Thoughts?

[PhilJohn]

the democratic agenda and assault against the 2nd amendment is not about individual safety…they couldnt care less…its about securing a socialist agenda. Big Red Bus fellow Americans….

It Is so weird, finally our Government has just recently admitted UFO sightings/abductions/crashes are real, and our tech is pretty much useless, and now they want to take peoples guns? Do these geniuses understand the concept of timing?

[mjedlin66]

The original post was about policy. Keep the debate policy-focused, not party-focused.

If you can't make your statement without some variation of the words "Republican" or "Democrat" or "Biden" or "Trump", then your statement is most likely politically charged rather than policy debate.

[NUC SHARK]

valid feedback. my intent was policy concerns, you are right. appreciate the feedback.

[amybelieve]

My opinions are based on the following big picture. Here's a pie chart of the US Govt Spending 2023



I'm sorry but Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are entitlements (meaning we all paid into it with our hard earned dollars) and it would plain be immoral to gut it. .....

there is so much added Social Security that is NOT social security. I know a "disabled" veteran who married a prosperous lady who had 4 children with a prosperous ex-husband. Her children, who were not the "disabled" partner's children, were sent benefit checks until 22 or 24? (they were in college) in addition to the disabled's children.

[mjedlin66]

I am not opposed to eliminating the federal government pensions. Pensions are expensive and historically under-funded and over-promised. Here would be my proposal:

1. Change the TSP matching from 5% to 10%.
2. Set the default TSP contribution for new hires to 10%.
3. Set the default investment for new hires to C fund. Right now it's the L fund closest to your expected retirement date, which isn't bad.
4. Continue existing employees under FERS as agreed.

I used this calculator: https://www.bankrate.com/retirement/401-k-calculator/

Someone making just $40,000 investing 10%, employer matched 10%, assuming 7% returns and a 3% annual raise would have 3 million dollars after 35 years.

If as a society we moved towards 10% contributions and 10% matching being normalized, we would have far less people broke in retirement. We may even be able to get out of Social Security all together at that point.

[Aitrus]

Agreed. Saying "Medicare / Medicaid / Social Security is bankrupting us" is different than saying "we should just let people die". Some sort of safety net / retirement plan is needed, but the one we have isn't working. This plan is something I can get behind.

Differences about the purpose of government are clear in this thread. The US definition is intentionally different than all the other developed nations on purpose.

Regardless about how each of us feels about the purpose of government and how its power is used, if nothing is done then these programs will disappear in one of two ways: either they will be replaced by something else, or the country will be economically unable to pay for them and they disappear anyway (either by the country dissolving, societal collapse due to collapse of the economy, or other forces come into play in a catastrophic way).

I consider eliminating the programs and replacing them with something more sustainable to be the more moral option. True, benefits would be cut and some would suffer - but people are suffering now, and are projected to suffer in the future. If suffering is to be done, I would rather that suffering lead to a more positive long-term outcome than the unworkable status quo.

[bloobs]

If as a society we moved towards 10% contributions and 10% matching being normalized, we would have far less people broke in retirement. We may even be able to get out of Social Security all together at that point.

I agree. People have to be forced into savings for their own sakes.

Someone here inferred that if FICA taxes are eliminated, everyone would be directing the amount saved into retirements or some other prudent meaningful investments instead. However, in the real world of American society, MOST people would just direct those deferred amounts straight into impulsively buying $70k trucks, $10k luxury cruises, and buying worthless junk from Amazon and FB marketplace. Freedom of choice (and its consequences).

Most Americans have abysmal financial literacy and easily succumb to consumeristic pressures from peers and product manufacturers. That's why inflation refuses to abate--as consumers continue to buy hyperinflated priced discretionary products like additional cars, McMansions, and gadgets peddled to them by greedy manufacturers and developers--even while their wage-to-expense ratio rapidly diminishes. Yet they blame the government, the Fed, aliens, whoever else but themselves for it. It takes two to tango.

[Aitrus]

I agree. People have to be forced into savings for their own sakes.

Someone here inferred that if FICA taxes are eliminated, everyone would be directing the amount saved into retirements or some other prudent meaningful investments instead. However, in the real world of American society, MOST people would just direct those deferred amounts straight into impulsively buying $70k trucks, $10k luxury cruises, and buying worthless junk from Amazon and FB marketplace. Freedom of choice (and its consequences).

Most Americans have abysmal financial literacy and easily succumb to consumeristic pressures from peers and product manufacturers. That's why inflation refuses to abate--as consumers continue to buy hyperinflated priced discretionary products like additional cars, McMansions, and gadgets peddled to them by greedy manufacturers and developers--even while their wage-to-expense ratio rapidly diminishes. Yet they blame the government, the Fed, aliens, whoever else but themselves for it. It takes two to tango.

Yes. Free people are...free. I'm not sure I understand your confusion / anger / dismay / x negative reaction here.

Why do you think that it's government's job / duty / responsibility to dictate to people how they live, what they spend their money on? Why use government to prevent people from experiencing the consequences of their choices (thus enabling / encouraging further bad choices in successive generations)? That's really, really bad public policy that has failed each and every time it's been tried. Brave New World, Anthem, and 1984 weren't nice places to live in, and in each one government forced people do do things "for their own good."

Forcing people to contribute to savings "for their own sakes" is wrong. It's a good idea that should be encouraged, but it should always be voluntary. Nobody has the right to decide how other people live their lives - not you, not me, not anybody...and certainly not government.

Besides, that's not what MJ suggested. He suggested that saving for retirement via matching into a 401k be normalized, as in "a commonly accepted practice," which is not the same thing as being mandated. Pensions used to be normalized, and many companies did them, but nobody was forced to work for a company that had them and no company was forced to offer them (that I'm aware of).

[bloobs]

Yes. Free people are...free. I'm not sure I understand your confusion / anger / dismay / x negative reaction here.

I thought i may it clear in my post, but here goes:

The reason the economy could be "better" (lowered inflation) right now is because of two factors: corporations continuing to jack up their product prices (not to cover their increased costs) but to increase their profit margins/shareholder dividends/exec. bonuses/etc. even after covid era supply chain issues have long been resolved; and consumers proceeding to pay those inflated prices even though they could scale back purchasing to stay within their budgets--and pressure corporations to lower their prices. The result is persistent inflation. Economics 101.

IOW, that inflation is caused by those two parties (manufacturers and consumers) who then blame some other third party for it--instead of taking some accountability for their own collective actions that contributed. That as you say is the reason for my "dismay".

My personal accountability: when auto prices wouldn't come down in 2022 through 2023 i decided to defer buying a newer car to replace my 10yr old import. I can certainly "afford" a new car unlike most people who did end up buying a car and subsequently defaulted on it (see https://www.bankrate.com/loans/auto-loa ... ies-surge/). but I also realized that need was really just a want and not worth paying 100s of bucks more a month for more reliability and luxury.

Imagine if every person in that same boat as I took the same step, car price increases would have subsequently stalled and normalized as dealers are forced by market pressures to remove those bloody markups to move inventory. On a macro scale, the reduced economic activity of fewer transactions would then result in a weakening economy that would convince the Fed to drop the funds rate.

Society as a whole always believe their problems are somebody else's to fix--even if they has a big hand in causing it. That's entitlement.

[Aitrus]

I thought i may it clear in my post, but here goes:

My apologies. I was getting the impression that you were upset that people weren't making the choices you would have them make (because it's for their own good). Instead, it's corporations you're mad at and you're just disappointed (as opposed to angry) with people for letting them get away with it by continuing to participate in the free market?

Just trying to get a clear read on where your views are on this issue. Seems like you're anti-capitalism as an economic model for the US, but I don't want to assume.

Economics 101.

I see it a bit differently. The recent inflation (regardless of what method you use to measure it) is due to supply and demand rubber-banding effects due to COVID craziness. It's finally slowing down, but inflation will become more of an issue (and thus causing the Fed to continue manipulating rates) because of upcoming worker shortages and not due to purchasing decisions. In short: COVID drove the recent past inflation, and demographics will drive about 20 years of future inflation, and that's going to really affect the market, home buying, etc. Peter Zeihan - a geopolitical economist - explains it better than I can:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAjBy5cBwJ0

Society as a whole always believe their problems are somebody else's to fix--even if they has a big hand in causing it. That's entitlement.

Then wouldn't having government problems which bail people out from the consequences of those problems - aka, entitlements - just encourage more of the same? That's why I believe that government programs / subsidies enable bad choices. That's how we get generational welfare, grievance politics, and various forms of greed-driven wealth transfer.

I agree with you: people should be responsible for fixing their own problems and not expect others to fix them. It bothers the hell out of me that not only do some people not see how destructive this kind of policy is, but they actually think that more of it is good. It's not a new phenomenon, either. The "government should fix my problems for me" mindset predates Jesus.

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the people discover they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy--to be followed by a dictatorship." - Author unknown, but often misattributed to Franklin, Alexis de Tocqueville, or Alexander Tyler, but is most likely a paraphrasing of something that Polybius wrote in The Histories

[bloobs]

My apologies. I was getting the impression that you were upset that people weren't making the choices you would have them make (because it's for their own good). Instead, it's corporations you're mad at and you're just disappointed (as opposed to angry) with people for letting them get away with it by continuing to participate in the free market?

Just trying to get a clear read on where your views are on this issue. Seems like you're anti-capitalism as an economic model for the US, but I don't want to assume.

Capitalism as practiced in its purest form, for lack of a better word, is evil. Having said that, so is the pure practice of communism/socialism/marxism/corporatism/[add other isms here].

The success of the US and other so-called democracies (so far) is it ability to balance the "good" tenets of both capitalism and socialism principles. Neither one (should) trump the other in this country.

1. Socialism - Government-provided public safety, healthcare, education, social security, and welfare programs are inarguably socialistic in nature and in practice. Their purpose is to keep as much of the citizenry as healthy and educated as reasonable--so they can become productive and well-informed members and leaders of society. I wouldn't trust any corporation to administer these programs sans regulation--for obvious reasons. Having said that, excessive socialistic applications lead to problems with abuse of its benefits by citizens, such as welfare, SS fraud as alluded to by AmyBelieve. Most of you here are DoD and probably well aware of the rampant abuse of "disability" claims made by former servicemen claiming dubious injuries while never been in harms way or a warzone.

2. Capitalism - as practiced by corporations, is good for promoting equality and economic progress through innovation and competition--as long as its regulated to protect the populations from formation of market monopolies (e.g. "consolidation"). Capitalism is great in a democracy until it crosses a line that conflicts with socialistic programs. Where and how? I lifted the below paragraphs that articulate this intersection well:

"The goal of Capitalism is based on consumption, so energy is placed on that need alone. There is no consideration given to the environment, the social structures of the society, or whatever harm may be done in any other area. If the actions are profitable, then they are worth pursuing. This creates a natural outcome of corporate and individualistic greed."

"Governments support the best businesses and the wealthiest individuals because they contribute the most to the infrastructure of the society. The poor receive services as well, but not to the same extent, because their contribution levels are “less” than others."

Source: https://vittana.org/17-pros-and-cons-of-capitalism

In short, BOTH ideologies have their rightful place in a healthy American democracy, but only if they both exert a counterbalancing force against each other.

[NUC SHARK]

my struggle with socialism is this - i was raised to work for my keep. if i work for my keep and the government takes my hard work in the form of taxes to freely give those who refuse to work for their keep cause of laziness - then WTH. why should i work at all? that ideology DESTROYS all ambition and creativity and WILL create a society of folks who will not vote otherwise because “my monthly check will be taken away”. all i can say is this - GIVE a man a fish and you will feed him for a day….but TEACH a man to fish and you feed him for life. the problem today is our govt wants to give too many fish for a day….all at the expense of those who WORK to go out and fish. ALL FOR VOTES TO STAY IN OFFICE.

this ideology DESTROYS nations cause like the old saying goes - its easy to spend working peoples money until there aint no more. thats socialism


if this post bans me from TSPCENTER then i am too good for TSPCENTER

good nite

[NUC SHARK]

in fact - closing out … best wishes all

this site is destined for closure anyways as matt has clearly stated this site is a money pit.

[Aitrus]

NUC,

Nothing in your last post is problematic. You’re fine there. You’re sharing your views on policies without attacking anybody or bringing up political parties or personalities. All within the limits of what MJ has ruled is appropriate.

As for the site, MJ has given no indication of shutting it down, just that he doesn’t place a priority on improving it. He’s stated that he’s willing to open it up to open source for others to improve it, should anybody wish to. But doing so won’t shut the site down.

[tnwhiskey]

my struggle with socialism is this - i was raised to work for my keep. if i work for my keep and the government takes my hard work in the form of taxes to freely give those who refuse to work for their keep cause of laziness - then WTH. why should i work at all? that ideology DESTROYS all ambition and creativity and WILL create a society of folks who will not vote otherwise because “my monthly check will be taken away”. all i can say is this - GIVE a man a fish and you will feed him for a day….but TEACH a man to fish and you feed him for life. the problem today is our govt wants to give too many fish for a day….all at the expense of those who WORK to go out and fish. ALL FOR VOTES TO STAY IN OFFICE.

this ideology DESTROYS nations cause like the old saying goes - its easy to spend working peoples money until there aint no more. thats socialism


if this post bans me from TSPCENTER then i am too good for TSPCENTER

good nite

The points you make are certainly valid; however, what is rarely mentioned in this type of discourse is the welfare (socialism) corporations receive in the form of tax breaks, subsidies, and bail outs. Remember, some of the big corps are "too big to fail". This form of transfer of wealth makes me shake my head just as much as the individual handouts.

I can tell you firsthand there are certain regions of the country where a huge swath of the population receive some form of government assistance and if those checks were to suddenly vanish, it would crush the local economy/businesses in the area that rely on that money. It was one of the most bizarre things to experience and a vicious cycle.