US continues to go forward

[Rob B.]

WE HAVE A PROBLEM: This is a well written and thought out article written by a 26 yr old college student by the name of Alyssa Ahlgren, who's in grad school for her MBA. What a GREAT perspecitve...

My Generation Is Blind to the Prosperity Around Us!
I'm sitting in a small coffee shop near Nokomis (Florida) trying to think of what to write about. I scroll through my newsfeed on my phone looking at the latest headlines of presidential candidates calling for policies to "fix" the so-called injustices of capitalism. I put my phone down and continue to look around.

I see people talking freely, working on their MacBook's, ordering food they get in an instant, seeing cars go by outside, and it dawned on me. We live in the most privileged time in the most prosperous nation and we've become completely blind to it.

Vehicles, food, technology, freedom to associate with whom we choose.These things are so ingrained in our American way of life we don't give them a second thought.

We are so well off here in the United States that our poverty line begins 31 times above the global average. Thirty One Times!!!

Virtually no one in the United States is considered poor by global standards. Yet, in a time where we can order a product off Amazon with one click and have it at our doorstep the next day, we are unappreciative, unsatisfied, and ungrateful. ??

Our unappreciation is evident as the popularity of socialist policies among my generation continues to grow. Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently said to Newsweek talking about the millennial generation, "An entire generation, which is now becoming one of the largest electorates in America, came of age and never saw American prosperity."

Never saw American prosperity! Let that sink in.

When I first read that statement, I thought to myself, that was quite literally the most entitled and factually illiterate thing I've ever heard in my 26 years on this earth. Many young people agree with her, which is entirely misguided.

My generation is being indoctrinated by a mainstream narrative to actually believe we have never seen prosperity. I know this first hand, I went to college, let's just say I didn't have the popular opinion, but I digress.

Why then, with all of the overwhelming evidence around us, evidence that I can even see sitting at a coffee shop, do we not view this as prosperity? We have people who are dying to get into our country.

People around the world destitute and truly impoverished. Yet, we have a young generation convinced they've never seen prosperity, and as a result, we elect some politicians who are dead set on taking steps towards abolishing capitalism.

Why? The answer is this,?? my generation has only seen prosperity. We have no contrast. We didn't live in the great depression, or live through two world wars, the Korean War, The Vietnam War or we didn't see the rise and fall of socialism and communism.

We don't know what it's like to live without the internet, without cars, without smartphones. We don't have a lack of prosperity problem. We have an entitlement problem, an ungratefulness problem, and it's spreading like a plague."

 

[steross]

WE HAVE A PROBLEM: This is a well written and thought out article written by a 26 yr old college student by the name of Alyssa Ahlgren, who's in grad school for her MBA. What a GREAT perspecitve...

My Generation Is Blind to the Prosperity Around Us!
I'm sitting in a small coffee shop near Nokomis (Florida) trying to think of what to write about. I scroll through my newsfeed on my phone looking at the latest headlines of presidential candidates calling for policies to "fix" the so-called injustices of capitalism. I put my phone down and continue to look around.

I see people talking freely, working on their MacBook's, ordering food they get in an instant, seeing cars go by outside, and it dawned on me. We live in the most privileged time in the most prosperous nation and we've become completely blind to it.

Vehicles, food, technology, freedom to associate with whom we choose.These things are so ingrained in our American way of life we don't give them a second thought.

We are so well off here in the United States that our poverty line begins 31 times above the global average. Thirty One Times!!!

Virtually no one in the United States is considered poor by global standards. Yet, in a time where we can order a product off Amazon with one click and have it at our doorstep the next day, we are unappreciative, unsatisfied, and ungrateful. ??

Our unappreciation is evident as the popularity of socialist policies among my generation continues to grow. Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently said to Newsweek talking about the millennial generation, "An entire generation, which is now becoming one of the largest electorates in America, came of age and never saw American prosperity."

Never saw American prosperity! Let that sink in.

When I first read that statement, I thought to myself, that was quite literally the most entitled and factually illiterate thing I've ever heard in my 26 years on this earth. Many young people agree with her, which is entirely misguided.

My generation is being indoctrinated by a mainstream narrative to actually believe we have never seen prosperity. I know this first hand, I went to college, let's just say I didn't have the popular opinion, but I digress.

Why then, with all of the overwhelming evidence around us, evidence that I can even see sitting at a coffee shop, do we not view this as prosperity? We have people who are dying to get into our country.

People around the world destitute and truly impoverished. Yet, we have a young generation convinced they've never seen prosperity, and as a result, we elect some politicians who are dead set on taking steps towards abolishing capitalism.

Why? The answer is this,?? my generation has only seen prosperity. We have no contrast. We didn't live in the great depression, or live through two world wars, the Korean War, The Vietnam War or we didn't see the rise and fall of socialism and communism.

We don't know what it's like to live without the internet, without cars, without smartphones. We don't have a lack of prosperity problem. We have an entitlement problem, an ungratefulness problem, and it's spreading like a plague."

 

[Rob B.]

26 years old is a boomer?

 

[steross]

26 years old is a boomer?

Does that matter? It is the same sentiment. And, a 26 yo right wing blogger is writing all that stuff for her audience of boomers. https://alphanews.org/author/alyssa-ahlgren/

I was just trying to give a different perspective on the same topic.

 

[Rob B.]

Does that matter? It is the same sentiment. And, a 26 yo right wing blogger is writing all that stuff for her audience of boomers. https://alphanews.org/author/alyssa-ahlgren/

I was just trying to give a different perspective on the same topic.

I just thought it was a different perspective from a non-boomer so it kind of mattered. After seeing her link I realize now that it did not.

 

[steross]

I don't fully agree with all of this, but at least the Texas legislature is in the news for something that isn't downright embarrassing.​

KVUE

Teile deine Videos mit Freunden, Verwandten oder der ganzen Welt

www.kvue.com

New bills aim to reshape Texans' diets under 'Make Texas Healthy Again' plan​

Lawmakers are pushing for more restrictions on ultra-processed foods and food additives.

 

[PF5]

Sanders reintroducing measure increasing Social Security benefits the hill

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is reintroducing a measure that would increase Social Security benefits.

Sanders is joined by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Reps. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) and Val Hoyle (D-Ore.) on the bill, titled the Social Security Expansion Act.


It would expand Social Security benefits by $2,400 a year and ensure the federal program is funded for the next 75 years through a tax on households making more than $250,000 a year, according to Sanders’s news release.

The lawmakers noted that it would not raise taxes at all for households that make less than $250,000 annually, which is more than 90 percent of Americans.

“At a time when nearly half of older Americans have no retirement savings and over 26 percent of seniors are trying to survive on an income of less than $17,500 a year, our job is not to cut Social Security as many of our Republican colleagues want to do,” Sanders said in a statement.

The bill reintroduction comes about two months after 20 Republican senators voted against the Social Security Fairness Act. GOP senators battled behind closed doors late last year about bulking up benefits, concerned that it has a hefty price tag. It still passed and former President Biden signed it into law before leaving office.

Sanders noted in his release that the cost estimate for his legislation reflects an analysis conducted by the Social Security Administration that he requested in 2023.

“By requiring millionaires and billionaires to finally pay their fair share into the program, the Social Security Expansion Act would ensure the fund’s solvency to the end of the century,” Sanders’s release said.


It’s the second time Sanders has introduced the legislation. In 2022, Sanders was joined by former Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) in introducing the act and hoping to meet the shortfalls many seniors face with their Social Security payments.

 

[JTOSU]

Sanders reintroducing measure increasing Social Security benefits the hill

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is reintroducing a measure that would increase Social Security benefits.

Sanders is joined by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Reps. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) and Val Hoyle (D-Ore.) on the bill, titled the Social Security Expansion Act.


It would expand Social Security benefits by $2,400 a year and ensure the federal program is funded for the next 75 years through a tax on households making more than $250,000 a year, according to Sanders’s news release.

The lawmakers noted that it would not raise taxes at all for households that make less than $250,000 annually, which is more than 90 percent of Americans.

“At a time when nearly half of older Americans have no retirement savings and over 26 percent of seniors are trying to survive on an income of less than $17,500 a year, our job is not to cut Social Security as many of our Republican colleagues want to do,” Sanders said in a statement.

The bill reintroduction comes about two months after 20 Republican senators voted against the Social Security Fairness Act. GOP senators battled behind closed doors late last year about bulking up benefits, concerned that it has a hefty price tag. It still passed and former President Biden signed it into law before leaving office.

Sanders noted in his release that the cost estimate for his legislation reflects an analysis conducted by the Social Security Administration that he requested in 2023.

“By requiring millionaires and billionaires to finally pay their fair share into the program, the Social Security Expansion Act would ensure the fund’s solvency to the end of the century,” Sanders’s release said.


It’s the second time Sanders has introduced the legislation. In 2022, Sanders was joined by former Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) in introducing the act and hoping to meet the shortfalls many seniors face with their Social Security payments.

I love the idea about shoring up SS — and unfortunately due to mismanagement, there needs to be a vehicle to transport more funds into SS. I applaud Sanders for actually trying to do something about it….something that 90%+ of congress is not doing. But any SS reform that has nothing about increasing the retirement age and simply about making a small amount of people pay more into a redistribution fund is not a great plan. An empty press release that does nothing.

 

[mugatu]

'The Daily Show' accepts Musk's terms for interview with Stewart: 'We'd be delighted'

Elon Musk agreed to come on \

www.usatoday.com

Not sure where to put this, but it could be real interesting

 

[PF5]

I love the idea about shoring up SS — and unfortunately due to mismanagement, there needs to be a vehicle to transport more funds into SS. I applaud Sanders for actually trying to do something about it….something that 90%+ of congress is not doing. But any SS reform that has nothing about increasing the retirement age and simply about making a small amount of people pay more into a redistribution fund is not a great plan. An empty press release that does nothing.

Not sure why republicans fight so hard for the wealthy…maybe you’re part of the wealthy…just amazes me that middle class people want to protect the upper and way upper class…

 

[JTOSU]

Not sure why republicans fight so hard for the wealthy…maybe you’re part of the wealthy…just amazes me that middle class people want to protect the upper and way upper class…

Amazes me that some people are so generous ….but ONLY with other peoples money.
Answer me this: Why should I…or someone else negatively affected by Sanders plan pay significantly more to fix SS than you?

Why are you against raising the retirement age? It hasn’t been changed in over 60 years and life expectancy has risen dramatically since then.

Note: I understand there will have to be changes to taxes to help shore up SS. But raising taxes should not just be the only solution.

 

[PF5]

Amazes me that some people are so generous ….but ONLY with other peoples money.
Answer me this: Why should I…or someone else negatively affected by Sanders plan pay significantly more to fix SS than you?

Why are you against raising the retirement age? It hasn’t been changed in over 60 years and life expectancy has risen dramatically since then.

Note: I understand there will have to be changes to taxes to help shore up SS. But raising taxes should not just be the only solution.

Pretty sure it changed in 1983…and I’m not against it gradually raising…btw, good for for being wealthy…your turn, why do you want to protect millionaires?
Right now, a billionaire pays the same amount into Social Security as someone who makes $176,100 a year…

 

[UpGrayedd Double Dose]

Amazes me that some people are so generous ….but ONLY with other peoples money.
Answer me this: Why should I…or someone else negatively affected by Sanders plan pay significantly more to fix SS than you?

Why are you against raising the retirement age? It hasn’t been changed in over 60 years and life expectancy has risen dramatically since then.

Note: I understand there will have to be changes to taxes to help shore up SS. But raising taxes should not just be the only solution.

What age would you raise it to?

 

[steross]

I love the idea about shoring up SS — and unfortunately due to mismanagement, there needs to be a vehicle to transport more funds into SS. I applaud Sanders for actually trying to do something about it….something that 90%+ of congress is not doing. But any SS reform that has nothing about increasing the retirement age and simply about making a small amount of people pay more into a redistribution fund is not a great plan. An empty press release that does nothing.

Amazes me that some people are so generous ….but ONLY with other peoples money.
Answer me this: Why should I…or someone else negatively affected by Sanders plan pay significantly more to fix SS than you?

Why are you against raising the retirement age? It hasn’t been changed in over 60 years and life expectancy has risen dramatically since then.

Note: I understand there will have to be changes to taxes to help shore up SS. But raising taxes should not just be the only solution.

12% of households make more than $200K per year. The current SS max is $176K per year. Which means that the "small number of people" would be more than 15,000,000 households who would be asked to pay on their full salary like everyone else does to shore up the system.

The policies of the government have done more to prop up the wealthy than the poor. The Fed has pumped huge amounts of money into the system to avoid recession, which caused inflation which hurts the poor and increased housing and stock market values which help the rich.

https://www.wsj.com/economy/consumers/us-economy-strength-rich-spending-2c34a571?st=qrjrqe&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

Life expectancy in the US has increased 6 years since 1960 overall. The life expectancy of the poor has not increased like the overall rate and the gap between the wealthy and poor has risen significantly. An across the board increase would be yet another government change favoring the wealthy. The poor will pay on their entire salary and die before receiving significant benefits. The wealthy will pay on partial salary and benefit for longer. If we are goign to use life expectancy, use the real data like a life insurance adjuster would, not an overall average.

The growing life-expectancy gap between rich and poor

Researchers have long known that the rich live longer than the poor. Evidence now suggests that the life expectancy gap is increasing, at least here the United States, which raises troubling questions about the fairness of current efforts to protect Social Security.

www.brookings.edu

And, no, I'm not giving away other people's money. This would hit me. But, I actually care for the plight of others and look at data trying to be unbiased instead of always favoring myself.

 

[JTOSU]

12% of households make more than $200K per year. The current SS max is $176K per year. Which means that the "small number of people" would be more than 15,000,000 households who would be asked to pay on their full salary like everyone else does to shore up the system.

You realize they these same 12% are already taxed much greater when they eventually receive Social Security. They also already pay much more into the SS redistribution bucket. And there is a maximum of how much SS you can receive.

Can you seriously look in the mirror and think it is fair to further tax earnings greater than $176K to $xxxx, but then in turn not provide higher maximum SS benefits? Is that remotely fair? That is just pure wealth redistribution.

The policies of the government have done more to prop up the wealthy than the poor. The Fed has pumped huge amounts of money into the system to avoid recession, which caused inflation which hurts the poor and increased housing and stock market values which help the rich.

https://www.wsj.com/economy/consumers/us-economy-strength-rich-spending-2c34a571?st=qrjrqe&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

Social Security is a policy/program of the government. It does NOT prop up the wealthy.

And, no, I'm not giving away other people's money. This would hit me. But, I actually care for the plight of others and look at data trying to be unbiased instead of always favoring myself.

People remain very generous with other people’s money. Because yes that is what you are doing. If you care about “the plight of others” then give more to charity like a lot of us do. You have the FREEDOM to do so, but odd how some are quick to reduce the freedoms of others.


** Again, I am a big advocate for shoring up SS. Have mentioned it several times. And as I have said twice now..I understand tax changes will need to occur to make that happen. But Sanders proposal is a joke and the press release dead on arrival (as it should be). It is simply going back to the same well that we will need for education, for infrastructure, for national security, etc.

 

[JTOSU]

Right now, a billionaire pays the same amount into Social Security as someone who makes $176,100 a year…

And they don’t receive any more benefits either. In fact, probable less benefits due to SS taxes.

So if you eliminate the $176k income level max for FICA are you also advocating eliminating the SS max benefit? If not, how do you justify not eliminating the maximum amount on SS benefit?

 

[Stillwater Townie]

Sanders reintroducing measure increasing Social Security benefits the hill

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is reintroducing a measure that would increase Social Security benefits.

Sanders is joined by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Reps. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) and Val Hoyle (D-Ore.) on the bill, titled the Social Security Expansion Act.


It would expand Social Security benefits by $2,400 a year and ensure the federal program is funded for the next 75 years through a tax on households making more than $250,000 a year, according to Sanders’s news release.

The lawmakers noted that it would not raise taxes at all for households that make less than $250,000 annually, which is more than 90 percent of Americans.

“At a time when nearly half of older Americans have no retirement savings and over 26 percent of seniors are trying to survive on an income of less than $17,500 a year, our job is not to cut Social Security as many of our Republican colleagues want to do,” Sanders said in a statement.

The bill reintroduction comes about two months after 20 Republican senators voted against the Social Security Fairness Act. GOP senators battled behind closed doors late last year about bulking up benefits, concerned that it has a hefty price tag. It still passed and former President Biden signed it into law before leaving office.

Sanders noted in his release that the cost estimate for his legislation reflects an analysis conducted by the Social Security Administration that he requested in 2023.

“By requiring millionaires and billionaires to finally pay their fair share into the program, the Social Security Expansion Act would ensure the fund’s solvency to the end of the century,” Sanders’s release said.


It’s the second time Sanders has introduced the legislation. In 2022, Sanders was joined by former Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) in introducing the act and hoping to meet the shortfalls many seniors face with their Social Security payments.

I wish Sanders was elected president instead of Biden. Sanders is a lot better with being old.

 

[PF5]

And they don’t receive any more benefits either. In fact, probable less benefits due to SS taxes.

So if you eliminate the $176k income level max for FICA are you also advocating eliminating the SS max benefit? If not, how do you justify not eliminating the maximum amount on SS benefit?

Well most people in that high bracket don’t have to rely on SS checks…i feel for people that worked their whole lives paycheck to paycheck and now scrounge on SS checks as a major portion of income…that’s all

 

[steross]

You realize they these same 12% are already taxed much greater when they eventually receive Social Security. They also already pay much more into the SS redistribution bucket. And there is a maximum of how much SS you can receive.

Can you seriously look in the mirror and think it is fair to further tax earnings greater than $176K to $xxxx, but then in turn not provide higher maximum SS benefits? Is that remotely fair? That is just pure wealth redistribution.

Social Security is a policy/program of the government. It does NOT prop up the wealthy.

People remain very generous with other people’s money. Because yes that is what you are doing. If you care about “the plight of others” then give more to charity like a lot of us do. You have the FREEDOM to do so, but odd how some are quick to reduce the freedoms of others.


** Again, I am a big advocate for shoring up SS. Have mentioned it several times. And as I have said twice now..I understand tax changes will need to occur to make that happen. But Sanders proposal is a joke and the press release dead on arrival (as it should be). It is simply going back to the same well that we will need for education, for infrastructure, for national security, etc.

If being in favor of a public policy that takes away money from the person advocating it is "being generous with other people's money" then that designation is pointless as there is not a single citizen that only favors the government spending only his own money. Even the most selfish of "libertarians" like yourself are not in favor of zero spending of other people's money. So, your constant whine that feels so fundamental to you is nothing but a difference of opinion on the matter of degree.

Furthermore you ignore as always, the governmental policies that I post that cause upward wealth redistribution. You only whine about wealth redistribution when it might favor someone poorer than you. You whine about taxes but ignore the data that shows that the wealthy have increased their share of the economic pie relative to everyone else. Which means either there are policies that benefit the wealthy even more than taxes harm or somehow the wealthy of the modern day are just that much better at life than the wealthy a few decades ago, which is highly unlikely.

So, whine about taxes for the people who all the data shows have claimed the vast majority of the economic benefit and clamor for policies that cause those who are struggling to pay more or get less benefits all you want. It may seem like sound economics and, laughably, "fairness" to you. But for most of the people here, it simply shows your character and your extreme bias toward yourself and other like you

And, with that, I'm on a plane heading out for a much needed vacation. I know that the chance of you agreeing, or even considering a viewpoint not your own has merit, is lower than Trump naming Hillary Clinton as the head of a new diversity agency so I will say no more on this.

 

[mugatu]

** Again, I am a big advocate for shoring up SS. Have mentioned it several times. And as I have said twice now..I understand tax changes will need to occur to make that happen. But Sanders proposal is a joke and the press release dead on arrival (as it should be). It is simply going back to the same well that we will need for education, for infrastructure, for national security, etc

Ugh... as much as I keep trying to ignore you I'll bite.

Tell us then how do you propose shoring it up in a perfectly even and equitable way that doesnt impact any single person more than anyone else.