts. Kicking
> the can down the road often results in dire
> consequences, such as the problem faced by the
> SSA.

I like how you edited your post. This version is marginally closer to reality. But as I said above, if you voted for either the Dems or the GOP at any point since about 1970, you are responsible for the government's policies, including any and all managerial misfeasance--assuming you accept the foundational principles of democracy, of course.


---------------
> My contributions were calculated by actuaries
> predicting the future. If I am guilty of
> undercontributing, there isn’t much I can do
> after the fact, is there?

Whether you can do anything about it or not isn't relevant. The question is whether you or I or anyone bears any responsibility for the massive unfunded liabilities generated by the entitlement programs. If you believe in democratic responsibility, the answer is yes. But there is no democracy among people who disavow its results.


------------------
> To return to your original assertion that social
> security beneficiaries are getting something for
> nothing is categorically incorrect, in spite of
> all the arguments you persist in presenting.

My arguments are "categorically incorrect?" You can't disprove them; you cannot offer evidence against them; by your own account, you don't even know where to find the data on your own. But you are sure my arguments are wrong.

You sound like a Mormon bearing testimony.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/26/2021 10:12PM by Lot's Wife.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You sound like a Mormon bearing testimony.
===============================
Same method, only not the BOM

Well, at least we’ve established you are bereft of a sense of humor.

;-)

Only someone familiar with Nazi or white nationalist rhetoric would use this phrase.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_unworthy_of_life


Just sayin'...

Yep.

Wittingly or not--and I hope it's the latter--csuprovograd is using a Nazi term for Jews, the handicapped, gypsies, gay people, and other "untermenchen," or "subhumans."

I use the term because I have been called that by others, referring to my no longer producing as an employee. You assume way too much, and if you review, I was referring to myself when I said that. But hey, you managed to change the course of the discussion, which was the goal, yes?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/26/2021 10:01PM by csuprovograd.

csuprovograd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But hey, you managed to change the course of
> the discussion, which was the goal, yes?

Well that's a bit rich, isn't it, given that it was not I but anybody who raised the topic?

As for my wanting to change the topic from economics, you sound a bit like the Black Knight in Holy Grail. You'll be fine, csuprovograd. It's just a flesh would.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/26/2021 10:11PM by Lot's Wife.

It's not a common phrase.

I was wondering...

anybody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Only someone familiar with Nazi or white
> nationalist rhetoric would use this phrase.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_unworthy_of_lif
> e
===============================
I thought the phrase an amusing irrelevancy revealing much more about the writer's problem solving method than the writer intended, but this explains the specifics

Took a quick look around, Henry Kissinger was known to use that term. I reckon it is not a term that is an automatic allegiance to a particular group…



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/26/2021 10:27PM by csuprovograd.

csuprovograd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Took a quick look around, Henry Kissinger was
> known to use that term. I reckon it is not a term
> that is an automatic allegiance to a particular
> group…
===============================
Might be useful to enlighten/correct Wikipedia then

Wikipedia is the ultimate reference source?

I don’t think so.

Did I indicate Wikipedia as an ultimate reference source?
Of course not.
But you have no viable argument except projection.

I see no "authoritative" source to back your claim.
Perhaps ye might bravely offer one.

You won't.
Of course.

Because you cannot.

Heh. Found this for you…

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=useless%20eaters

csuprovograd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Heh. Found this for you…
>
> https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=us
> eless%20eaters
============================
This does not even reference source documents and so is even a step beneath Wikipedia. Even Wikipedia demands references.

No wonder the confusion.

Tell you what: rather than repeating empty-headed bumper-stickers try thinking for yourself.

This is now the second time I have suggested such to ye, good pal. Your are smarter than this.

Well, at least we’ve established you are bereft of a sense of humor.

So there’s that…

Meh... The world has always been terrible - nothing new there. Quit reading the news and blogs, learn a trade, and get to work. There are LOTS more options for work than when I entered the work field in the 70's and early 80's. You will learn over time that the sky is always falling, the world is going to hell in a hand basket, the political party on the other side of the isle is wrong, and your side is right, this next disease or pandemic is worthy of panic and upheaval, etc. etc. etc. No one knows the future, it might be better than you think, it might be worse. Get your own life in order - turn off the main stream news liars, ignore the big Pharma scams, keep yourself healthy and productive. That is all that is in your control. Whatever it is, good or bad, nothing lasts forever.