Three academics and no politicians are cited as advocating for cutting the tax break. This isn't going to happen.

Getting rid of 401(k) tax breaks would have to be part of a huge bipartisan tax reform package. Huge like--biggest in our lifetime huge.

No politician that wants to remain in office is going to vote for just getting rid of them.

The Biden Presidency - 2020
 

E

Why do you get to attack people on here, including me, without any repercussions at all?

I don’t get the double standard

A thread was created literally to allow you a soap box that would allow threads not to be dominated or adulterated by your fights yet nothing happens when you attack me or others but we get warnings suspensions for the same stuff.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No double standard? Must be your reading comprehension.

When you attack me (sarcasm, personal insults etc.), I do the same. As I have said many times, I'm not the initiator.


So, in other words, just ignore me. Don't engage me. Pretty simple.

So the whole progress made where you agreed to take your fights to an Edward thread where Edward can play the tennis matches in, that you were for, was bullshit?

It was made specifically for you and whomever you square up with to go back and forth in your semantics, goal post shifting, definition arguing etc and that’s what was happening above.

When it’s pointed out in a non threatening way you go on the attack so you can stay in said thread and turn it into the crap soup I described above?

No I don’t think it should happen
Yes I do think it ruins fofc

A great solution was agreed to by all

You attack

I do think you should be suspended


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Your suspension must have been pretty butt hurt traumatic for you to always bring up “wah, it’s so unfair that I got suspended and he hasn’t been”.

I know you said you didn’t deserve it (when asked for details or posts, you didn’t provide it). But seeing how you stalk and complain about stuff that is under your own control, I can see why.

Tell you what, why don’t you take your complaints to the other thread and I’ll join you there? You’ve already exceeded the exchange that GhostEcon and I have had. Or do you need an audience like a drama queen?

Being suspended sucks

I have been at fofc for 30 years so I guess you could say I care about it

You dominate and adulterate threads into a competition of semantics and definitions

A solution to this problem was agreed on by everyone including yourself

You attack people personally including myself, in this very thread (and others) which I was accused of and suspended for

I do think you taking a month off for the same thing would be good for everyone and possibly yourself

If I knew who to point it out to I would

I believe that you are an energy vampire and thank God, for the most part, I was able to reclaim my energy from you but at the cost of fofc being very different than it was Pre-E domination


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

… and yet, don’t attack me and I won’t attack you. I don’t initiate but will respond in kind.

Join you at the other thread?

Let me know.

Jury came back in the NRA fraud trial and found it liable and former head wayne lapierre guilty of corruptily running the org-fined him over $4 million in restitution.

It'll never happen. 401Ks are one of the greatest scams wealthy people ever pulled on the American public. Completely gutted the pension system and threw a ton of dumb money into the stock market to prop up businesses. Not to mention all the massive fees financial institutions rake in to "manage" your account.

This is one of those bipartisian issues where every politician supports a 401K because it helps almost every major business donor they have.

Rich people steal it's a fine. Poor people steal it's prison.

The marketwatch article has a link to below pdf.

The Great American Retirement Fraud by Michael Doran :: SSRN

Lots of content and rationale for the argument, but I'll have to wait for other policy wonks to come up with a rebuttal.

However, the pdf does define "highly compensated employees". The cut-off is $135,000. The marketwatch article used the phrase "very high earners", which to me implied a much higher $.

I googled on participation rate.

Access Denied


For private sector, available to 68% and of those, 75% participated. But the stats for average & median balances by age range are below what I would want (but think the 55-64 savers could probably live in Mexico pretty comfortably once they start collecting the average social security of $1,770). Note below median balances are probably even lower because it does not factor those with just IRAs.

Federal Reserve Has Disappointing News on Retirement Saving – Center for Retirement Research




I'd agree with you, the tax deferral benefits are probably safe because of politics.

Our parent company decided long ago that instead of matching 401K contributions, it would simply do a dump of several thousand dollars into every employee's 401K as part of a Christmas bonus (there's also a straight cash bonus). The reason being, a portion of what we own is horse farms (which employ a large portion of our overall workforce), and none of them would benefit from the 401K matching because none of them would contribute.

You have to treat all employees the same, so we all get that instead of a match (which is fine). For certain designated executives, there is a separate plan that allows us to put money into another type of account (I don't recall the specifics) that will pay out over the first 10 years following retirement. I haven't done it yet because I'm still paying a kid's way through college and want to pay off my house, but once those things happen, I might do that. I know my boss puts 6 figures a year into that account. I suppose if you can afford to put a lot in there, it will be a nice cushion to pad the first decade of retirement (and possibly avoid using any retirement money other than required distributions).

Was it the same % or same $ amount? I'd think same % is more fair. I'd prefer a per-paycheck or per-month employer contribution vs end of year. But still thoughtful of them to think about all employees.

FWIW I did project work at Koch Industries @Wichita. They had a ranch(es) and had an employee job code called "cowboy". Made sense, but not a job code I'd seen before or since.

Biden's having the Big Four (Johnson, Schumer, Jeffries, McConnell) to the White House to prevent the shutdown.

Johnson will be so outclassed there, it's an open question as to whether he will leave the meeting somehow personally owing Schumer $20.

(This is the downside to the GOP electing an inexperienced Speaker)

Reading some of the anonymous comments from gop and dem house members shows how out of his depth he is. McCarthy sucked, but always had a plan and always knew how many votes he had. Johnson doesn't really have a plan, doesn't know how many votes he has, and it sounds like his house members are frustrated that he has a tendency to go with the opinion of the last person he spoke to. No one knows where they stand with him or where he stands on any issue.

He may as well put Trump on speaker phone

One lump sum $$ amount to each employee. In terms of fairness, the company has a long history of taking care of its less fortunate workers, so it was deemed fairer to give everyone the same dollar amount distribution because this would be the only amounts the low earners would contribute to their 401Ks (they would not contribute at all given their level of earnings) rather than base it on a %, which would literally only benefit a small portion of the employees. The expectation is that the high earners will contribute from their salaries and have the means to do so. I have no issue with it.

In terms of thoughtfulness, it's more of a 401K plan legal/regulatory requirement that all employees are treated the same, I believe (you can't have some get $$, and some receive matching %). Thus, the decision was made to help the low-end wage earners with a $$ amount rather than have a matching % that technically applied to everyone, but hardly anyone got any benefit from. This is also why for the executives they set up the second plan with retirement tax incentives which, based on the way it is set up, is permitted to only apply to a select number of employees.

Very nice of them.

There's always something more stupid, but this ice cream thing is the current most stupid thing ever.

I think that stuff only helps him. Just makes the politician look normal. Reminds me of when they made a stink about Obama putting Grey Poupon on his burger as if half the country doesn't have a bottle of that stuff in their fridge.

You can get Grey Poupon at Jimmy John's - home of the liberal sub.

If you ever get a chance to try Lusty Monk Mustard, do it. Or don't, maybe. It is like crack, only more addictive.

Well hell, it's made in Asheville! That's where my brother/SIL and now my parents live. I'll be there in a couple of weeks. I'll have to track down a jar.

You want a different kind of mustard, try Aunt Lilikoi's passion fruit mustard. Made in Kauai. It's used on the famous puka dogs on Poipou beach. We loved it so much we've ordered about 8 jars since we visited in summer of 2022.

That sounds weird as hell

I don’t get TikTok by Joe. I’ve not read this was a big issue for Dems or Independents so won’t this only just hurt him?

Say something like ‘safety of children is paramount, I’ll have a fact finding mission to see how to reduce, limit etc whatever’.

They aren't doing it to appease voters, it's being done to appease a handful of very large donors.

So House Republicans are having another hearing with Special Counsel Robert Hur now that he no longer works for the DOJ and lets says its not going so well-in opening statements Dems show videos of an obviously confused Trump, who couldn't even identify his wife in a picture of her at one of his pre-trial meetings.



https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1767559884109738014

Yeah, it was a complete bullshit hit job by Hur. Biden knew the day and month of his son's death, but messed up the year. When my Dad died it was so hard that I couldn't tell you anything about when. I do remember in great detail shaving him a couple of weeks before, the way he looked on the bed,etc.

dola

In the transcript Hur praised Biden for photographic recall, but he still did the hit.

A Biden admin spokesperson tells @rollingstone the bill to potentially ban TikTok is necessary because the app may threaten “our broader national security, including through the manipulation by foreign powers of Americans’ views and beliefs.” https://t.co/Cu9MYbn3L6

— Andrew Perez (@andrewperezdc) March 12, 2024

I chuckled at this. Always good to get terms defined. Hur should have said "that is the layperson's definition, it would be more appropriate to refer to X".

Takeaways from Robert Hur’s testimony on Biden’s mishandling of classified documents | CNN Politics

And good that he was prepared to push back on what he did or did not state.

Man Hur must be an originalist for the constitution given how many times he said that word does not appear in the report

He's playing both sides. Trying not to give either side their gotcha.

lol

He's a GOP operative angling for a judgeship or Deputy AG type job in the Trump admin.

Joe is negative with TikTok. Trump is negative with Facebook.

Both are social media that can influence but I'll go with Joe as TikTok is "owned" by China. Somehow, Joe should reinforce this messaging.

I'll go with neither. Social media in various forms is not going away and fighting it is a losing and wrongheaded battle. Manipulating/influencing Americans' beliefs by others anywhere in the world is a fact of the modern age, and is a two-way street.

The antidote, to the extent there is one, is education and people caring about what is true enough to use critical thinking.

Yeah, he should totally reinforce a message of banning internet sites at the behest of his donors and because some idiots told him that's the reason young people aren't on board with his genocide.

This is the shit liberals claim Trump will do. Don't hear much from them on this topic now.

This is the ideal but unfortunately, not reality.

If you had to pick one, I rather have the social media influencing our populace controlled by a US company vs a Chinese one. Easier for lawsuits and pressure to change vs a FU from China.

Just bolding one of THE most-overlooked realities ever.

I'm actually kiiiiinda okay with the segment that excuses it under the "... but we're doing it for good" clause. I mean, that kind of at least acknowledges the hypocrisy you're engaging in if you do it.

I'd like to slap the everlovin shit out of those who are simply fucking stupid enough to not be capable of acknowledging that we do the exact same shit. And trust me, that is not a statistically insignificant segment. (usually overlaps with the "I just wish the media was unbiased like it used to be" fairytale crowd)

All the social media companies have considerable investment and influence from foreign companies/entities. Which ones are you not going to ban? And they all are still subject to US law when it comes to lawsuits.

And why should the US government be pressuring any social media company over their speech? Why should our internet be at the whims of the most morally corrupt people on the planet?

I think the other reality is how do you even stop it? Build a great firewall like China that blocks out the world? Just seems like an idea that an 82-year old who has no idea how the internet works would support.

The other insane thing is how much this would alienate young voters which him and his party rely on. I genuinely think if he did this and Trump took the opposite stance (which he has), Biden is cooked in November. And it's likely unconstitutional so they wouldn't even get the perceived benefit from it (helping their donors, stopping people from saying mean things about his policies).

I don't think it's right to try and change what social media does, anymore than it's right to sue newspapers or TV in past eras for saying things we don't like.

I agree with the main thrust of what Rainmaker is saying (rather stunning how often that's happening around here lately). Trying to ban/restrict the 'ones we don't like' is only going to hurt ourselves. The last time protectionism made sense, nobody on this forum was alive.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

I don't agree with killing Tik Tok, but technically the plan is pretty clear. If it is removed from Google and Apple it's going to die out and both Google and Apple aren't going to take the legal risks of hosting if legislation has been passed to kill it.

I would also add that this has nothing to do with China. They invest heavily in a number of our social media companies and no one cares. China is just being used as the justification because the real reason is more troubling.

What this is about is other social media companies having their lunch eaten by a better service and looking at the government to limit their competition. Plus a struggling politician who thinks his negative approval rating is caused by young people getting information from sources with opposing viewpoints.

I think the whole thing is not just pointless because it's incredibly difficult to censor the internet and likely unconstitutional, but sets a dangerous precedent. I don't think any politician should have the power to ban completely legal sites because they don't like what's on it or were bribed to do so.

Zuck can't compete with Tik Tok and the only thing he has going for him with GenZ is Instagram so he's desperately trying to lobby a Tik Tok ban.
Facebook is Social Media for old people and everything else he's tried has been awful.

Don't underestimate how many companies would love to buy TikTok at a hefty discount if they're forced to sell. Google could swallow them up and essentially have a monopoly on short form video with younger people. Meta could buy it too if they want to grab more young social media users.

There is also the part of the bill that says circumventing the ban can result in 20 years in prison and a hefty fine. The lawmakers involved said it's not intended to go after people, just corporations (lol), but the law is incredibly vague and would put people at risk if an aggressive DOJ wanted to target someone.

Yeah, Meta and Alphabet have a ton of big investors who donate a lot of money to politicians. The fact Meta is up like 10% since the rumblings of this ban started is not a coincidence. There's a lot of money involved in killing your competition.

I think you're underplaying the China connection. I don't know how accurate the accusation is, but plenty of people in both parties honestly believe China is using Tik Tok as an intelligence operation.

It's difficult to take politicians seriously on this after their questions during the hearing on tik tok. They showed they have absolutely no understanding of technology or even that Singapore isn't part of China.

There's not a shred of evidence that's taking place. In fact, the reasons for the ban seem to change each week. I'd also add that they don't need TikTok to spy, Meta and others freely sell data to anyone who wants it, including foreign governments. TikTok actually follows data privacy laws more stringently than others because they have a target on their back.

Countries like Saudi Arabia have huge ownership stakes in Meta and Twitter. In fact, the Saudis had a spy embedded at Twitter that would funnel information on dissidents that lead to executions. No outcry right now to ban either one of those or restrict ownership.

And I have no doubt that people in both parties want it banned. There is a fuckton of money being thrown around to make this happen. Not just from their direct competitors, but from investors of those companies and foreign countries who see it as hurting their message. There's a reason AIPAC has targeted TikTok so much.

But I guess that's the funny part of all this. We're pretending to be concerned about a foreign country influencing our public at the behest of a foreign country that wants to influence our public. Only in America!

That's pretty much true about anything there's a Congressional hearing on if you listen even somewhat closely.

The average Congresscritter understands only a small portion of what the lobbyist told them anything means about a specific subject. Further than that is a bridge (or two) too far for most.

And that's a statement meant as bipartisan as anything I've ever typed here.

Every once in awhile Jon spits facts.

Indeed

The problem is Jon than says he is wanting to string them up, kill them, gut them, and send their rotting carcass on a flaming ship into the ocean.

Which colors the rest of it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Bill passed the House with incredible speed.

Never seen anything quite like that before in Congress. Just… wow.

My latest ====> pic.twitter.com/ukX0t3edtG

— Scott MacFarlane (@MacFarlaneNews) March 13, 2024

Definitely.

The aspect of this that is arguably just as bad if not worse is the stipulation that 'TikTok is fine as long as it's owned by somebody else'.

That's absolutely none of Congress's business, and in a sane world such a requirement would be quickly struck down an unconstitutional. I share the skepticism of many here to get a reasonable ruling out of SCOTUS on whether the sun is warm or water is wet, but requiring a company to sell off an asset like that is something that IMO they should be ashamed of even considering.

Anybody voting for this, regardless of party, is a fair bit less likely to get my vote - that won't matter, but just an illustration of how bad I think this is.

I'm down for this cruise, as long as there is an open bar.

Only the (D)s

Some of the (R)s might eventually be turned into useful members of society with enough intensive treatment in an in-patient program.

Haaaaave you met Congress? :)

What a shock that a right wing billionaire plans to buy it. A guy who committed fraud for years. Odd how this is playing out. Who could have seen this coming?

��Mnuchin just told us on @SquawkCNBC that he is putting together a group to try to buy @tiktok_us.

— Andrew Ross Sorkin (@andrewrsorkin) March 14, 2024

"This is not an attempt to ban TikTok. It's an attempt to make TikTok better. Tic-Tac-Toe. A winner. A winner."

-- Rep. Pelosi pic.twitter.com/ExkX6bxz0O

— Howard Mortman (@HowardMortman) March 13, 2024

FWIW TikTok maybe headquartered in Singapore but parent (and assume overall controlling company) is Chinese.

Don't worry. Steve Mnuchin is putting a team together to purchase Tik Tok.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

Interestingly enough, this has exposed that a previous bill just like the Tik Tok one was passed a couple of years ago for Grindr. Grindr had been bought by a Chinese-owned group through a South Korean emissary. The bill forced the company to divest to an American company in fear the Chinese would use the use of the app as blackmail on politicians. Lindsey Graham was greatly relieved.

The Grindr deal is similar to what's happening to TikTok. It had nothing to do with national security though and was just a way to get a right-wing billionaire a sweetheart deal on a popular app.

Nice, long overdue. I’m okay as separate votes just as long as it gets voted on. Really hope this happens, wouldn’t be surprised if Trump jumps in to stop the Ukraine bill though.

Good news for Raytheon. Not surprising their stock outperformed the markets today.

I certainly hope so, it's been a shit idea from the jump.

Nah, proxy war against Russia, no US military fighting (officially), testing a ton of weapon systems, getting intel on a bunch of Russian weapon systems, reducing Russian threat for 5-10+ (?) years, getting rid of and replacing old ammo, NATO expansion, NATO put on notice they need to spend their 2% of GDP etc.

What’s not to like?

Maybe the $60b spent + another future $60b? That’s less than Joe’s student loan forgiveness so far. A bargain!

Nevermind, I'm a moron.

Yup. Trump likely has bad reasons for it but the Ukraine spending is just lighting money on fire.

Since we're doing the banning of sites thing, here's Texas crack at it. Guess PornHub is out. Looks like very selective enforcement though as they haven't targeted Reddit or Twitter which has a lot of porn on their sites.

Pornhub shuts down in Texas to protest age verification law - The Verge

“testing a ton of weapon systems”

I thought we were just giving them old equipment that otherwise we were going to have to decommission?

Tell me you don't understand geopolitics without telling me you don't understand geopolitics.

What is it you think we are getting out of this war? Explain how us giving Ukraine billions upon billions for a war they can't win benefits us.

This is for all of the "screw people outside our borders, we should be spending this money on things that benefit the US first" arguments:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...economy-boost/

This is in addition to the general advantages of us fighting a proxy war against an aggressive authoritarian government.

Are you citing one of the architects of the Iraq War as a source for good foreign policy advice? A guy who's job it is to work for a think tank funded by companies that benefit greatly through us sending billions into the defense industry? Was Dick Cheney too busy to write this?

And what are the advantages of this proxy war? Please tell me what we have gained with the $60 billion or whatever we've sent. How is that more beneficial than putting it into education, homelessness, public housing, or just paying down the nation's deficit?

What are the disadvantages of a full out war? That should answer the question.

That, plus:


Typical false dichotomy. If you give me a list, in $60B increments, of the federal budget, and I rank them in terms of "most to least egregious waste of money", the $60B increment to Ukraine is on like page 18 or 55.

I don't know if they were going to be decommissioned but they were older ammo and earlier/less sophisticated versions of Patriots.

But yeah, I don't think we've tested Patriots against (supposedly) hypersonic missiles, Russian aircraft etc. Probably also tested how to hide and protect the Patriots from counter battery/attacks. Some UK missiles did some nice damage also.

Probably some new drone technology & countermeasures. Don't think we've tested Javelins against Russian tanks etc. Toss in HIMARS. And maybe, some F-16 air-to-air action next year.

Basically, an open ended proving ground for the first year and half ... for both/all sides.

A proxy war puts us much closer to a full out war than just sitting out this regional conflict we have no stakes in.


What is it you feel we are getting out of each $60B increment? And why is it more valuable than just spending it directly in our country? Seems all I'm hearing is we get to test some outdated weapons for the tidy sum of $120 billion while increasing the chances of a military conflict with a nuclear armed country.

I just want to know what we are getting with this enormous sum of money. Not some vague 4D chess answer.

I think this is really where the difference lies on this issue between what you think and what I think.

- I think sitting out puts us a lot closer to a full out war, not further away.
- The entire world has stakes in Russia/similar countries having their aggression opposed. Esp., but not limited to, when that aggression is in a region of the world like eastern Europe.

It's basically the price major countries pay for, as the saying goes, being rich, free, and alive at the same time. There's a responsibility attached to that.

We have an 80 year track record of fighting proxy wars now to stop other countries from gaining influence. It's been a complete disaster by all accounts. Maybe this is the one that finally proves neoconservatives right, but I just don't see it. The Russians are clearly winning and all we've got to show in return is billions in debt.

And what exactly is our responsibility? I'm not understanding that part.

At a minimum, our responsibility is to not allow major countries to annex by sheer military insistence the territory of other countries.

This isn't just about stopping Russia from gaining influence. It's about stopping them from conquering Ukraine and then down the road continuing on from there to other nations.

This isn't a neocon thing, and I don't agree that our history of proxy wars is a complete disaster. I think the record is a mixed bag. I think it's often not a good idea, but not always.

FWIW, see wiki list of proxy wars US has been involved in, search on "United States".

EDIT: sorry, forgot to include it first time

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

You don't always get to choose when you fight and when you don't. Your assessment is exceptionally unrealistic when you're dealing with a generational and philosophical enemy to the country. It demonstrates incredible naivete.

You can sit in corner all day long while a bully stomps around, and hope that he doesn't bother you. But once he's taken the field, what is left for you but to either fight against all odds or submit? In our case, we recognize the opportunity early on and we deny him any quarter, and control the playing field. It protects national interest, and it protects the philosophical stance we hold as a country that the rest of the world watches.


Power is more than military, it's control of the sphere of influence. Watching a fledgling, potential ally get overwhelmed by this enemy will not inspire the world to our cause. That is more power than what can be exerted on the battlefield. That is why a proxy war is happening and should happen.

I guess your crystal ball for alternate futures is perfect then if you're so sure of what the outcomes of every other political decision you didn't like would be.

The Russians are the ones saying this is just the beginning and next it will be Poland, Moldova, or the Baltic states.

He would be obliterated if he touched a NATO ally. He's not going to do that.

None of us are fighting. None us are confronting a bully. "We" aren't part of this war. It's us sending money so others can fight for our cause. Even if no one here can explain what that cause is.

Ukraine was never winning this war no matter what CNN (brought to you by Gunthrop Norman) was telling you. Russia is far too big, technologically advanced, and has too many soldiers they can throw into battle. All our money does is delay the inevitable.

If you and others truly think it's necessary to defend Ukraine for our safety, I get that. But we should be declaring war on Russia if that's your belief. None of this half measure shit where you send billions to a rag tag military and watch them get squashed. But that would put skin in the game and that's what you and others want to avoid.

I'd love to hear which proxy wars you think were a success.

Per the list ...

List of proxy wars - Wikipedia

I pick ...

Chinese Civil War
Civil conflict in the Philippines

What is your definition/scenario of "delay the inevitable"? What do you believe will happen to Ukraine ... even if Joe was free to send all the weapons & support he wants?

Additional details by PolitiFact. Specific to TikTok, Bytedance owns TikTok. The question is whether Bytedance is controlled or will do what Chinese government wants. Take the conclusion for what you will.

PolitiFact | Who owns TikTok’s parent company? Despite what Brian Kilmeade says, it's not the Chinese government

Oh hi, Neville.

If you think Putin is Hitler ready to advance on the continent, why are you not calling for us to declare war? Can't play it both ways.

He's either a threat to our safety and needs to be stopped or he's not. If he's a threat, why are we putting our security in the hands of what's left of the Ukrainian military?

They would lose one way or the other. More weapons prolongs the conflict for sure. But at some point you just run out of fighters. I'm certain Russia thought this would be a quick war, but they're also built for a long one and have an endless supply of troops and weapons at their disposal.

The only way to stop it is if the U.S. and other countries commit troops and more advanced weaponry to the battle. This likely leads to a global conflict and all bets are off. But some here seem to think that's worth the risk over Ukraine.

The best option was probably to completely wall them off economically from the world. I think some dubbed it an economic siege. But big business runs the show and sanctions were never going to have much teeth from our politicians. Plus, for important industries like defense, the goal isn't for Ukraine to win the war, it's to just have it go on as long as possible.