JohnsonJones
-
Posts
4051 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
11
Posts posted by JohnsonJones
-
-
On 12/29/2023 at 9:32 AM, Carborendum said:
Unfortunately, it is not about availability. It is about government intervention.
- Lumber can be grown at a very fast rate. With more supply, lower costs. But government is preventing private forests through environmental and tax intervention.
- Property taxes are just plain too high.
- Cities and counties have overly restrictive building codes. And the enforcement by untrained bureaucrats causes compliance costs to go through the roof.
- Minimum wage causes all the little expenses to go up. And they add up pretty fast.
Put it all together, and there is no way to build a cheap home.
That depends on where you live. I think you live in Texas...isn't that correct.
Texas lacks income taxes...and the money to fund the government has to come from somewhere. I believe Texas (California is even worse, and Florida is beginning to inch towards uncomfortable from what I'm hearing) has higher property taxes than many other places in the US.
My property taxes are relatively light, and not that costly. That goes towards funding schools and other things in our local area, so considering that amount it's very little to pay for what we get in return for us. (I believe I COULD apply for an exemption in regards to veteran status and age, but I do not see a need to. If I were in Texas I might desire to do so though from what I hear about Property taxes there).
-
It seems that Utah gets a LOT of temples comparatively to elsewhere. I think we need a few more in the East Coast and South East to balance things up a bit.
-
On 4/1/2024 at 10:34 AM, Traveler said:
In another thread I pointed out that current government handouts are framed on the data of the 1960 national census. That data indicated that a transfer of 2% of GNP to the poor would end poverty. We are not approaching 70% of government spending is assistance for the poor – and today poverty is as rampant today (or worse) than 1960. I suggested that we follow the outline provided by Milton Freidman and his negative income tax. With a slight adjustment for retirement and disabled – the negative income tax could replace Social Security and SSI.
I also believe that we should not worry about term limits but rather put all government employees and elected officials on a negative income tax program. Some worry that certain elected officials need security protection – this could be provided through government housing on military bases.
This would immediately save our country 60% from what is currently being spent with the saving of similar in the tax burden on the citizens that pay taxes. A great economic boom for the middle class that would have more benefits than a war economy. It would also make our military much stronger and bring peace to a very troubled world.
This may be what Jesus has in mind for the Millennium?
The Traveler
Isn't Negative income tax just another coin, or another side of the coin of Universal Basic Income?
Experiments showed (on a quick look up) that it only returned a postive $1 for every $3 taxed on it.
It may be different if we restricted it only to those who were able to qualify for Social Security, but we'd still need a Social Security Tax in order to provide for it.
However, it is a considered by some a form of UBI, which many also consider another form of Socialism.
Personally, I'm not sure what I think of UBI or other ideas similar to it right now. Some of the ideas sound off to me, so I don't think I'm in favor of it, but at the same time...in regards to Social Security, that's the only form of income some people have.
ON the otherhand, if we instituted Negative Income Tax, I probably would still be taxed on SS in my paycheck, but may not get a check from the government anymore in that sort of payment scheme.
-
13 hours ago, Ironhold said:
We're now at the point that some of the local churches and businesses are renting out space in their parking lots because all of the hotels - even the kinds of hotels where you rent rooms by the hour - filled up months ago.
Supplies are running low in stores, and to add insult to injury the Copperas Cove area (Cove, Hood, Killeen, et cetra) is under water restriction due to a broken water service line; the line was fixed a few hours ago but the restriction hasn't been lifted yet.
If you *are* coming up, get up here ASAP. Tomorrow or Friday will be your best bet provided that your reservation covers this period, otherwise you'll be stuck in traffic.
I know that this weekend is also Conference, so this would allow you to watch Conference in the stake center in Killeen provided that the lot isn't full.
Thanks. I am heading out that way Tomorrow. I am driving to Killeen with two of my sons. We should be hitting Louisiana and that area on Saturday and hopefully Houston and the rest of the way after that. Hopefully we don't run out of gas either, but we are hoping on staying in hotels along the way (have hotels already reserved in Killeen at least, as long as we make it).
If we do make it, seeing conference in the Stake Center could be nice.
-
The change in wording is only a clarification in some ways.
We believe in a Spirit World, but that Spirit World is divided into two parts (at least). There is Spirit Prison and Spirit Paradise.
It may be that the interpretation was that they would go to the Spirit World, but be in Spirit Paradise rather than Spirit Prison.
For those who do not believe in a time between life and the resurrection (and where they may believe that what comes after is the end, thus prison is hell and paradise is heaven and that is it), then they could believe that the thief was going to be in heaven that day (or, what we may interpret as the heaven after judgement).
However, in our understanding, Paradise would still be part of the World of Spirits. The fact that it is not defined whether it is Paradise or Prison in the translation gives it more of a mystery, but with the thief's statements and how the Lord responded to him a reasonable and logical thought would probably be that the Lord was telling the Thief that they would be able to end up in Paradise (whether sooner or later is a little harder to define probably from that statement) and be with him.
As it was in the middle of a crucifixion, it would depend on when the Lord said it, as being crucified could take quite a while to actually die. It was a painful and torturous death, so unless they were already close to death, it may have not been that actual day he ended up there unless something sped it up (or it was as another poster commented, the comma is located at a spot which indicates the Lord saying it that day in reference to the future). It could also have been referencing more of a time frame or period in the Lord's time rather than that specific day where they were hanging from crosses.
-
18 hours ago, Jamie123 said:
Yup... I never much liked the beads. In fact hair styles like that have always bugged the heck out of me. What do these women do when they wash their hair? Undo every last pleat and remove every last bead, and then put them all back again? By the time you're done with all that palaver it'll be time to wash your hair again! Still...women will be women.
The beads are still around, at least with some college age individuals. I've seen a few wearing them in the past few years.
The trend that I REALLY am not fond of though is the nose rings. For some reason there is an inordinately large amount of women wearing these nose rings these days. I don't know what spurred on this trend. We never felt these things looked nice when I was their age (of course, we'd have seen them more as a pirate or something like that with a nose ring), and I can't imagine that young men find it attractive now...but maybe tastes have changed.
-
On 3/31/2024 at 8:58 AM, LDSGator said:
I respect you for your service. I never served in the armed forces.
I trust my local police force WAY more than I trust the army when it comes to arresting local thugs and not shooting small children.
I would probably ALSO trust the police force far more when it comes to arresting people.
The military is trained more to kill then to restrain (or detain), at least the portions I served in and when I served.
-
On 3/29/2024 at 5:08 PM, Vort said:
What does this mean?
I was in the military. I saw combat. I've cleared buildings. We had MORE rules as military than what I saw in the video and that was years ago. (Edit: to be clear, I do not know the rules for the Utah police on how they clear buildings, my only experience is with military situations).
Those who are NOT military, are civilians. There are MANY civilians who want to claim they are not (for example, today, I am a civilian, I am no longer in the military).
Police in the United States are not Military. Most Military forces are prevented from doing police roles in the United States by the Posse Comitatus Act. However, States MAY have military in the form of their National Guard which can act in that role under the direction of the Governor or whoever is over them in the State. They are distinctly identified differently than Civilians in general.
Your general Police officers are NOT military, they are a civilian force (which also means there is an easier process for them to be fired in general and they also have certain rights as citizens that military do not have when acting in their official military duties). A military member gives up certain rights in their roles due to keeping good order and discipline in the military which civilians normally do not have to abide by. There are items which a military member can be punished for where as a Civilian may be fired, but cannot be punished. (For example, you lose certain rights to free speech while in your capacity as a military member, you lose the ability to be free from search without a warrant while on a military installation and if you live on base, they can search your quarters without a warrant, in theory adultery is a punishable offense amongst others whereas civilians will not get jail time for this type of crime). There are crimes in the UCMJ which you can go to prison for which are not punishable if you do them as a civilian.
On 3/29/2024 at 6:32 PM, mirkwood said:@JohnsonJones you are either ignorant of building clearing tactics or looking to complain. With your expressed attitude about the topic you are wrong in either case. I really do not think you want to understand the reasons or care. Your attitude shows. See @Just_A_Guy's first point. Nope, NO APOLOGIES for practicing proper building clearing tactics.
Maybe I am (clarification: ignorant of the Utah Police's building clearing tactics when involving little kids sitting on a floor with no weapons or hostility). I was in the military and in the front lines. This means clearing buildings (though sometimes that would be more like huts and holes). There was probably a lot more hostility and enemy combatants at times than what I imagine most police would see in a lifetime. Lots of gunfire.
You mistake me as wanting an apology of some sort? I am not after an apology, I was looking for an explanation that made sense. Time stamp of 7:42 with an officer with a rifle approaching a child. There was another officer that seemed to be accompanying them. The child did not appear to be hostile or a threat. They could have had the other officer holster their weapon and approach the child to be less threatening. The entire conversation seemed ridiculous to me as the officer talking was a stranger with a weapon. If nothing else, he could have remained and covered another officer who was less threatening (and later they have one, but not that initial conversation).
I don't think you've ever been on the front lines wondering if a kid is being used and is going to blow you up and try to kill you. It's a terrible situation. IF you HAVE to kill a kid, or worse, kill one by accident, it is a scar that you will NEVER get over. It doesn't matter how justified people may say or tell you, unless you are some sort of psychopath, this is a scar you cannot really ever recover from. You will have nightmares about it for the rest of your life.
If you see something like this video where I point it out, even if you were just the witness to it, you will (unless, of course, you are the aforementioned psychopath) you will probably have questions.
In that light, it would make sense to have a different policy or approach to spell out a situation like this. It protects both the child and the officer. I would rather die than shoot an innocent child on my own accord today, and I can't imagine anyone who would have a different opinion.
Maybe you have been in that type of situation, maybe you have not. I can only relate my own thoughts and feelings on it, and seeing that portion made me uncomfortable with how it was dealt with.
You can say it's ignorance of police procedures (and perhaps it is, as I stated, I am NOT a police officer in any way, shape or form). I am not anti-police. I've not really followed the case closely, and the video is probably my first real exposure to the case and what happened in it in any great detail.
What part of this
QuoteThe video leaves me with more questions than answers. Maybe that's what it's supposed to do as I expect it's an advertisement for a show?
Did you interpret as being
QuoteI think you're looking for a reason to complain about the police.
Rather than asking for an explanation?
-
8 hours ago, mirkwood said:
Standard building clearing tactics. I think you're looking for a reason to complain about the police.
Standard buildinglearance tactics, rifle slung downwards. I think you're looking for a reason to complain about the police.
Wrong. See above.
I am not looking for a reason, I haven't seen police doing something like that previously. Perhaps it's because I haven't been on the wrong side of the Law.
HOWEVER, if that's what the police do to look for kids...and it's standard...you are right...I HAVE A SERIOUS PROBLEM with CIVILIAN POLICE doing such stuff.
I did not know that was a standard protocol for Utah police, and finding out from you that it is a standard protocol does not actually make me feel any better about that situation portrayed in the video.
Why would your standard protocol be to be guns out when making first contact with a child (that they were looking for). I can understand why a kid would be scared to even talk in that situation even if they were a normal kid that hadn't been abused!
The video does NOT make it clear they are clearing the building, it seemed to state they were trying to find children. It could have been both, but in that instance there needs to be a protocol where there is SOMEONE the children can approach with out fear. You can have others covering that individual, but you need to have someone the children will be less likely to be scared of than everyone having guns drawn searching for a child.
IN MY OPINION of course, and obviously, I am not a police officer in Utah (or anywhere else for that matter).
2 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:1. At that point, for all law enforcement knew, they could be walking into another Waco.
2. Per the police report that has been released, officers responding to the neighbors’ house actually bumped into Jodi in her car, who seemed out of breath and mentioned she was “looking for a boy”. The officers didn’t tell her they’d found the child but mentioned that they, too, were looking for that boy; and the officers then proceeded to the neighbors’ house to see him. Once they talked to him and learned there was still at least one sibling at Jodi’s house, they went there; and by that time she’d already given up her search and was back at her home.
She knew she was busted before the cops even showed up on her door.
1. That makes a little more sense, they probably should have mentioned something like that in the Video (or if they did, I didn't catch that). It makes sense why they'd be clearing the house then, though I'd still say they should have at least one person for the children to approach or to approach the children (unless they felt the children were going to be attacking the officers as well, which wasn't the impression I get). Have that person covered by others, but someone who doesn't have a pistol drawn approaching a child to talk to them and coax them more comfortably (and yes, later in the video it shows such individuals, but initial contact should not be a surprise to anyone that a child would be scared of strange men, even if they were officers, with guns drawn trying to talk to them).
2. Holy Smokes...that's crazy! So, that indicates she KNEW what she was doing was wrong! That's insane. She was knowingly doing something she knew was illegal or would get her into legal trouble!? Why would she knowingly do such a thing? That blows my mind! I guess some people do these things (and I know they do, but it never ceases to amaze me), but in this instance with kids...just...I can't even imagine why. She was supposed to be helping them and instead...she knowingly was doing terrible things. Terrible. Atrocious. I can see why people are so angry about this.
-
6 hours ago, mikbone said:
The house totally freaked me out. 10,000 sq ft, dark, cluttered, empty rooms, safe room.
Gave me a H. H. Holmes vibe.
Good thing I wasn’t the police officer that showed up on her porch with her claiming her attorney is on the phone.
Also, not an influencer fan.
Thing I think was the scariest were Police were going through the house at the ready position, as if they were ready to shoot someone or expected someone to come out attacking them.
Weird position to have when trying to find kids in a house. If I were that kid I'd be afraid as well. Still holding the gun as they talked to the kid at first also??? What were they thinking the kid was going to do???
Not sure it's a good look for the department on that point.
Another unanswered question, why was Hildebrandt on her phone with her attorney? Was she aware she had done something questionable already and wanted to have the attorney ready the instant the authorities showed up?
The video leaves me with more questions than answers. Maybe that's what it's supposed to do as I expect it's an advertisement for a show?
-
Hmmm, well, when I was younger I was tested with an IQ normally around 155 (IQ can vary in tests given dependent on day, time, personal feelings that day, etc). Normally it was right about that range and with most tests I took in earlier years I was normally in the 99% so I suppose that would match.
One of my daughters is much smarter than me, usually having an IQ around the 160 range. On the otherhand, I had a son who always felt somewhat left behind her, even though he constantly wanted to prove himself in smarts. He had an IQ of around 110. What I noticed though was that he turned out to be a MUCH HARDER WORKER than she was. He was much more dedicated to what he did, and in that way turned out much more successful. I also had a daughter who had a much lower IQ, but was extremely charismatic. She dazzled everyone and had boys falling out of the woodwork to try to ask her out when she was younger.
In that light, I'm not sure IQ is much more of a way of measuring how fast we catch onto things and how good we are at taking tests. Perhaps there are other forms of ability (IQ of other sorts such as work ethic, people skills, etc) that are just as important but that we don't regularly test for or design tests for. In that way, each of us may be geniuses in different areas. While I may have the "IQ" smarts on paper, I may be the equal of a low IQ individual in the area of computers or mechanics. Fixing cars is definitely not my forte, but there are those who it comes as easy as eating a piece of pie.
it is possible that the Lord was talented in ALL of those areas, not just how we measure "IQ" but in personal skills he was a genius, relating to others he was a genius, and many other areas that are just as important, if not more important, in his ministry.
How do you rate those? Normally we don't and so I'm not sure how important it really is to give out a number. I may have stated a number above regarding how I have tested in the past, but in real life it has no real bearing to how successful I am or how much of a good person I am (and how good you are is really what TRULY matters at the end of the day/life). In the important areas of life that number is meaningless. It doesn't actually represent anything meaningful, or that has true impact.
In that way, I'm not sure if we could measure all the ways the Lord was a genius, but I'm not sure it matters either. What really matters would be that he KNOWS each and everyone one of us, knows what and how we think and WHY we think that way, loves us, and through him and his atonement we can be cleansed of our sins, raised from death and resurrected in perfect form through faith in him and doing the things he has asked us to do to show that faith.
-
19 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:
The fam went and saw One Life last night. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Life_(2023_film)
I can highly, highly recommend it. Everyone should know the story. Inspiring and important reminder of how average folks can rise to the occasion. Anthony Hopkins and all the other actors did an amazing job. Easier to watch and less traumatizing/extreme/violent/shocking than Schindler's List or Saving Private Ryan. Excellent movie for older teens on up.
In my life, as the son of a WWII vet, I've felt the pressing need to preserve and pass along the lessons my dad's generation learned. This movie really really helped me forward that goal with my older daughter.
Sounds Interesting, and though PG, it seems like it may not have too much of anything (language, violence, etc) on my list of things not to watch. Interesting subject matter as well.
-
16 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:
Heh - two choices: 1-The government will take care of you and make all the decisions. 2-People take charge of their own futures and some of 'em will screw up and ruin their futures.
401ks have been providing tax-advantaged reliable 4-8% returns since they were invented. If you started investing at age 20, and then there's a massive crash when you reach age 65 and your account suddenly dropped 40% in value, you'd still have more money to pull out of it than you'll see back from social security taxes of the same amount over the same timeframe.
Investing in the stock market is no more a gambling scheme, than sticking cash in a coffee can, or buying gold, or investing in real estate. Gambling is gambling. There is no risk until you decide to gamble, then the odds favor the house. Having money and doing something with it is not gambling. The risk exists no matter what you do, you have say in increasing or decreasing your risk, but you can't eliminate the risk.
401K's have only been around since the late 1970s (1978??). We haven't had a big enough crash in the US to actually test how vibrant they are yet. WE have been fortunate. We have not had that once in a century crash (some think 2008's recession was it, but it was no where close. We have been blessed thus far to be able to get our way out of things before they get too bad).
WE haven't had an economic crash such as the Great Depression (or after that, the aftermath of World War 2 in Europe and parts of Asia, one reason why the US economy was so robust in the 1950s-1980s). Those literally took a decade or two to get out of for each area.
Social Security is a result of one of those Economic crashes. It's not a good look to have your elderly starving to death and dying on the streets (and worse than that). Going back there have been other crashes similar to these in history, but nothing really recent.
If we had a crash like that, I would not gamble that the stock market would actually even necessarily survive. If it did occur, we could be several decades before someone gets out of it.
It's not like a 40% crash (or even 50% which wasn't unusual for some accounts in 2008), but something like a 90% crash (how is that possible? Some go down to 0 in worth, others are barely in subsistance, etc, but the big kicker are the big brokers and those who handle the retirements go broke and disappear which cause 99% of investosrs, the small investors, lose everything). The stock market might survive and many come out on top, but it could also be that many of the financial services that HANDLE the stocks for the common person and those 401K and other accounts (another thing that came out of the Great Depression was insuring your bank accounts, but that's only to a certain amount which in no way would give me enough to survive my retirement today, much less future generations) go bankrupt and all your investments disappear with them (meaning most of the public lose their retirements, even if the more wealthy may actually get wealthier).
This was what they were afraid could happen in 2008 (and may have happened to a large degree with at least a minority of the population without the interventions the government did) but managed to avoid.
Which means, until it's actually tested by a REAL and LARGE economic crisis in the US (which also normally means people are literally starving on the streets, the homeless are quite visible, not just those tent cities, but people walking commonly, going door to door, etc), I don't know if the current ideas of 401K will actually survive and be good ideas.
We are due for one in the next 30-40 years, but I don't know when it will hit or if we will actually be able to postpone it. Maybe it will hit at the same time SS crashes? That could be a stimulus to push us over the edge into one.
-
On 3/23/2024 at 8:14 PM, laronius said:
While our beliefs entail a much broader spectrum of salvation (three kingdoms of glory with perhaps many levels of glory within them) as compared to the heaven and hell belief of most Christians, I still find it interesting that there is still such a significant chasm between the kingdoms of glory, at least as the imagery implies: sun vs moon vs stars. Their difference in glory is vast. This would seem to imply that no one is going to just barely miss one kingdom. If you are only worthy of a lesser kingdom then you are still quite a ways off from being worthy of the greater kingdom.
If that conclusion is accurate (and I'm equally interested in what you think if you feel it's not) then there must be a rather significant distinction in worthiness for there not being necessary a middle ground of worthiness, something in between the sun and moon and stars. For example, we know those in the Terrestrial Kingdom are labeled as not valiant in the testimony of Jesus whereas those in the Celestial Kingdom are. Will there not be anyone who is only sorta valiant, more than those in the Terrestrial but not up to snuff compared to the Celestial?
It's not something I had considered in the past but it does strike me that there must be a good answer out there somewhere, maybe in one of your noggins. Hopefully.
I guess what my question boils down to is if you believe there really is such a significant gap, what makes it so? Or if you think the top of one kingdom is close to the bottom of the next kingdom, why the imagery implying otherwise?
There are rather strict cutoffs if we are to believe in section 76 of the Doctrine and Covenants.
Telestial - Those who rejected the gospel but did not deny the Holy Spirit. As We know, every knee will bow and all will eventually accept the Lord, but these did not accept the Lord in their mortal or spiritual probation, but only later (probably).
In my opinion this basically means all those who were baptized (mortally or in proxy). As long as they accept the Lord and the ordinances, they will be saved in a glory that surpasses our understanding in mortality.
Terrestrial - These are those who rejected the gospel in this life, but accepted it in the spirit world. They are also those who are hororable but blinded by the craftiness of men. They could also be those who had the gospel but were not valiant in their testimony of Jesus (in my opinion, this could also be those who accepted the gospel but did not follow the teachings of Jesus or put the ideas and morality of men above that which the Lord teaches, such as caring for the poor, helping the sick, loyalty to one's spouse and fidelity in marriage, the Law of Chastity, Charity, and other items covered in the Scriptures and ideas such as the 13th article of faith...etc). Thus, though short, not being valiant could be a lot larger and harder than I may even imagine it to be.
Celestial - These accepted the gospel and received all the ordinances thereof. They overcame by faith and their blessings were Sealed upon them by the Holy Spirit of promise. They are members of the Church of the Firstborn. They are priests and have the Melchizedek Priesthood. They overcome all things.
These are pretty clear cut dividing lines in some ways. In some ways it could be seen that you are either on one side of the line or the other. In looking at it, the ONLY for use to even get the Telestial is through the atonement, and it is absolutely far more true with us being able to achieve the Celestial. Without the atonement and the ability to repent and be cleansed from our sins I don't see a way for any man (because no man is perfect except for the Savior, and thus could not overcome anything without him) could even dream of making the Celestial Kingdom, much less the Telestial.
-
39 minutes ago, ZealoulyStriving said:
Check out these quotes having to do with "native elements":
https://scriptures.byu.edu/#:t2731&"native elements":st&&1830&2024&j&n&30@0$"native elements"
*There seemed to be an idea that if you are not eternally progressing, you are eternally regressing until your Spirit is broken back into unorganized matter to be "recycled" (so to speak).*
I'm not so sure I agree with the idea of either you are progressing or regressing.
There is a very damaging idea in corporatism today (not to be confused with capitalism, which is the ideal, corporatism and monopolist are probably the counter of capitalism in the opposite direction of socialism if one thinks about it) that you must always be increasing your profits. Each Quarter needs to be better than the last and you must always be expanding.
However, sometimes the best course is to simply stay where you are at.
An Empire is normally the precursor to a nation's fall. Sometimes that fall is greater than what they would have been had they merely been content with existing.
This also goes along with what the Chemist writes above, and IS problematic. As per his own statement, things progress until they reach their zenith (like an Empire) and then regress after that.
This would indicate that once we reach the zenith in eternity, we automatically start regressing. That's a TERRIBLE idea and one that is ignored after he talks about it and forgets to apply THAT principal to his ideas in what follows as well.
I think there could be eternal progression, there can also be regression, but I also think there are those that can just be existing. They are neither progressing or regressing, but have an end to their progress and regress in the glory that they receive.
-
1 hour ago, Traveler said:
Greetings @JohnsonJones:
Back in the 80’s an international acclaimed economists (Milton Friedman) did an audit of the Social Security for then President Ragan. His audit was somewhat unpopular – especially for the Democrats but it did upset Republicans as well. Two of the biggest problems with the Social Security Department was the expanded use of the funds (for example the funding of Black Military Ops) and the exorbitant overhead costs (10 time the allowable overhead costs – by law – for privately funded retirement funds).
According to Friedman, there has never been a shortage of funds, rather poor management (including unfunded changes). As near as I can tell - none of Milton's recomendations have been adopted.
The Traveler
Maybe.
I think, as @Still_Small_Voice voice said, is that it's basically designed like a Ponzi Scheme. It works as long as you have an ever increasing number of payers...the problem is the payer base is decreasing. For any Ponzi scheme, that is normally the precursor to the death knell.
Obviously, others putting their hands in the pot does not help, but the root of the problem from what I see is that SS is reliant on more people paying into the pot than those who are taking it out.
In all honesty, the money I get from SS today is NOT the money I put in. The money I put in was used LOOONG ago by those who were utilizing SS when I was paying into the pot. The average lifespan increasing as well as the numbers going from bottom heavy (a LOT of younger workers supporting a lot fewer older retirees) has changed to a more equal numbers or in worst case scenarios (as us Baby Boomers are now retired and Gen-X looks to join in) to being top heavy means that the original idea of it no longer works to sustain itself long term.
Like a Ponzi scheme the idea was that the larger younger generation would always be growing far larger than the older generation so you always had a larger growing number of investers vs. those who were taking things out at the top.
I've heard the same things as you in that thus far there has been no shortage of funds, but with how it is designed and how things are today, it is bound to fail sometime. I have no idea whether it will last throughout my life or not.
On the otherhand I could die tomorrow which would mean I wouldn't need to worry about it (though my wife would have the paperwork to go through in that case), but the problem for everyone else would still be out there.
I don't think privatization is really the answer either if we see what is going on with the 401K's out there today. We have been fortunate with the Stock Market, but it's largely a gambling scheme with how people handle their stuff today and I'm not so sure that's the best way to do things either. All it takes is a really massive crash that could take a couple decades to recover from and that will kill a WHOLE LOT of people who have 401K's for retirement. Do that with SS as well and you could have a complete collapse of people's retirements.
Of course, perhaps we should consider going back to how society used to be centuries ago (and in some nations it is still like this today) where Kids live with their families until marriage (and sometimes beyond) and then they support their parents afterwards. Of course, with how Western society is going over the past century, with a lot less respect and honor towards parents (a lot of vitriol among the younger generation for the older generation) and more independence with children from their parents that would be a very hard pill for Western society to stomach today.
-
On 3/19/2024 at 1:51 PM, NeuroTypical said:
There's still plenty that could be done to save SocSec, but the trick is politicians having the political will to do it. Because the fixes on the table won't be popular, and doing unpopular things cost votes.
The easiest solution is the one they will not choose.The easiest solution is to raise taxes on Social Security, and a simple method is to make it so there is no limit on how much you make that can be taxed. If you make 2 million in a year, it is taxed for Social Security. At the same time, do NOT increase the limits on how much one can withdraw.
This action right here would probably extend SS for awhile longer.
Secondary would be to simply raise the retirement age. Raise it to 70 or higher. That also would extend it.
Now, I note that I am waaay past the SS age already, so many would probably be saying...okay Boomer. You got your cake and now you want to keep everyone else from getting theirs...or something like that.
I admit I've been blessed in this regard, but if I live as long as I plan (I plan to go over 100!! no idea if I'll ever make it though), I'll be facing those shortages right along with others who haven't started their SS yet.
I think the most likely thing that will happen is that the politicians will continue to kick the can down the road until we are about a week from it going away. Then they will all scramble (like they do with the Budget recently) only to discover this problem isn't as easy to fix...and that will be it.
I only hope I have enough money in my retirement accounts that I can get by if that ever happens (though with my luck, all stocks will fail, the banks will go bankrupt, and all the rest of my money will be gone as well, at which point I can only hope the Lord has appeared and we are living in millennial bliss by that point)(.
- NeuroTypical and Backroads
-
2
-
To echo what @Traveler stated above, up until recently (and possibly still today in some locations) the Ruler of a Nation and certain individuals under them would be counted as the same individual in some instances.
In some Middle Eastern Cultures slavery was common. There were slaves that were your right hand of power and control (probably somewhat like what Joseph was in Egypt). These slaves were seen as basically part of you. They were extensions of your voice and will. Whatever they said was what YOU were saying. To defy them was to defy YOU. When they came, they would be seen as YOU in the flesh and treated as such. For all intents and purposes, unless you were together, they would be seen as you in many instances (obviously NOT YOU, but also because of their position to act in your place, basically as you).
In this dynamic we see some classes of slaves as a HIGHER class in society than freemen. This is because the slaves reported directly to the ruler and as such, were held in higher esteem than those who were not part of this slave class.
This was most often seen with slaves (as they were owned totally by their master and as such, when loyal, were seen as an extension of that master. A slave could be killed at whim if they disobeyed or did what their master did not desire...whereas a free servant was not so easily done away with), however, on occasion it could also be seen as done with a servant as well.
On occasion this is also done with Dynastic rulership where the Son is considered an extension of the ruler.
Not entirely the same, but a similar vein could be seen with Young King Henry who was crowned King under his father King Henry II. He was King, but his father had the reins of power. Now, he didn't have as close or as good a relationship as those I spoke of above, but when he was acting in line with his father's wishes, the easiest way for people to talk about them and who they were differently was relating in a way such as one was the king and the other was the young king. (Interestingly enough, as Young King Henry died before his father, he is not counted among the Kingly line of Kings of England).
- Traveler and askandanswer
-
2
-
Forum glitch that caused a double post.
-
On the OP, I've read recently that the Lord has been offending a LOT of people in the United States.
Evangelicals call the Lord "liberal" and weak
QuoteMoore told NPR in an interview released Tuesday that multiple pastors had told him they would quote the Sermon on the Mount, specifically the part that says to “turn the other cheek,” when preaching. Someone would come up after the service and ask, “Where did you get those liberal talking points?”
“What was alarming to me is that in most of these scenarios, when the pastor would say, ‘I’m literally quoting Jesus Christ,’ the response would not be, ‘I apologize.’ The response would be, ‘Yes, but that doesn’t work anymore. That’s weak,’” Moore said. “When we get to the point where the teachings of Jesus himself are seen as subversive to us, then we’re in a crisis.”
it is interesting how the world stays the same even as it changes and advances. The same problems during the Lord's ministry exist today and I think that if he were here today the result would be the same, those who profess to worship the Lord and are in the Churches would be some of the first to call for his crucifixion or his death.
The Lord was an extremely liberal radical during his time. He called for things that most of the religious individuals at the time were against. He called for forgiving others who offended you, letting your rulers rule over you and keeping your religion separate from that of Caesars. If you accept his apostles also spoke for him, he instituted a type of socialism (called Religious Socialism by many scholars today) where all property was shared amongst those in the church community for the benefit of others. He called for people to feed the poor and care for the sick so that none would be hungry and all would have basic necessities in a society of his.
His church called for RIGHTEOUS leaders who were married. He called for faith and common sense.
These ideas offended those who were in power. His ideas would tear down the more conservative ideals of the time (where church LEADERS dictated what you could do including how many steps to walk on the Sabbath, etc) which were alarmingly closely aligned to many of the ideas of today.
I think people would be surprised at HOW liberal his ideas really are. Even today, his ideas are extremely liberal in relation to what we think in general. In that light, the same type of people (those who were the leaders of the church at the time, those people who followed what those teachers taught) would probably call for his destruction today.
(And to be clear, when I refer to leaders of the church I am NOT referring to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I am talking about Church leaders in general. These would be those Pastors, Preachers, and others who teach such ideas as hatred of others today, prosperity gospels, those who teach not to help the poor and to try to stop any aid going to them, those who teach that people get what they deserve and that the poor and disabled deserve whatever has happened to them, those who argue to destroy those who don't agree with you, that teach that anger and distrust are what we should do to others because we feel they did it to us, those who teach revenge, and on and on and on in regards to what I see many who claim to be Christian are actually being taught and actually doing these days).
-
I still do not feel that the picture is one of Joseph Smith Jr.
1. Bone structure DOES NOT MATCH. You can have people tell you one thing, but it is obvious just looking at the brow that the individual is not one of the Smith brothers. The pictured individual has a lower and deeper brow while theirs are shallower and higher.
2. His nose does not match either of their noses either. It is a closer match to Hyrums, but even then the nose is more of a straight than the Smiths which seems to have a crook (One much more obvious than the other) in the mid nose section.
Obvious bone structures SHOULD be noted as problematic if one is trying to say it is a picture of the Prophet, but it seems these are being either stated that we cannot see the obvious and were are being gaslighted into trying to be forced to believe that something that looks different is the same, or those doing the analysis really are blind.
In that light, Jack Chick's picture is actually more accurate than the photo...ironically...from what I am seeing.
-
2 hours ago, MrShorty said:
That particular TR question is an interesting one, isn't it? Before Pres. Nelson rewrote the TR questions, the explanation around that question was that it's specific purpose was to try to prevent polygamous offshoots from getting people to infiltrate our temples and ordinances.
I'm not likely to move in the right circles to hear them, but has anyone really heard anecdotes of people being denied temple recommends based on that question? It seems that every anecdote I've heard over the years involving supporting LGBTQ+ family members, or supporting political causes, or whatever have always been adjudicated in favor of giving the recommend. It seems that, whenever the question of "does that TR question apply to this scenario?" comes up, the conclusion is always, "no, that TR question is not aimed at that scenario." except for situations involving polygamy. I'm not entirely sure I know what scenarios the church has in mind for those questions around supporting something/someone contrary to the church, but it seems that they are really only interested in the most egregious offenses. The kinds of scenarios that average, well-intentioned LDS encounter to we think might apply don't seem to be the scenarios our leaders are looking for.
The Temple Questions are more for the one being interviewed than they are for the Bishop or Stake President. When in Leadership it was explained to me that in general (there can be exceptions, but they were just that, exceptions not the general rule), I was to give someone a temple recommend if they answered the questions in a way that agreed with the church...even if I felt something was off.
A member can answer the questions however they want and however they feel. They have their free agency. The questions are there for them to affirm not only to the Church leaders, but to themselves, that they feel they are keeping the commandments and covenants they have made and feel worthy to enter the temple. It is the member themselves that have the self introspection to answer how they feel. IF they are honest there may be things that are not truly serious, but that THEY feel are serious and thus for THEM is a personal barrier to temple entry. Other times it allows them to talk about serious sins that are preventing them from advancing spiritually and gives the Church Leader an opportunity to try to help the member overcome these obstacles in their life.
Many questions are open to interpretation by the member, even if we may feel they are open and shut. If a member came and said that they were supporting the Boy Scouts and that they felt this was supporting an organization that taught things contrary to the church (people may snort, but I have known those who actually consider this a factor), a bishop may use inspiration on how to help that individual. The member may simply need a clarification, or the member may have a serious consideration and it is for the Church leader to take them seriously.
Overall, the temple recommend questions are not something that the Church Leadership is trying to interrogate a member over, it is an interview for the member to self reflect on their own worthiness and to determine in lieu of what is being asked and their own knowledge to honestly answer to the leader AND THEMSELVES on whether they feel they can answer to the affirmative in their support of the Church and the Gospel.
In MY OPINION of course.
-
On 3/5/2024 at 2:56 PM, mikbone said:
Price of gold has gone up $100 or almost 5% over the past week.
Wonder what is causing this to happen?
Catching up to the inflation over the past 4 years. Gold hasn't kept pace with the other areas of inflation (from what I've heard) and at $2150 still hasn't kept up with the rate of inflation throughout the world (despite many conservatives grumbling, Biden actually has managed to keep US inflation as one of the lowest in the world over the past 3 years, the rest of the world has gone bonkers in regards to inflation in some places, reaching over 15 to 20%/year in some areas).
-
On 3/4/2024 at 4:39 PM, Traveler said:
The conclusion that I have come to is that Putin has as much right to violently be involved in the overthrow of the government of Ukraine as the USA and NATO does. Sadly, there are innocent Ukrainian citizens (especially women and children – the actual genetic kind) caught in the middle of this and not all of them support the current president of Ukraine. Most importantly – I am not pleased with our news service – including Fox News – for coverage of the whole matter. I honestly believe this current bloodshed could have been easily prevented – it seems to me that this current war is the result of either carful evil planning within our own government or possibly incredibly stupid policies from both political parties for at least a few decades. I do not know where to put my trust.
The Traveler
We will have to agree to disagree on this one.
In my time over on the opposite side of the World my initial impression was somewhat different than yours. Russia, though corrupt and having different ideas on morality had a pretty strong stance against LGBTQ+ rights and individuality. Ukraine on the otherhand was moving further and further towards full agreement with Western morality. THIS was seen as a great danger by many in Russia and that sphere of the world. It was through Ukraine that many felt this influence on Russia and Russian culture was moving. The idea that Ukraine would get even closer to the West and thus the influence of Western Culture influences into Russia becoming stronger could actually be seen similarly to a Nazi type infiltration of Russia aka WW2 (during which you could see a similar pattern, even to the point that at first Russia wasn't actually opposed to Germany and cooperated with the Nazi's...until it became apparent it was to Russia's detriment). [Edit: It wasn't a perfect analogy, but from the viewpoint of Russia I could actually see how they could see parallels and similarities. Hence, when they used the term Nazi's, they weren't meaning the genocide of Jews Nazi's, but that cultural influence and destruction of Russian people and culture type Nazi ideas. Thus, when you understand that viewpoint, why they referred to Ukraine as Nazi and such makes perfect sense...as in that sense it was the entire cultural and social transformation that was occurring in Ukraine and thus eliminating the Russian culture and ideas that they were referring to. This is one of the big things to go to war against the Nazi's in WW2...it wasn't about the Jews, it was about the preservation of Russia and the Russian culture].
However, for all of Carlson's faults...he did clarify one thing with Putin. The idea above and your idea have NOTHING to do with WHY they want Ukraine. It boils down that Putin (and others) feel that Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union and thus belongs to Russia...no matter what they citizens of Ukraine say, think, or feel. Thus, as Putin so adeptly pointed out in his 30 minute spiel of why Ukraine is Russian Territory and belongs to Russia, it seems the truth is merely that Russia invaded Ukraine because Putin and others feel it is wrong for it to be separate from Russia and they want it back.
Thanks Tucker.
The Morality of Having Children
in Current Events
Posted
I have a similar thing happen to us.
I am technically now a millionaire...but I definitely don't feel like a millionaire and it isn't in a way I can actually spend it. It is simply because my HOUSE is now worth a LOT more (I think 2.5X to 3X of a value increase over the past 4 years probably is about accurate, we had it appraised for property taxes around 2019 and the current appraisal was around 3X what the last one was just recently). I think it's rubbish.
The amount of money I can spend hasn't gone up, I don't have more money really, but simply because they say my house is worth more I'm supposedly richer...
It just doesn't feel right.