Woman at Walmart lectures a father using Food Stamps.

[kaylasdad99]

Imprecise, I concede. I just use IMAX as a convenient proxy for a playback device with a vertically-oriented aspect ratio. Unnecessary black bands are an abomination unto me.

[Just_Asking_Questions]

Why don’t these things ever happen in front of me? I’d give that busy body what for, I tell you whut.

Assuming that it wasn’t staged, of course. In this day and age, I’d give the likelihood of it being staged about 90%.

[Saint_Cad]

I would pit the guy because the only appropriate reply would be.
“Shut your talk-hole and mind you own business you fat cunt.” and ignore her thereafter.

[Bricker]

@septimus

Sorry for hijacking the thread to try to straighten out Bricker. If I thought his was just ordinary arithmetic confusion I wouldn’t have answered — after all, 49% of Americans are below average in math skill.

What is infuriating is that right-wingers are infected with every possible falsehood that bolsters their stereotypes. When you withdraw from a bank account you don’t get the exact same dollar bills you deposited — yet right-wing idiots pretend that this invalidates the whole SocSec arrangement. :smack:

The administrative overhead of SocSec is about 1% (compared with 14% for private programs), yet right-wingers like Bricker assume the overhead (teh gummint werkers is teh laazy) is 30%.

SocSec actually pays out more than it takes in because … wait for it … it earns interest on its Trust Fund. Yet one right-winger actually proposed that the Trust Fund keep its assets in the form of $100 Benjamins since those are “real money” compared with U.S. Gov’t bonds. :smack:

Fighting ignorance is taking a lot longer than expected. It wouldn’t be so bad without all the willful right-wing ignorance. Bricker’s comment was so stupid it needed to be batted down at once.

Good grief.

Can you quote MY words that you believe to be in error?

I certainly concede that the “one right winger” you mention, who is undoubtedly totally real and not in any way a made-up strawman, is wrong if he believed that there was any financial benefit to keeping assets in paper money as opposed to bonds.

But since I did not say that, it really can’t be used to show my error.

You gleefully correct right-wingers like me as to the overhead being 1%, not 30%, but fail to notice that I never said it was anything at all.

What I did say was that the practice of continuing to pay out to every person more than they pay in is not sustainable indefinitely.

I stand by that claim.

If I made any other claims that you believe to be false, let’s see them. In quote boxes, please, so there’s a penalty for any more creative misattributions.

[dracoi]

I’m sure someone will say I’m victim blaming, but the part of the scene that stands out most to me:

What kind of role is he modeling for his son? Obviously, the woman deserves every negative thing he says to her, and I think we all understand his frustration with her… but is “Fuck you bitch” really the conflict-resolving behavior you want to display as your child watches from the shopping cart?

[Saint_Cad]

@dracoi

I’m sure someone will say I’m victim blaming, but the part of the scene that stands out most to me:

What kind of role is he modeling for his son? Obviously, the woman deserves every negative thing he says to her, and I think we all understand his frustration with her… but is “Fuck you bitch” really the conflict-resolving behavior you want to display as your child watches from the shopping cart?

They’re in WalMart. You respond in ways your audience understands.

[Guinastasia]

@dracoi

I’m sure someone will say I’m victim blaming, but the part of the scene that stands out most to me:

What kind of role is he modeling for his son? Obviously, the woman deserves every negative thing he says to her, and I think we all understand his frustration with her… but is “Fuck you bitch” really the conflict-resolving behavior you want to display as your child watches from the shopping cart?

I take it you’ve never been to Walmart.

[MyFootsZZZ]

I cringed when he said that as well actually. I didn’t mind the guy’s “vote republican” rant… But then he said that.

It could have been handled better for sure

Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@excavating_for_a_mind

When you consider the gains that would be realized from even a S&P 500 fund, most contributors only receive a fraction of what they put in. It may be a substantial fraction, but is is still less than what they contributed (at least it will be for me).

If you have to include S&P 500 gains to make that statement true then the statement isn’t true.

I’ve contributed far less than 15% of my income to my personal investment accounts over they years I’ve been working and the income from my investment accounts should exceed my SS retirement benefits when I retire.

And if you had retired any time between 1930 and 1942, that would not be the case. If you had retired any time between 2009 and 2012, that would probably not be the case.

When I got my SS number (when I started working), the SS Administration told me that I did not have to worry about my retirement, that SS WAS my retirement account and that I would be taken care of when I retired.

cite?

They are not telling me that, now. Now, they are telling me that SS retirement benefits can be depended on to play a PART of my retirement plans.

I think this was always the case.

[Little_Nemo]

@septimus

Sorry for hijacking the thread to try to straighten out Bricker. If I thought his was just ordinary arithmetic confusion I wouldn’t have answered — after all, 49% of Americans are below average in math skill.

What is infuriating is that right-wingers are infected with every possible falsehood that bolsters their stereotypes. When you withdraw from a bank account you don’t get the exact same dollar bills you deposited — yet right-wing idiots pretend that this invalidates the whole SocSec arrangement. :smack:

The administrative overhead of SocSec is about 1% (compared with 14% for private programs), yet right-wingers like Bricker assume the overhead (teh gummint werkers is teh laazy) is 30%.

SocSec actually pays out more than it takes in because … wait for it … it earns interest on its Trust Fund. Yet one right-winger actually proposed that the Trust Fund keep its assets in the form of $100 Benjamins since those are “real money” compared with U.S. Gov’t bonds. :smack:

Fighting ignorance is taking a lot longer than expected. It wouldn’t be so bad without all the willful right-wing ignorance. Bricker’s comment was so stupid it needed to be batted down at once.

Then count me as a right winger because I also see this as nonsense. The government can’t invest money by buying government bonds. It’s just writing IOU’s to itself.

[Miller]

@dracoi

I’m sure someone will say I’m victim blaming, but the part of the scene that stands out most to me:

What kind of role is he modeling for his son? Obviously, the woman deserves every negative thing he says to her, and I think we all understand his frustration with her… but is “Fuck you bitch” really the conflict-resolving behavior you want to display as your child watches from the shopping cart?

I’m pretty okay with it. Not all conflicts can be resolved, or are worth resolving. Learning when to say, “Fuck it,” and walk away from an unreasonable person is a useful skill.

Which almost nobody on this board possesses.

[octopus]

@BobLibDem

I took my latest Social Security benefits statement and did some simple calcs with back of the envelope accuracy.

If I take the total amount I paid into SS to date and divided it by my estimated benefit at age 62, I get it all back in 67 months, neglecting interest. Of course I’ve got a few years of contributions yet to put in there but it seems to me that at the very least, if I live more that 6-7 years past retirement, I’ll be getting back all that I put in. I don’t know how long the average guy lives into retirement, but I’d be surprised if most didn’t live at least that long. If you have a 20+ year retirement, you’re getting back way more than you put in.

Why are you neglecting interest?

[octopus]

@jz78817

old white people collecting SS and Medicare benefits love to claim that they’re just “getting back what they paid into the system” as though they don’t understand that is more or less what “socialism” is. then they go around decrying socialism, so long as you don’t cut their Social Security or Medicare benefits.

of course, they’re stupid because the money they “paid into the system” was spent decades ago, and their benefits are being paid for by the money I am paying into the system today. Then they pat me on the head and condescendingly say I “don’t understand” simply because I’m not yet a decrepit, useless old person.

Well get rid of the Social Security tax and the Medicare tax which are for a specific benefit and refund money people paid specifically for those programs and I’d have no problem with investing that money myself for my own retirement and medical. As long as I’m paying for a specific program with defined benefits I damn sure better not be robbed or defrauded by the government.

[octopus]

@Little_Nemo

If a person pays ten thousand dollars in taxes, you can’t simply declare it’s the equivalent of twenty thousand dollars because he could have invested it something that would have doubled his money. If you do, I’ll just make the counterargument that the same person might not have invested his extra money; he might have spent it all on hookers and blow. So Social Security is a pure gift to him because it represents money he wouldn’t have otherwise had.

No. You honestly don’t understand how to discount future income?:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

[octopus]

But on the subject of food stamp use. People need to mind their own damn business. If he’s entitled to that benefit then that lady needs to go about her own life.

[Morgenstern]

@jz78817

…

of course, they’re stupid because the money they “paid into the system” was spent decades ago, and their benefits are being paid for by the money I am paying into the system today. Then they pat me on the head and condescendingly say I “don’t understand” simply because I’m not yet a decrepit, useless old person.

Yes. We should euthanize all the decrepit, old useless people. But, I blame the decrepit, useless old people for not throwing out the half-witted millennials with the bath water.

[Count_Blucher]

His response isn’t classy at all.

That said, I wonder how many times he’s had to respond? Lots? Explaining the same thing over and over day in and day out can be frustrating. Not an excuse, but it is true.

Also, I honestly can’t say how long she was harassing him before the film starts. If you are a normal person at a check out line and people start arguing behind you, how long is it until you actually start reaching for your camera phone?
Usually, quite a while, right? Then you have to find the camera icon, wait for the app to load, set it to movie mode, get the focus right, and then you pick up the conversation. My feeling is that we only caught half of her rant at this guy and his kids.

PS- Total Hijack:
Could this person have turned to the cashier and asked,
“Excuse me. Could you call the manager and store security please? This person is harassing me… and my children… and I’m just trying to pay for my things at the checkout? I’m just trying to pay and to leave. Can you please see if the manager can help me with that…?
Or at least keep this woman away from my kids and I so we can get that done?”

[Evil_Economist]

@Bricker

What I did say was that the practice of continuing to pay out to every person more than they pay in is not sustainable indefinitely.

I stand by that claim.

Social Security is a transfer from the current working to the current retired.

For simplicity assume everyone makes the same income and lives the same amount of time. In that case payouts will grow at the rate of population growth, which could potentially be positive for a very very long time.

[MyFootsZZZ]

I use food stamps and no one’s ever given me any problems.

If someone did, I would feel awful.

[Bricker]

@Evil_Economist

Social Security is a transfer from the current working to the current retired.

For simplicity assume everyone makes the same income and lives the same amount of time. In that case payouts will grow at the rate of population growth, which could potentially be positive for a very very long time.

But variations in population size are inevitable, and one big problem with your assumption… Baby boomers retire and there are NOT as many current working folks as would be necessary.

Moreover, I hope you’re not trying to sell the idea that $100 today is equal to $100 in 2036. If I contribute $100 today, and get paid $100 in 2036, you agree I have lost money, not that I have been paid back exactly what I put in, right?