ViperMan

The only reason any of us know Bret Weinstein's name is because he had the temerity to call a spade a spade when he stood up to the extreme, racist, left wing mob that attempted to enact a "day without white people" on his campus. He (rightfully) took a stand against that effort and has been in the limelight ever since. Probably because he's not woke enough. So most of his exposure on the internet is derivative of that one-off event, hence why 95% of it is complaining about democrats...since it was a reaction to democrats. It's the same fundamental story behind Jordan Petersen. These are "normal" guys (professors, scientists, etc.) who wake up one morning and go "WTF is going on around here?" and they call it out. Call me crazy, but we need more of that. For goodness sakes, he's an evolutionary biologist at Evergreen State College...none of that suggests secret conservative mastermind. And the only reason we hear about him via Joe Rogan (left, right, centerish) and Sam Harris (leftish) is because no one on the true "left" wants to engage in an honest way with what he's saying. That says way more about the left than it does about Bret Weinstein and it certainly doesn't implicate him as a (gasp) conservative.

I think that's a mistake - it would destroy the internet as we know it. This message board, and others like it would likely be collateral damage, as now the owners, administrators would be liable for whatever gets posted up here - legal or illegal. A much cleaner kill, and IMO the right move, would be to regulate portions of Amazon's business (i.e. AWS, etc)...ala AT&T and their phone business.

It's because it's their turn now. That's all it is. Next time, it'll be someone else's turn.

Ok, I hear you. I just don't consider their social security as being "reduced." I agree it's less than it would have been had they continued working (and paid more into it), but to consider it reduced, it arguably needs to have had been higher at some point, and then re-gonkulated to a lesser amount. It's not insurance. I know it's considered insurance, because it's literally titled "FICA tax" (Federal Insurance Contributions Act tax), but you and I both know that just because something is named something doesn't mean it is that thing. I could have car insurance my entire life and never file a single claim - or I could be hopping from claim to claim. Insurance kicks in when you need it to cover unforeseeable, rare, and catastrophic events. Getting older is literally the most predictable thing there is, and SS kicks in for everyone. None of that seems to me unforeseeable, rare, or catastrophic. It would better be title "welfare for old people" because that's what it actually is, but we can't call things what they are, so we slap an "insurance" moniker on it. If it were to actually function like insurance, there would be some sort of need-based means testing - which we will probably have to go to at some point. Yeah I hadn't indicated they get divorced in the example. I agree that circumstances matter and will change things for every couple/person. I'm sure we're both capable of constructing examples that will demonstrate different points. My point was simply to say that lower-earning spouses are paying a 100% marginal tax rate on some portion of their earnings. Having worked or not worked, getting divorced at 9 years and 11 months is an awful financial decision for a low earner. Akin to quitting active duty at 19 years and 10 months. Who does that? No one informed, that's for sure.

Agree wholeheartedly that our laws are woefully under-prepared to deal with much in the modern era. Too bad we don't have a legislature that seems very interested in ensuring they keep up.

If I were to refer to that as a penalty, I would use the adjective just. In actuality (IMO), it's simply a reasonable feature of the system. If you want the lesser time share, fine! Pay the lesser amount! Don't work. No skin off my back. I wouldn't call it a penalty to not have income if I didn't work, I'd call it a consequence. Social security does actually penalize you, though, for a lot more than that, including: Beginning work early in your life - since you pay that tax early and get no interest credit for the time your payment has funded the system. Not to mention the fact that if you begin work earlier, it's notionally at a lower wage, granting you less credit than someone who paid into the system later, but at a higher wage rate. Having a lower life expectancy - since different groups (men) live shorter lives, they wind up getting less benefit - especially since this group (as a whole) pays a lot more into the system. The affects minority groups, as well. In terms of the "spouse that stays home to raise the kids" being penalized, it's exactly the opposite. Lesser-earning working spouses wind up paying a 100% marginal tax rate in some cases due to the earning differences between spouses. Here's the math: Al and Alice make $70K and $20K a year, respectively. Because of dependent and survivor provisions, Alice is entitled to social security at the income level that Al paid out. Karl and Karen make $70K and $0K a year, respectively. Karen stays home raising the kids. Karen is entitled to Karl's level of social security based on the same provisions. Alice and Karen are entitled to the same amount of social security benefits. Who's making out and who's losing in the above scenario? Karen is winning like a big dog, while poor Alice, slaving away during the night shift emptying bed pans is reducing her earned benefit by one dollar for every dollar she would receive based on Al's contributions to social security. Not to mention the added detriment that she's going to need to hire a baby sitter. Here, not working truly does pay off. There are a lot of dynamics to taxation that aren't apparent on the surface, but which are absolutely real. Want to maximize your social security income? The best way to do it is to not work and be married to a high-earner. If you can't do that, the best way is to delay your payment into the system as long as humanly possible. Want to maximize your social security "penalty"? Get married to a high-earning spouse and work your ass off at a low paying job.

What we probably need to do is implement some sort of "capital control" on people who make less than a certain amount of money. No shit. I get people need checking accounts, but if you're literally that thin, and can't ever get a leg up, you may need some "forced supervision" where X% of your paycheck is held in some form of escrow until you demonstrate proficiency at bill paying and checkbook balancing. Sorry, I intended to draw a parallel (not a distinction) between decentralization and the elimination of middlemen - those things are synonymous in my vernacular. What happens when we get rid of middlemen? Good things in the long term. Entire new industries crop up. New shit gets invented. Economic "rent" disappears. Things people never even imagined get built and created and delivered to you. Short term? Pain. It's difficult to re-invent yourself in the midst of radical upheaval or later in life. I get the gravity of the challenge, but we're not going to side-step it. One truth about all this technology: the level of control we (in the US) think we can place on the course of technology doesn't matter one bit. Not one little bit. If we "hold back" and think we're going to "slow roll" the transition to "whatever" in the name of preserving some other industry or group of workers because "justice," we are going to be kicked square between the legs when some other group of people (China) goes and does it anyway because they DGAF about our internal problems and have no problem leaving us in the dirt while they colonize the solar system.

While I think I see your theme, and it wasn't my intent to paint all recipients of relief as people who don't deserve or need it, there are plenty of people who fall into the category I identified. And that category is growing. In any case, my original point was why does a pandemic justify paying someone who didn't have income in the first place? Operable phrase: "Why does the pandemic..." Not: "I wonder if this person who didn't have a job needs or would like government cheese." So, why does the pandemic justify paying someone unemployment who didn't have income in the first place. If they qualified for unemployment, they should already be getting it. IMO, it's nothing more than a bribe. The idea underlying this thought I could get behind. One idea would be to punt their social security collection X months/years into the future. "Oh, I see right here, Mr. Jones, that you needed 8 years of unemployment assistance to get by?" "Yes..." "Cool, well your social security check will start when you're 73...thanks." Or, you want your social security to start on time? Sweet, then we'll enroll you in a "catch-up" plan to "re-fund" your "early withdrawal" and get you back in good standing. We cannot continue to act as if there is infinite money. The rest of the world is only gonna let us get away with that for so long.

Check out the Pareto principle (not saying you're unfamiliar) - the idea behind the 80/20 rule. 80% (Crush 'em) of work is done by 20% of the employees; 80% of your productivity boils down to 20% of the "things" you have to do; etc, etc. It shows up in a very wide range of places...wealth distribution is one of them. I'm not against safety nets or providing honest help in situations with bonafide needs. I just think corollary to that is time-limited, strict, and conservative upper bounds on $$$ handed out. Personally I opposed direct payments partly because I don't think a pandemic is reason to start paying people income who didn't have it in the first place. Homeboy wasn't working before there was a pandemic, he was cool with not having money? Cool. Why, now, does he need a check? The second reason I opposed them was because it keeps people tied to their jobs. Now, we have instances of people quitting because it's more lucrative to be unemployed. Translation: it's more lucrative for them to have other people work to pay their taxes and for them to sit home and collect that "extra" EOY money. Agree on all of us getting checks. Ridiculous.

I see your point technically, but I do think there is good reason to hold the vote well in advance of the change-over of power. For one, it gives time to prepare for a swap out of the government. No surprises, plenty of time for the new team to plan while the old team is still in control. Also, it gives the country time to breathe and begin to adapt to their new reality. On the topic of elections, though, one thing I do think we could move towards is what Negatory brought up earlier: ranked-choice voting, or at least some sort of voting scheme where it's not simple 1-on-1. Computerized voting systems eliminate the difficulty inherent in counting using such schemes and would be a welcome modification of our democratic process. The current system breeds polarization and also drives "grouping" where it wouldn't otherwise take place (i.e. I'm not aligned with faction "A", but I'm more aligned with it than faction "B", so I'm with "A"). Having some version of a ranked-choice system would allow moderate voices to prevail, as the motivation to vote out of fear would evaporate (i.e. voting against the other guy - which was our last two elections, at least). Then the winner would be closest to center and if it wasn't your guy that won, the one that did would very likely be pretty close to what you wanted anyway, increasing your trust in government. All for a very simple adaptation to boot. Instead, we get one clown show or another driving the bus. Personally, I love being in the back seat when numb nuts up front is going full-scale deflection one way or the other.

Some interesting analysis, to be sure. In a purely "capitalist" world, sure, let Comcast operate unchecked. Until then, though, they need gutter bumpers. In regards to banking (et al), I could see good reason for lots of additional government services to be made available, the follow-up question then becomes "who would use it?" Checking accounts are already free...can't get cheaper than that unless you decide to pay someone to have a government checking account! My banking is already super convenient - I never even have to go to one. I have the service, but it's basically invisible to me. Either way, I think we're witnessing the beginnings of the shift to broad decentralization of many technologies and services - banking is only one such instance. Reference Bitcoin, and all of the other digital currencies cropping up/gaining acceptance. Personally, I think if you can figure out what the societal/global impact of mass decentralization and removal of "middlemen" across the board is going to be, you'd be in a great place to predict the future.

This one does. I thought Ajit Pai was a total piece of shit. His is a prototypical example of the revolving door of lobbyists becoming a governing authority and then returning to industry after having had their impact. The basic issue with not regulating it as common infrastructure is that the government has granted monopolies to ISPs and other utility companies to use public easements and rights-of-way to install their infrastructure. Not everyone has access to that. Not everyone is allowed to have access to that. So there are companies that have been given special privilege to conduct their business, and hence, should be regulated appropriately. That means Net Neutrality.

It's because many of her positions are "Russia adjacent." I think she has some good qualities, but her foreign policy views are, frankly, extremely naive. Reference the buzz term she leans on during many of her interviews: "regime change wars." She dresses up her opinion with things that make sense (i.e. "military's mission is defense of America," etc.), but it is not at all coupled with the realpolitik of our modern world where smaller nations states fall into the orbits of larger ones. She has some valid points, but her fundamental conclusion and orientation is wrong. I would agree with her in terms of we don't need to police the world, and I also think it's defensible to accept a few dictators in the world. IMO, our whole problem with AFG/IRQ (part 2), was how we fought. We went in full-bore when we should have gone in with extremely and narrowly tailored objectives; instead we went in trying to "take the cake."

☝️ Reality. Expect the more the left embraces, develops, and pushes a false reality, the further the polarization will become in our country. What should happen is a frank, cultural discussion about what are, and are not the US's remaining racial challenges that need to be rectified. Systemic police violence against group 'X' is not on that list. Unfortunately, what is on the table is demonstrably BS. Half of what's out there is information shaped to fit a narrative designed to drive policy decisions and law-making to serve a few of the chosen. The other half is desperately trying to maintain a grasp of reality.

Totally agree. I wish Trump had been more mature during his tenure. I wish the media realized what/who they were dealing with and hadn't stooped to his level, but they did, and honestly, they do bear some of the responsibility for the current state of affairs. In terms of the election being close, sorry, I was specifically referring to Georgia's Senate run-off, and the fact that it's now a 50/50 split. Trump wasn't really close in the presidential election. I give as much credence to voter fraud this time around as I did last time, which is to say, not much. I guess I should clarify: it happens, but not to a level that affects the outcome of elections (IMO, at least). Trump running with the trope that there was massive fraud that prevented his re-election is unironically pretty funny.

Cranium's up, I think you need to be enrolled at greater than (or equal to) 50% of what is considered "full time" in order to collect any BAH, and then, you only collect the proportion that equates to your enrollment (i.e. 75% of a full time stud = 75% of BAH). For undergrad, that's usually 12 semester hours - so you need to be enrolled in 6 hrs. For grad school, it's usually 9 - so you need to be enrolled in 4.5. I'm not sure what formula is used for other types of school/training. Edit: actually it's more than 50%. https://gibill.custhelp.va.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/1480

Yep. There are dems licking their chops over this because it's a perfect excuse to govern from an extreme position (never let a crisis go to waste). Look for a themes of "we have to repair the damage done," "we have to help those who were destroyed by Trump," and "the republican party is a danger to democracy" to be in play over the next two years (minimum). I don't admire Biden's position. I think he is (by far) inheriting the most difficult set of circumstances of any president since Vietnam. He's got a chance, though, because I do think he is an inherently good person.

Awesome! I'm glad we're all in agreement that it wasn't an attempted coup. I had been hearing differently in the social media sphere, the news, and was starting hear the same bleed over into this forum. It's best when we keep the hyperbole to a minimum. I don't think you're thinking big enough. That is worrisome, to be sure, but what is worse is the continued divergence between the growing 'sectarian' realities that are continuing to find harbor in our country. That MAGA group yesterday is but one instance. The groups engaging in violence all summer long, were another. What I'm saying is that we're misidentifying the root causes and driving factors behind these events, but there is a way towards reconciliation. Honestly, the best thing we can do with Trump going forward, is to ignore him and let him fade into memory. Like others have identified on this forum, the Democratic party has a real opportunity to take an honest leadership role here. There has been real damage done to the Republican party (by the Republican party), but the Dem's only way forward is to make their bicycle look less broken (which they are not doing). What should they do, IMO? For starters, all discussion that frames yesterday as an attempted coup, has to stop. That goes for both Chuck Schumer (who is a piece of shit) and for Ben Sasse (who I admire greatly). All it does is polarize more people and allows them to reinforce their dug-in positions. In the same vein, likening yesterday to Pearl Harbor also has to end. Second, the Democrats need to step back and communicate to the American people a message that addresses the following: We (America) are obviously a divided nation. We (Democrats) won by the narrowest of margins. We (Democrats), unfortunately, have no "mandate" and we're not going to govern like we do. Any and all things we do in the next term will be from a position of true bi-partisanship. It's from this place that we'll reach out to Republicans to govern. Peace/truce. If I heard a speech (or saw governing) that covered those points, 1) I'd breathe a sign of relief because it would finally be a truthful, adult response, and 2) it would be the first time in the last four years that I would see any amount of reality come from the democratic side of the isle. But I'm not holding my breath for that. Reference all the coup talk, and the reference to a mandate from our friends at CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/07/politics/georgia-election-wins-biden/index.html. We've got a mandate and we've got mounting expectations...awesome. I love being part of the 49.9% minority subject to the 50.1% majority. But yeah, mandate...keep your seat belts fastened.

I'm opening "what-a-bouts" for this post. Does no one remember four short years ago when there was a concerted effort to get faithless electors to "subvert democracy" and "vote their conscience"? WTH does everyone think would have happened four years ago had that effort succeeded? Surely it would have been a peaceful transition when faithless electors chose a different president. I'm sure that wouldn't have disenfranchised large swaths of our nation. No, it wasn't endorsed by the sitting President, but why am I not surprised? Why does this just seem to 'fit' in with the rest of the other BS that's been going on? And again, the 'coup' talk is disingenuous. Where is the force that is going to back-up any of this? Honestly it's disheartening to think that so many of my colleagues harbor an actual concern that this threatened our way of life, because it implies you think that the military at large would fall in line with blindly carrying out orders from Trump. Frankly, I trust everyone I work with way more than that. I feel like I'm the guy down range getting bitched at by chiefs for wearing the "CTFO" morale patch.

I agree 100%, and that's a topic worth engaging on. Personally, I think it's a tactical/operational/strategic failure of whatever government agency is responsible for protecting the Capitol. Where were the fire hoses? Non-lethal crowd control measures? Hundreds or thousands of National Guard troops. It's not like we didn't know this thing was coming. There was no good way to slowly escalate the use of force, so as soon as a breach happened they had to use lethal force. I had heard of the event even though I'm fairly disengaged so no doubt it was on everyone's radar. I'm also hugely concerned about China/Russia/Iran, but am also worried that even outside of external threat actors, we have our own internal struggles that remain.

If we're having a national dialogue about a coup - defined by our major sources of news and other national leaders (senators) calling it one - then yes, there needs to have been a legitimate threat to our government/way of life. In our case however, it represents an opportunity for interested parties to cast it in a suitable way for future maneuvering. There was no danger to our way of life displayed today. When it's put forth in such hyperbolic terms, it further erodes trust in our institutions. In the last few years I have seen frighteningly few mature responses from nearly anyone in government. That our Capitol saw action is disheartening and shameful, and no one said I'm not pissed. I'm as pissed as I was this summer. Why I may come off as ambivalent at this point, is that this is one additional piece of the puzzle that's been coming together for years. Yeah, I guess if I viewed it in isolation it might piss me off in a more acute manner. But today wasn't 9/11 and it wasn't December 7th. And while my attitude may be gross to you on this message board, it's not having a societal effect on our national consciousness and making further civil discourse even more difficult in the same way our national leaders and news media are.

Ehh. All this discussion of a coup attempt is gross overreaction, fear mongering, and ultimately, politicking. And yes, I do mean gross. Are people on this board seriously concerned that that small bunch represented an actual threat to the rule of this country? If so, how close did they come? If so, how close did you come to falling into lock step with your new rulers wearing MAGA hats and overalls? What New Yorker was going to wake up to the Times and just go "hmm, ok, well I guess this is what we got." Any real coup has an authentic chance of co-opting large swaths of a previous government. Today was not that. Sorry, but it just wasn't. What it is, is an opportunity for political money-making. Wake me up on the 20th if he doesn't leave office and there are armed government employees refusing to depart the White House. Until then/that happens, this is just more ugly game-playing.

I agree we 'should' - but it's not a birthright to quote Fingers. And I don't think the damage is irreparable. They fixed Hiroshima for God's sake. I would say the idea of America symbolizes freedom around the world. We got rid of the idea about one person being the end-all be-all in 1776.

Like I said, it's but merely one instance of a great many failures we've seen over the last year. And apparently, we do do that here. Your statement is indicative of another inherent problem many of us have: we think we're somehow above all this - we're not. It's the same attitude of "it can't happen to me." See: Mayors and legislatures turning on their police departments. Edit to add: I said "QUALitatively" - not sure that matters to your point.

Notice: this is how our GOVERNMENT functions right now. It's been like this for years. Some of us (me) see this as part and parcel of the same underlying issue - not about whether or not someone is wearing red, blue, or orange glasses. The issue, IMO, is who gets to define what reality is (i.e. we're flirting with themes from 1984). Notice how everything is about perspective and framing - what something is, and what it is not. We are arguing about what is real. Don't forget, rioting (/peaceful protesting, depending on what frame you like to use) has been going on all summer long. Does it surprise you that there is finally a riot from the right? While it is shameful (perhaps a contender for the "most" shameful award) that it was apparently encouraged by Trump today, it is not qualitatively different than what has been going on all summer long from top to bottom, including mayors, governors, senators, congresspeople, business leaders, news organizations, social media, etc (please note, I am not justifying ANY bad behavior, from either side). You name the thing, it has an agenda, a frame, a technological bubble to place you in, or an angle to push. And if you're me, what you've seen over the last four years is a ridiculous and hysterical obsession with how F'd up Trump is. You would think we're on the cusp of total collapse because of him. Frankly, it's been very petty, and in my view, it has been done intentionally and with design, because everyone knows that Trump is a little bit cranky and unpredictable...pester dad enough and he might lash out, which might work to your advantage...yes, I am that cynical about American politics and our media complex, which, let's not forget, are private companies (CNN = Time Warner, NBC = Comcast, ABC = The Walt Disney Company, CBS is a fusion of National Amusements, Paramount Pictures, and Viacom, Fox News = Fox, and so on...) whose ultimate motivation is profit, not rightfully informing you. Makes sense right? There's only so many different ways to dress up the truth. Reflecting on 2020, I'd say the largest event was COVID-19. IMO, that is what actually led to the riots. You had people out of work, out of money, cooped up inside, told they can't travel, told to wear masks, being given conflicting information, no end in sight, watching "Tiger King" for the 69th time, etc, etc. Seems like a good root cause to me. But no, what caused the riots all summer long? Race, according to the "experts;" according to doctrine. But is that view justified, at all??? Has it been effectively defended or challenged? Was 2020 an outlier in regards to police "brutality"? Not likely. Yet here's the debrief: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/2020/06/2020-not-1968/, https://www.motherjones.com/crime-justice/2020/06/police-brutality-coronavirus-trump-protests-ongoing-summer-2020/, the theme being, "it was caused by systemic mistreatment of blacks"...really? That's our root cause from this mission? Nah. Point being, we (America) have a split-view of reality. If you think only one side has scales on their eyes, I'm here to tell you the next four years are probably going to feel like the last four, and you'll still be wondering WTF if you think Trump is the root cause. Trump isn't the cancer, he's a symptom. This problem ain't going anywhere until we start discussing our problems from positions of good faith.