How can we take it back?

[Skarekrow]

The way that is phrased doesn't make sense to me. If they thought it was the right thing it would be morally right. Are they supposed to do what you feel is right against their own morals?

I didn't think taking their money would make them change but ostracization might work in some cases. Overall I think they would just see themselves as the 300, the last stand, the last hope to saving Christianity from a country falling away from God.

I think he's making a distinction between one's individual moral values and the social group's collective moral values that they may belong to. So if you're a Christian but you disagree with the church's stance against homosexuality you should hold to your own convictions and not capitulate to those of your group.

Though it's still problematic when they truly believe homosexuality is wrong and it only encourages them to not be persuaded by social ostracism or group consensus. It's essentially the same as it already is; don't discriminate unless you think they deserve to be socially ostracized because of their moral views. We all discriminate against others in some form or another with varying degrees of justification.

It does seem to express some inherent trust in the rationality of human thought which I think it misplaced as most controversies and disagreements stem from political opinions and ideologies that have very little to do with rational thought or facts. They are based on the opinion of how things "should" be which can't be defined or quantified.

^^^Pretty much this Grayman, Matt summed it up well.
I think morals are great ways of thinking and for the most part you would probably be a really great person if you adhered to all of the present day’s “morality”, but it is subjective..i.e. stealing food to feed yourself or children.
Morality IMHO shouldn’t be viewed as something so ridged, but ever-changing, if we “grow” as people then other aspects of ourselves grow along as well.
I question my morality about many things, how I view things, all the time...I still have trouble eating meat (I just love it so fucking much!), so that is something that I feel is not as “moral” as I would personally like it to be, and maybe someday I will change that.
But as far as the phrase - Don’t let your morals get in the way of doing the right thing.
It’s like the guy the other day in the news, a bus driver who left a disabled person stranded in the heat down in Texas when he saw her “Bernie” sticker...his God-fearing, fucked-up version of “morality” got in the way of doing the right thing...simple as that.

 

[Skarekrow]

 

[the]

We can't trust transgenders in the girls room, but we can definitely trust accused perverts in the boys room.... :/

 

[Skarekrow]

 

[Skarekrow]

Hey....what do you fucking know....FOX NEWS is reporting on air that Magic Mushrooms help people with depression!!
What??!?!?
Holy Shit!
FOX?

(I guess the better question is...why am I watching Fox news?)
((see, I try to be fair and balanced in my brainwashing))​

 

[Skarekrow]

 

[Skarekrow]

 

[Skarekrow]

 

[Skarekrow]

 

[Skarekrow]

 

[Skarekrow]

 

[Skarekrow]

 

[the]

They will just tax us more, so no.

 

[Skarekrow]

They will just tax us more, so no.

Not tax you.
There used to be laws that prevented the govt. from touching SS until Reagan.
Up until that point it worked and was solvent.
It’s the same shit with the postal service...worked great, Congress comes along, fucked around with it, then says - see social programs don’t work.
They’re working on schools now...what else can we privatize and gouge from the lower 80%?

 

[the]

Not tax you.
There used to be laws that prevented the govt. from touching SS until Reagan.
Up until that point it worked and was solvent.
It’s the same shit with the postal service...worked great, Congress comes along, fucked around with it, then says - see social programs don’t work.
They’re working on schools now...what else can we privatize and gouge from the lower 80%?

State colleges.

 

[Skarekrow]

State colleges.

Well, the fix is fairly simple...all they need to do is raise the cap on the cut off regarding who pays SS and who doesn’t.
Currently for 2016 it’s only $118,500...so any money made after that is not subject to SS taxation.
If you raised it up to $200,500 the program is solvent for another 50 years or so - provided our govt. can keep their grubby hands off it.

 

[the]

Not tax you.
There used to be laws that prevented the govt. from touching SS until Reagan.
Up until that point it worked and was solvent.
It’s the same shit with the postal service...worked great, Congress comes along, fucked around with it, then says - see social programs don’t work.
They’re working on schools now...what else can we privatize and gouge from the lower 80%?

If they don't tax the people then who will be taxed?

 

[Skarekrow]

If they don't tax the people then who will be taxed?

It will be people who are taxed but it won’t raise taxes on you or I unless you make over what the cap currently is.
If the cap goes up to $250,000 then anything you make past that amount won’t apply to SS just like the cap now.
So if the Government can first stop using funds from SS and raised the cap it would be solvent and maybe even then some.
Technically it’s not a tax, it’s a forced savings account.
Supposedly you will get your SS check every month when you decide to retire...if it’s still there then.
Which I question.
I just really don’t want to see anyone try and privatize it only to watch Wall Street steal it...because that is exactly what they would do.
It certainly isn’t SS, Disability, SSI, etc. that is bankrupting and sucking up the tax dollars...those people contributed...if SS comes up short it’s because someone has their hand in the cookie jar too often.

 

[the]

It will be people who are taxed but it won’t raise taxes on you or I unless you make over what the cap currently is.
If the cap goes up to $250,000 then anything you make past that amount won’t apply to SS just like the cap now.
So if the Government can first stop using funds from SS and raised the cap it would be solvent and maybe even then some.
Technically it’s not a tax, it’s a forced savings account.
Supposedly you will get your SS check every month when you decide to retire...if it’s still there then.
Which I question.
I just really don’t want to see anyone try and privatize it only to watch Wall Street steal it...because that is exactly what they would do.
It certainly isn’t SS, Disability, SSI, etc. that is bankrupting and sucking up the tax dollars...those people contributed...if SS comes up short it’s because someone has their hand in the cookie jar too often.

Oh ok I see what you meant. Then yes I do agree with that. I mean they might as well raise the cap because from their (flawed) perspective that would give them more petty cash to play around with. Plus they have thier own specific retirement plans so what do they care?

 

[Skarekrow]

Oh ok I see what you meant. Then yes I do agree with that. I mean they might as well raise the cap because from their (flawed) perspective that would give them more petty cash to play around with. Plus they have thier own specific retirement plans so what do they care?

It’s is an easy fix that has been pushed in bills before but GOP will not let it pass...they want privatization.
Something it going to have to happen with it in a serious manner as the Boomers are forced to retire and huge portion haven’t saved nearly enough to live on.
IDK...they would probably find a way to fuck it up no matter how you tried fix it.