Political Correctness thread

[RDU Irish]

We usually agree on a lot of things, but you're off base here. I grew up in the hippie generation and we were criticized as going to be failures. Older people may feel entitled to SS and pensions, but that's because they have paid into it for 40+ years.

Millennials are no different than any previous generation. You have those who are willing to carry their weight and those who want to coast by with the least amount of effort. Same goes for older generations. People are who they are and growing older doesn't change their stripes. If you're one who puts in an effort when your young, you'll continue to do that when you're older. Same for those who want to take the easy road. They'll want the easy path all their life.

Do you hire a millennial or a seasoned worker? Could be either. That's where realinterviewing comes into play.

Bolded is off base. Social Security is paying for our seniors to have a basic standard of living, it always has been. If instead of having a selfish motivation for a feeling of entitlement maybe they should look in satisfaction at their parents who they supported and gratitude toward the current workers who will be shouldering their cost. It is a promise to our elders more than anything. Pension mentality of older generations is pretty offensive to younger generations who have to save for themselves (yet most don't).

Younger generation is off base to think SS will be gone, there will be something - just have to wait longer to get it most likely. Boomers will have it better than anyone with young retirement ages and long retirements. Millenials will probably have to wait 5-10 years longer than boomers to collect Social Security. The program is not meant to support 30 year retirements, average retirement was something like 3 years when it first started. Easy to see why they have some animosity over a program they are supporting, expect to get more expensive and expect to get much less out of than their parents.

 

[Legacy]

Younger generation is off base to think SS will be gone, there will be something - just have to wait longer to get it most likely. Boomers will have it better than anyone with young retirement ages and long retirements. Millenials will probably have to wait 5-10 years longer than boomers to collect Social Security. The program is not meant to support 30 year retirements, average retirement was something like 3 years when it first started. Easy to see why they have some animosity over a program they are supporting, expect to get more expensive and expect to get much less out of than their parents.

Social Security and Medicare were also started for those who worked forty-five years as their investment in their future. They are funded by those who invested in them and also started when many Americans had pension plans, too, with medical care benefits as well as staying with one employer for their working lifetime. This generation worked to save for their retirement. Even then, eighty-one percent of the elderly today who did not have SS would be at or below poverty level. The slow erosion of what they worked for is disgusting. The elderly on fixed incomes, obviously, can not keep up with inflation or survive recession without having to rely on their children, which is what happened prior to SS. As a country, we were also mainly isolationists.

We are at this place and these viewpoints between generations because of the failure of government and private industry to maintain these commitments and their investments for "hard-working Americans". The other factor is government spending on wars, which has siphoned off Americans' investiments in their retirement. Not sad. Criminal. As well as pitting generations of Americans against each other.

As posted before, even at late as a decade ago, without the Bush Tax Cuts and the Middle East wars, our annual federal deficit would have been negligible.

 

[RDU Irish]

Social Security and Medicare were also started for those who worked forty-five years as their investment in their future. They are funded by those who invested in them and also started when many Americans had pension plans, too, with medical care benefits as well as staying with one employer for their working lifetime. Eighty-one percent of those over 65 who did not have SS would be at or below poverty level and obviously could not keep up with inflation or survive recession without having to rely on their children, which is what happened prior to SS. We were also mainly isolationists.

We are at this place and these viewpoints between generations because of the failure of government and private industry to maintain these commitments and their investments for "hard-working Americans". The other factor is government spending on wars, which has siphoned off Americans' investiments in their retirement. Not sad. Criminal. As well as pitting generations of Americans against each other.

They are funded by a bunch of IOUs. Pretty much the scene from Dumb and Dumber where the crooks open the briefcase. If you HEARD it was you saving for retirement in some magical lock box then I'm sorry. Think about how pissed you get at the idea of them changing the rules a little bit (because if you are being honest you know the game isn't changing any time soon and when it does it will be minor tweak to make people wait longer to collect).

Now how do you think millennials feel about a program they fully expect to be gone by the time they get there? They are paying in and expect to get NOTHING out of it, you think that makes them happy?

Government has made us all selfish so that nobody wants to do anything unless they benefit directly - Social Security was that game changer. Sold as taking care of your elders as we all used to want to do, contorted over the years to a grossly inaccurate perception of paying your own way to now being perceived as paying for boomers and getting nothing in return. If you are unhappy with the thought of getting nothing (or more realistically less) - why do you expect younger generations to be happy to fund a promise made decades before they were born?

 

[Legacy]

They are funded by a bunch of IOUs. Pretty much the scene from Dumb and Dumber where the crooks open the briefcase. If you HEARD it was you saving for retirement in some magical lock box then I'm sorry. Think about how pissed you get at the idea of them changing the rules a little bit (because if you are being honest you know the game isn't changing any time soon and when it does it will be minor tweak to make people wait longer to collect).

Now how do you think millennials feel about a program they fully expect to be gone by the time they get there? They are paying in and expect to get NOTHING out of it, you think that makes them happy?

Government has made us all selfish so that nobody wants to do anything unless they benefit directly - Social Security was that game changer. Sold as taking care of your elders as we all used to want to do, contorted over the years to a grossly inaccurate perception of paying your own way to now being perceived as paying for boomers and getting nothing in return. If you are unhappy with the thought of getting nothing (or more realistically less) - why do you expect younger generations to be happy to fund a promise made decades before they were born?

I don't think you understand what I said. I linked the priorities of government spending, tax breaks, the cost of unwinnable wars, the attack on pension plans and lack of federal fiscal responsibility to the financial planning of those "hard-working Americans" who retire (and to millennials) that have led us to these discussions and to the decision-making of delaying Social Security. If you think that there is a lockbox between the impact of tax cuts to the top 1% with increasing corporate tax breaks to millennials' personal future financial planning, then you should reconsider. Those decisions will impact millennials much more than any entitlement programs, but, at this point, may be driving forces for some special interests and their representatives than an aging population.

Consider that the average life expectancy of the US population at 78.7 years ranked 34th in the world behind almost every European country who all have lesser GDPs and yet offer some form of universal health coverage to all their citizens and social security to their elders. Most of Social Security is based on work history and, therefore, is a benefit as well as an investment of "hard-working Americans" more than any other federal program.

 

[RDU Irish]

It should come as no surprise that government - run by a bunch of old farts - makes the decision to spend more now and dump the debt on future generations. The same coddling bs that created the thumb sucking millennials prevents them from taking their own medicine.

When someone gets serious about it - they will move earliest retirement age from 62 to 65 to match Medicare and latest retirement will go to 73 from 70. This shift will be over a couple decades and anyone 55 and over will not be affected b/c 1) politicians are pussies and 2) boomers would be most affected and carry too much influence. Younger folks will embrace it as they see going from nothing to something.

Very similar to what they did in the 80s were they moved full retirement age from 65 to 67. The fact this has not been adjusted to account for increased life expectancies is asinine.

 

[RDU Irish]

People are healthier longer, no reason the average person can't add a few years to their working lives. For those that can't, disability is there to pick up the slack. Currently 1/6th of people age 55-62 are on SSDI so its not like there is not a place for those that would be too inconvenienced by this change.

 

[Legacy]

It should come as no surprise that government - run by a bunch of old farts - makes the decision to spend more now and dump the debt on future generations...

When someone gets serious about it - they will move earliest retirement age from 62 to 65 to match Medicare and latest retirement will go to 73 from 70. This shift will be over a couple decades and anyone 55 and over will not be affected b/c 1) politicians are pussies and 2) boomers would be most affected and carry too much influence. ..

Very similar to what they did in the 80s were they moved full retirement age from 65 to 67. The fact this has not been adjusted to account for increased life expectancies is asinine.

Are you an actuarian or just a numbers person?

You think that a fifty year old can do the same work as a forty year old? A sixty-five year old as a sixty year old? A seventy-three year old, etc? But we have an economy that creates jobs within the same company they work for all ages, right? That such a robust economy with little job loss would continue to reward older workers with increasing wages, right? That there is no age discrimination, right? Older workers without jobs will not have a problem without some umbrella earned over the years, right? They would not be shifted to another federal program for partial assistance or move in with their children, right?

What does the older generation in your family and in your circle say? (I have confidence that you can reply without too many derogatory descriptions.)

 

[BeauBenken]

Man, this thread has been kinda ruined by generational bickering. You're supposed to be bitching about PC culture in here, not how old someone is.

 

[woolybug25]

Man, this thread has been kinda ruined by generational bickering. You're supposed to be bitching about PC culture in here, not how old someone is.

Shut up ya young twerp....

 

[GoldenDome]

Age is but a number.

 

[Legacy]

Politically correct?

Politically correct?

Thousands of MS SNAP recipients no longer qualify under new gov't requirements

Thousands of Mississippians receiving food stamp benefits no longer qualify for them under new government requirements. The new policy requires that single people between the ages of 18 and 49 who are able to work put in at least 20 or more hours on the job, volunteer, or enroll in a job-training program. While many folks admit they are not happy about this change, Food banks are bracing for the large number of low income families in need.

“It is not just about blacks anymore. There are a lot of whites on them too and not able to do nothing,” said
“So you are leaving us homeless, foodless,” said Snap recipient.
Over at Our Daily Bread food bank in Canton, which feeds more than 400 people weekly, Executive Director Shaveta Laflore said nearly two dozen people have called her in need of food and a job.
“We cannot turn them down, so the people that are coming in that are needing those hours, so the first thing we are asking them to do is further their education, so we are parenting with Notre Dame and Jackson State’s Lifelong Learning program for single parents,” said Laflore.

32,000 Alabamians may no longer qualify for food stamps

Tens of thousands of Alabamians receiving food stamps will be cut off from the benefits in April as new work requirements go into effect.

Barry Spears of the Alabama Department of Human Resources said his department has sent out 32,672 notices to Alabamians that face losing benefits from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, commonly known as food stamps.

According to the Alabama Department of Human Resources, 417,944 households – roughly 889-380 people – received food assistance in the state last year. The new changes could cut off as many 500,000 people nationwide from food stamp benefits.

 

[Legacy]

Not focusing on Alabama but....

Not focusing on Alabama but....

The Governor has been involved in a scandal with talk of impeachment.

Sex, lies and audio tapes: 13 turning points in the Robert Bentley, Rebekah Caldwell Mason scandal

Robert Bentley – Alabama's Republican governor first elected in 2010 on a platform of conservative family values – has experienced a shocking fall from grace in recent weeks after admitting to making inappropriate comments to his chief political advisor.

While the events of the last two weeks - including Bentley's admission and the resignation of advisor Rebekah Caldwell Mason - have dominated headlines, the controversies that led to both date back to August 2015 and beyond.

 

[Irish#1]

Bolded is off base. Social Security is paying for our seniors to have a basic standard of living, it always has been. If instead of having a selfish motivation for a feeling of entitlement maybe they should look in satisfaction at their parents who they supported and gratitude toward the current workers who will be shouldering their cost. It is a promise to our elders more than anything. Pension mentality of older generations is pretty offensive to younger generations who have to save for themselves (yet most don't).

Boomers will have it better than anyone with young retirement ages and long retirements.

It should come as no surprise that government - run by a bunch of old farts - makes the decision to spend more now and dump the debt on future generations. The same coddling bs that created the thumb sucking millennials prevents them from taking their own medicine.

Boomers (1946 - 1964) are retiring now. I'm 63 and don't feel entitled to anything. Should we be thankful that the younger generation is there to shoulder the cost? Sure the same way we shouldered the cost when we were younger. Every generation thinks they do it a little better then the last one, when in reality they don't. In reality, it's cycle, recycle from "The Greatest Generation" to the "Baby Boomers", to "Generation X" to the "Millennials", to the "????????'s".

 

[Irish#1]

The Governor has been involved in a scandal with talk of impeachment.

Sex, lies and audio tapes: 13 turning points in the Robert Bentley, Rebekah Caldwell Mason scandal

Just spent a week vacationing in Orange Beach. That's all the news covered while I was down there. Mason resigned, but they are still after Bentley. I won't go into details, but find it rather unusual that they share a safe deposit box. Will be interesting to find out what's in there.

 

[NDgradstudent]

Anybody who wants to defend 'kids today' needs to explain the appalling Pew findings that show a large minority of millenials want government restrictions upon speech that is "offensive to minorities." Of course, 'minorities' refers only to fashionable minorities and not unfashionable minorities such as gun-owners, or white men, or evangelical Christians, or married parents, or homeschoolers. Either this group is correct, in which case the First Amendment would need to be repealed or distorted beyond meaning by the courts (which will begin to happen soon, I believe) or millenials need this basic principle of a free society explained to them.

 

[Legacy]

Millennials less confident about nation’s future, but so were their parents, grandparents when young

 

[GoIrish41]

Anybody who wants to defend 'kids today' needs to explain the appalling Pew findings that show a large minority of millenials want government restrictions upon speech that is "offensive to minorities." Of course, 'minorities' refers only to fashionable minorities and not unfashionable minorities such as gun-owners, or white men, or evangelical Christians, or married parents, or homeschoolers. Either this group is correct, in which case the First Amendment would need to be repealed or distorted beyond meaning by the courts (which will begin to happen soon, I believe) or millenials need this basic principle of a free society explained to them.

White men are now minorities? Lol

 

[NDinL.A.]

White men are now minorities? Lol

Haha...what the hell is a "fashionable minority"? It wasn't "fashionable" to be a minority a couple of months ago when a Trump supporter called me an illegal immigrant because of my skin color. That's an interesting term to say the least.

 

[NorthDakota]

Haha...what the hell is a "fashionable minority"? It wasn't "fashionable" to be a minority a couple of months ago when a Trump supporter called me an illegal immigrant because of my skin color. That's an interesting term to say the least.

Well....are you?

 

[RDU Irish]

Are you an actuarian or just a numbers person?

You think that a fifty year old can do the same work as a forty year old? A sixty-five year old as a sixty year old? A seventy-three year old, etc? But we have an economy that creates jobs within the same company they work for all ages, right? That such a robust economy with little job loss would continue to reward older workers with increasing wages, right? That there is no age discrimination, right? Older workers without jobs will not have a problem without some umbrella earned over the years, right? They would not be shifted to another federal program for partial assistance or move in with their children, right?

What does the older generation in your family and in your circle say? (I have confidence that you can reply without too many derogatory descriptions.)

If you are relying on Social Security for 100% of your income, you should be incentivized to work longer and delay that collection so long as you are capable of working. If you are incapable, you are disabled and can collect SSDI like 1/6th of all folks age 55-62. Of course, everyone has the option of saving for their own retirement and retiring whenever they are capable of providing for themselves.

In my experience - those that have the least are happiest when they wait the longest to secure a larger monthly check that they will rely on for a majority of their support. Those that have means can't wait to start collecting and "get theirs" and rely on it for a minority of their support. Extending the age you are eligible far and away impacts those of means more than those without. If they can't work they get SSDI to bridge the gap LIKE 1/6th OF ALL 55-62 YEAR OLDS TODAY - why do I feel like I have mentioned that before?

 

[Buster Bluth]

Haha...what the hell is a "fashionable minority"?

Angelina Jolie's kids?

 

[NDgradstudent]

White men are now minorities? Lol

Haha...what the hell is a "fashionable minority"?

I think these quotes together make my point for me, but I'm happy to clarify.

Fashionable minorities are the sort who receive an admissions boost because of their race, and the sort that colleges want on their promotional materials.

There are 197,159,492 non-Hispanic whites in the country, according to ACS estimates. Roughly half of them are men. That means that out of a population of 314,107,084, 98,579,746 (31%) are white men. 31% < 50+1%. Hence the term minority.

Merely being a numerical minority does not make you a minority in a meaningful sense in the eyes of liberals. Thus the distinction between fashionable and unfashionable minorities. As I mentioned, and your remarks demonstrate, white men are terribly unfashionable.

 

[Legacy]

If you are relying on Social Security for 100% of your income, you should be incentivized to work longer and delay that collection so long as you are capable of working. If you are incapable, you are disabled and can collect SSDI like 1/6th of all folks age 55-62. Of course, everyone has the option of saving for their own retirement and retiring whenever they are capable of providing for themselves.

In my experience - those that have the least are happiest when they wait the longest to secure a larger monthly check that they will rely on for a majority of their support. Those that have means can't wait to start collecting and "get theirs" and rely on it for a minority of their support. Extending the age you are eligible far and away impacts those of means more than those without. If they can't work they get SSDI to bridge the gap LIKE 1/6th OF ALL 55-62 YEAR OLDS TODAY - why do I feel like I have mentioned that before?

Sigh. Again,

Social Security and Medicare were also started for those who worked forty-five years as their investment in their future. They are funded by those who invested in them and also started when many Americans had pension plans, too, with medical care benefits as well as staying with one employer for their working lifetime. This generation worked to save for their retirement. Even then, eighty-one percent of the elderly today who did not have SS would be at or below poverty level. The slow erosion of what they worked for is disgusting. The elderly on fixed incomes, obviously, can not keep up with inflation or survive recession without having to rely on their children, which is what happened prior to SS. As a country, we were also mainly isolationists.

We are at this place and these viewpoints between generations because of the failure of government and private industry to maintain these commitments and their investments for "hard-working Americans". The other factor is government spending on wars, which has siphoned off Americans' investiments in their retirement. Not sad. Criminal. As well as pitting generations of Americans against each other.

(from Post 332)

I don't think you understand what I said. I linked the priorities of government spending, tax breaks, the cost of unwinnable wars, the attack on pension plans and lack of federal fiscal responsibility to the financial planning of those "hard-working Americans" who retire (and to millennials) that have led us to these discussions and to the decision-making of delaying Social Security. If you think that there is a lockbox between the impact of tax cuts to the top 1% with increasing corporate tax breaks to millennials' personal future financial planning, then you should reconsider. Those decisions will impact millennials much more than any entitlement programs, but, at this point, may be driving forces for some special interests and their representatives than an aging population.

(from Post 334)

Consider that the average life expectancy of the US population at 78.7 years ranked 34th in the world behind almost every European country who all have lesser GDPs and yet offer some form of universal health coverage to all their citizens and social security to their elders. Most of Social Security is based on work history and, therefore, is a benefit as well as an investment of "hard-working Americans" more than any other federal program.

(Also from Post 334)

 

[NDinL.A.]

I think these quotes together make my point for me, but I'm happy to clarify.

Fashionable minorities are the sort who receive an admissions boost because of their race, and the sort that colleges want on their promotional materials.

There are 197,159,492 non-Hispanic whites in the country, according to ACS estimates. Roughly half of them are men. That means that out of a population of 314,107,084, 98,579,746 (31%) are white men. 31% < 50+1%. Hence the term minority.

Merely being a numerical minority does not make you a minority in a meaningful sense in the eyes of liberals. Thus the distinction between fashionable and unfashionable minorities. As I mentioned, and your remarks demonstrate, white men are terribly unfashionable.

So in other words, you think white men are both racist and bad dressers. Got it.

 

[ACamp1900]

So in other words, you think white men are both racist and bad dressers. Got it.

Some of them dress okay.....

 

[greyhammer90]

Good to check in and see this thread is going as was expected.

 

[NDgradstudent]

So in other words, you think white men are both racist and bad dressers. Got it.

Let me present a hypothetical situation (extremely common nonetheless).

Suppose an Asian, Hispanic, and white person are each applying to college, with SAT scores reflecting the group averages. Only the Hispanic applicant gets an affirmative action benefit, which is equal to 185 points. Neither the Asian nor the white enjoy the benefit.

Why is this so? It can't simply be that Hispanics have suffered from past discrimination, because Asians certainly have too. And it can't simply be that Hispanics have had a harder time in life up to this point, because plenty of whites have too.

So what is the justification for this? And which person is the "minority" in this situation?

 

[NDinL.A.]

And which person is the "minority" in this situation?

The guy who is fashionable challenged and dresses poorly?

I'm not going to get into a long discussion on this topic with someone who so obviously deals in absolutes (see: your millenials rant) and wants to make America white again. Your 'fashionable' minorities crack is such a fucking joke and spoken like someone who has never and will never face real racism that I'm surprised even wasted this much time on it. Thank God your leader pissed off so many people that that bumbling idiot will get his ass kicked in the general.

#nevertrump

 

[NDgradstudent]

Not to be too patronizing, but some points about arguments: you are not supposed to mischaracterize your opponents views ("attacking a straw-man") nor claim that the truth of someone's opinion is determined by some attributes of his person ("ad hominem attack"). Now that we've covered that...

I'm not going to get into a long discussion on this topic with someone who so obviously deals in absolutes (see: your millenials rant) and wants to make America white again. Your 'fashionable' minorities crack is such a fucking joke and spoken like someone who has never and will never face real racism that I'm surprised even wasted this much time on it.

This is non-responsive pointing-and-sputtering. A few comments:

(1) I did not 'speak in absolutes' in my post about millenials. It was evident that I was describing a common tendency that many of them have, not a feature that all of them have.

(2) Whether or not I have faced "real racism" does not affect whether or not my arguments are successful.

Finally, about your time being wasted- you can spend time however you'd like, but then I didn't make you respond or take an interest in the argument.

Thank God your leader pissed off so many people that that bumbling idiot will get his ass kicked in the general.

#nevertrump

Are you responding to statements that I have said, or to statements that you wish I had made?

 

[greyhammer90]

Let me present a hypothetical situation (extremely common nonetheless).

Suppose an Asian, Hispanic, and white person are each applying to college, with SAT scores reflecting the group averages. Only the Hispanic applicant gets an affirmative action benefit, which is equal to 185 points. Neither the Asian nor the white enjoy the benefit.

Why is this so? It can't simply be that Hispanics have suffered from past discrimination, because Asians certainly have too. And it can't simply be that Hispanics have had a harder time in life up to this point, because plenty of whites have too.

So what is the justification for this? And which person is the "minority" in this situation?

You really need to read up on the Supreme Court decisions on this subject. Diversity is of itself a desirable trait in a place of higher learning. You don't need to have been discriminated or have grown up poor for you to be a more valuable addition to a college than someone of another race. A Hispanic person is inherently a more valuable addition to the school, not just for themselves but for their peers, because they provide a perspective that is underrepresented in a place of higher learning. Asians and whites are not underrepresented and their cultural viewpoints dominate these places. Hence, they are not as valuable to the school. You can call that being "fashionable" if you want, but that's a pretty big misrepresentation of what's going on here.

This is where you complain that its not fair, that you deserve a fair shake, and where I tell you you're being an entitled millennial.