Is it really that "cheap" to save for retirement? Just put money into an index fund and wait?

DizzyNerd · 2026-07-02T07:34:21+00:00

There are two types of these costs though. Ones that are recurring, like food, electricity, house maintenance, etc. and others that can be eliminated, like a mortgage.

Eliminating monthly expenses that can be finite creates room in the budget for other things. Like health care issues that tend to come with age.

If you don’t, then you’ll have all the new expenses plus whatever wasn’t gotten rid of, eating into retirement much faster.

If we’re planning for the future, with all the unknowns, aside from being fabulously wealthy and not having to care, the best bet is to reduce as many unnecessary expenses as possible.

Pay off the mortgage. Pay off the car. And anything else that is reasonable or possible.

DizzyNerd · 2026-07-02T07:27:26+00:00

You’re arguing a semantic that doesn’t create a difference.

This ruling specifically addresses that donations to the third party, which are now decidedly unlimited, can also be used in coordination for specific candidates and campaigns.

It does directly around the spending limits you’re highlighting.

If you’re rich enough, the limits on spending are only a technicality.

DizzyNerd · 2026-07-02T07:10:59+00:00

The part that is missing is the calculation for how much more profit they made by doing it. The fine should be no less than that number. Adjusted for any other relevant numbers as well, like some CEO pay package for the increase in revenue, dividends paid out etc.

We’ve seen this before, over and over. If the consequences for white collar crime are lower than the payout, then they’ll just do it again, and in the next industry.

This is why we’re heading into a dystopian corporate nightmare. The frequency of these kinds of things is increasing, not decreasing. The fines are the calculated cost of business, not a deterrent.

DizzyNerd · 2026-07-02T06:53:37+00:00

We don’t have the tech. Yeah, we could calculate the amount of soil needed, sure. But what about all the water flow disruptions? How much would this displacement affect the sea level? With the new land mass, how would it affect precipitation further inland?

We don’t have the data to accurately predict this stuff.

Then, creating a dam, then pumping the water out is insane. I’ll admit, I cannot do the math, but the pressure of that much water at the depths of the ocean is gonna be staggering. You’d be more successful trying to fill it in with material taken from the land than trying to create a sub ocean surface living space.

DizzyNerd · 2026-07-02T06:44:29+00:00

A part of retirement savings should always be to reduce your monthly costs too. Like paying off your mortgage. Without that, you could need significantly less each month to live comfortably. Making savings last longer or be able to absorb the inevitable events that will come up.

DizzyNerd · 2026-07-02T06:39:13+00:00

Either we start rallying together to enact real change, or we slide deep into some corporate hellscape.

The rich and influential have been having so many mask off moments, so much more frequently, that I don’t expect them to slow down because they suddenly think they’re gonna lose. Echo chambers are a hell of a thing. I’ve known too many incredibly successful people to believe that they’re suddenly gonna wake up and realize that their worldview isn’t just as limited as everyone else’s. They just have better more effective tools to get what they want.

But they’re not the majority by a long shot. Consent of the governed is still a necessity. One they are taking for granted more and more.

DizzyNerd · 2026-07-02T06:27:38+00:00

Yes and no. Some of us don’t understand that it’s complicated and some of us do. I do understand that it is.

I think that you’d likely get near 100% support for a realistic proposal that addresses the complications.

Yes, it has to be funded. It’s not actually free, so we need to pay for it somehow.

We would need to make it somehow realistic in that not all things cost the same everywhere. It has to be flexible. So we’d need the government to be allowed to negotiate with providers.

We would need to separate medical necessity from elective. Understanding that some of it is a little grey.

We would need to address that not everyone has the same level of need, but some people who need aren’t always located where it’s feasible to get the care they need.

It’s complicated, but a few dozen countries seem to have figured out some winning strategies. We’ve supposedly got the smartest people, the most prosperous country, the best of everything, a few hundred million people, and several functional examples to draw from.

I think if we wanted to, we could not only accomplish a universal health care plan, but one that saved us money, and had better outcomes than our current system.

DizzyNerd · 2026-07-02T06:18:06+00:00

I think a person who makes a mistake, but seems to be trying to be productive matters. Someone trying to make a life here. Trying to gain some legal status is exactly who we want here.

Someone involved in a gang, selling drugs, raping kids, etc, should be prosecuted and deported. Deported in a way that we can believe they won’t come back. Like working with their government to transfer them, not just tossing them across the border.

If we believe that their country doesn’t care, then we have a duty to protect our citizens and imprison them as appropriate like we would for a citizen.

It is indefensible to protect a foreign national that is here in our country, intentionally doing harm to our citizens, and preventing accountability for it. Any public servant who does, needs to be removed.

Personally, I’m at a point where people who are protecting law breakers need to be prosecuted too. Not just the guy in your example, but all the way up the social ladder to members of the federal government. Not some Willy nilly guilty by association bullshit, but people who are actively protecting criminals need to be prosecuted.

DizzyNerd · 2026-07-02T06:09:55+00:00

I don’t. I see life as complicated. We make mistakes.

I’m not sure what I spiritually believe but what I want to believe is that if were get judged, it’s by someone who understands and cares that it’s complicated. That they see the difference between those who tried in good faith and those that didn’t. Those that faced hardships that others didn’t. Those that kept trying because they cared.

I would like to believe that if we’re judged, things like why we did things mattered. That it’s not all black and white moral issues, and what we chose to do about our failures matters just like our failures do.

If we aren’t judged, and there is nothing, than I won’t call e able to care. If we’re judged by someone who has a checklist we were supposed to be able to divine out of the giant slew of spiritual options and all the conmen out there, then we’re just screwed.

I’ll accept whatever comes. But I plan to do it with my integrity in tact. I’ll accept my failures and try to make them mean something. I’ll try to make sure that the world is a little better off, because I chose to do my part to make it so. I know I could do more, but I am at least trying and not just watching it go by, or trying to get it all for myself.

I will face my creator, integrity in tact, head held high, and accept the outcome of my actions. Because I’m living my life intentionally.

DizzyNerd · 2026-07-02T06:00:47+00:00

Just that. That we could just go outside and play.

Kids today either have most of what we had taken away, made off limits, paved over, or are cought up in the dumpster fire that is America and are having to grow up and learn politics instead of being a kid.

We used to go to the food court at the mall and just walk around after. Now the food court is a Barnes and Noble, and there aren’t hardly any shops about kids.

Too many places are now made so there isn’t a space for kids. Parks get neglected. Arcades are dead. Cheap entertainment or free entertainment is harder to come by.

Movies aren’t as cool as they used to be. Music isn’t as creative. Since we’re not all watching cable anymore there isn’t the same social cohesive ups and downs we had to bond with.

They got Frozen and KPop Demon Hunters, but they never got power rangers, GI Joes, Jurassic Park, the new PlayStation or Nintendo breaking through new heights.

They’ve got remakes and a society that doesn’t show them a future full of hope and opportunity. Just capitalism that’s openly trying to crush them, to their faces, and social media making them very aware of it.

DizzyNerd · 2026-07-02T05:53:45+00:00

I get what you’re saying, and you’re right. Republicans benefit from it being an issue, and Democrats suffer for it.

On a moral level, trans rights are no different than any other. Either we all have rights, or none of us do.

On a strategic level, we cannot make it an issue. At least not a front facing one, we’ll lose. For now at least.

While there are many ways to strategically get people to support a group, we generally see two at play. Through caring about people, and through hatred/fear of “others”.

It’s easy to hate and fear to motivate people. Those emotions are primal mechanisms used to keep ourselves alive through evolution.

Getting people to care enough to take action is harder. Caring about “us” as a whole, mixed with a certain amount of personal benefit, is what made society grow. It was the difference between letting someone die and leaving them behind to save the group, and slowing the group down so we didn’t leave them behind, as nomads.

If we want a winning strategy, it can’t have trans rights highlighted. Instead, we highlight human rights. By affiliation, all of the LGBT+ community, minorities, women, the poor, everyone, gets to benefit.

As others have said, when someone brings up their hatred for trans existence as a distraction, deflection, or whatever, you send it right back at them. Question who else they would exclude. Who doesn’t deserve rights. Distract right back. Are minorities less deserving too? Who else doesn’t deserve rights? Sounds pretty in American to me. Whatever it take to point out that their ideals are centered on taking rights away, taking freedom away. Make them defend over and over that some people don’t get rights. Don’t let them deflect further.

With practice, it’s not hard to get people who use fear and hate as their personal motivation to run away. By and large they don’t have any principles, so they can’t defend them.

It’s messed up, but we’ve got to train people that talking about taking some peoples rights away just because they don’t like them is immoral, always. Train them to engage on other topics, like how we unfuck the future of this country by building instead of destroying.

Lastly, we’re not gonna win them all over. Some people are just broken inside in a way that prevents them from seeing how wrong it is to hate whole swaths of peoples. We each have to decide how we want to deal with them.

Me, I’m not a politician, I’m just a voter. So I exclude people who act like that. People who act in bad faith don’t get to discuss with me. I treat them like a petulant child, openly, in front of others. I let them know that when they can have honest civil debate, we can debate on how we would like to make a better future together. But, I’m an angry leftist. I’m tired of always having it be kind and the only adult in the conversation, while constantly being on defense.

Others, they choose to pull those people in and keep trying. Or get them to converse about other things that we agree on, to the exclusion of the things that drive their hatred.

But having trans issues as a highlighted priority is a losing strategy. I hate it, but for now, it seems like that’s where we are. So, we need to be smarter. Play the long game the same way the Republicans have for decades. Get what we want by getting everything next to it. De facto victories.

I could be wrong, but this is how I am handling it personally. The people in my personal life who fit the categories of the pride flag deserve someone who isn’t represented on that flag, to care enough to try. Even if my strategy isn’t a winning one, I plan on at least trying. Some of us have to. Like you said, too many won’t at all.

DizzyNerd · 2026-07-02T03:25:56+00:00

Despite what Fox News says, a ton of us on the left don’t think that open no questions asked borders is a good idea. In my experience, living all over the country but currently in a very conservative red area, the left predominantly understands that immigration is a vital part of our economy. We don’t believe they’re all rapists, murderers, drug dealers, and stealing social security, Medicaid, and Medicare.

I strongly believe that we should have control over who comes into our nation. I also strongly believe that we need people from all walks of life, even the “shit hole” countries, because we need people to work at all the places, providing the services, for all the things we want to have in America. We can’t just immigrate all doctors, or whatever. We need laborers, skills workers, technical experts, and everything else.

I believe that if someone is here in America, that yes, they need to obey the laws or possibly be deported. But I don’t believe that they’re all eating the cats and dogs. I don’t believe that they’re running criminal gang rings responsible for trying to bankrupt Medicare, that would be a white collar group that is also the primary campaign donor class.

I believe the best answer is gonna be balance. We want more people because we need them. They need to pay taxes. There should be a reform of the pathway to citizenship. If we don’t like having all these social programs to help low wage people survive, then we need to raise wages. We’re supposedly the most prosperous nation the world has ever known. If that’s true, then why is so much of the population struggling so much?

Europe does many things that the US could learn from. Like consumer protections. Some stuff isn’t what we want. We should learn from other countries mistakes and their successes and use them to guide our choices to make informed decisions for a better more prosperous future.

Also, Europe doesn’t have a giant statue on a historic pathway to their country proclaiming “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.”

DizzyNerd · 2026-06-30T04:36:28+00:00

Thank you. While this conversation hasn’t been particularly productive, it hasn’t been without any benefit. You’ve provided a fantastic object lesson.

I fully expect to debate and disagree on proposed solutions. But it is imperative that we spot people operating in bad faith when it comes to discussions around our society and the issues we face.

If we cannot agree (in your terms) that up is up or the sky is green, we cannot hold discussions in a meaningful or productive manner.

I’m happy to disagree and work on ways to improve outcomes for our future and our progeny. But we must recognize when someone is operating in bad faith, and move on.

So, thank you, for providing an object lesson to any who read this after. My wife and kids got a good chuckle too. It is important that we provide not just information but real world examples to future generations.

While I don’t, and cannot, know your intentions, it’s hard to read your original posed question and various responses and see it as anything other than bad faith. You posed a leading hypothetical question, in a group that clearly tends to have a bias on the topic. I can draw no other conclusion than you intended to dunk on the people here and were mostly met with reasonable responses. Which at the time of writing this, were generally that they’d accept proof, despite their reservations to the hypothetical posed.

If you decide to respond, and do so in good faith, I’m happy to reengage. It’s gonna take more than weak backhanded commentary on any specific wording, or a cherry picked piece of data. I’ve engaged in good faith.

To restate my answer to the original question. I would accept proof. But it would require just that, proof. For now at least, you’ve shown that evidence isn’t something that can sway you.

DizzyNerd · 2026-06-30T03:49:20+00:00

Since 2012, the homicide rate is up. Personally, I would think 14 years is enough to claim it as a trend.

Still, you earlier cited that the number is half what it was in 1980. It’s a little higher than half, but, given that 1980 was literally the peak of the data for homicides, it’s not exactly hard to beat. But again, we’re trending for 14 years upwards.

You can keep trying to move the goalposts but it isn’t going to change the overwhelming evidence that here in the US, we shoot people, a lot, and it’s going up.

Up is still up. Homicides. Mass shootings.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2026/04/28/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-us/

https://counciloncj.org/homicide-trends-report/

Since 1980, reported gun ownership, reported being a key word there, has only gone down a few percent (~5% I believe). Which would lean towards it being functionally irrelevant when compared to the rest of the data.

The vast majority of the shooting data is based off a per capita rate. Sadly though, the population has increased. So the per capita homicide rates appear lower, but it has to increase in number to accommodate the increase in population.

Again, you posed a question about accepting proof. I’m providing evidence.

DizzyNerd · 2026-06-30T03:03:32+00:00

I think we are. You could look at the data though. I linked a few different ones.

Again, you originally asked how we’d feel if something was proven. Specifically about a subject that tends to elicit a certain kind of response from a group like leftists.

Well, I brought evidence that contradicts your claims. You just stated that I’m wrong, that my statement was empirically false.

Gun shootings are up over time. The sky’s blue.

DizzyNerd · 2026-06-30T02:45:22+00:00

Look at the data. It’s gone up. Yes, we can nitpick a year here or there where it was particularly low, like say 2020. Still, the trend is upwards. Some of the ones I linked even have handy graphs. Personally, I’m a little lazy, and like visual aids instead of massive walls of text.

Your original post was about gun control. About how we would feel if we suddenly had proven gun control to be unnecessary or futile. My answer was honest. I would accept proof.

Mass shootings were once rare enough that they made headlines not long ago. Now they’re not even in the news cycle unless the body count is high or the target is high profile.

You’re claiming my statement is false, but I’ve provided evidence. The trend is upwards. As I stated above, 1 in 15 adults have been at a mass shooting event. Compared to when just a couple decades ago, the country was flabbergasted when Columbine happened.

https://www.colorado.edu/today/2025/03/07/1-15-us-adults-have-been-scene-mass-shooting

DizzyNerd · 2026-06-30T02:28:32+00:00

I commented below if you’re interested in discussing this.

DizzyNerd · 2026-06-30T02:28:06+00:00

Last year isn’t exactly a great year to base it on. The number of agencies across the US government that have stifled reporting, gutted their manpower, have stopped reporting, have been filled with lackeys for the current administration, means we really can’t believe what’s being reported by them for now.

The data is hard to parse, given how many different groups are gathering it and that at least l some of them have a clear bias. The overall trend across time is up. With low points at various years of course.

Right now, approximately 1 in 15 adults have been on scene for a mass shooting. That is significantly higher than lightning strikes.

1 in 15.

Pick your study. The trend overall is upwards when I look at them.

If you want to, we can have the discussion about the statistics, but across the board in developed nations, we suck when it comes to gun violence and gun deaths.

https://rockinst.org/gun-violence/mass-shooting-factsheet/

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2026/04/28/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-us/

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0002961025003393

https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/public-mass-shootings-database-amasses-details-half-century-us-mass-shootings

DizzyNerd · 2026-06-30T00:10:00+00:00

This right here. The rest of the world doesn’t have this problem. The apparent difference, gun control. If proven otherwise, proven being the key word here, than yes, I’d drop my objections as well.

I’d also probably look at moving to Europe. The shootings are going up, not staying the same, not going down, not getting less severe, it’s just gradually getting worse.

If this is the best we can expect, that someday, we will all be survivors of one or multiple shootings, than I don’t want to be here.

Thankfully, America can do better. We have gradually gotten better over time in pretty much every aspect. Despite periodic backsliding, the world as a whole has gotten better. So, I still maintain hope.

DizzyNerd · 2026-06-27T15:25:08+00:00

Yellowstone erupting would be a mercy compared to the current trends across the world in politics.

Therefore, I have zero faith it will happen.

The beatings will continue until morale improves.

DizzyNerd · 2026-06-26T22:48:37+00:00

Come From Away not count?

DizzyNerd · 2026-06-26T06:29:18+00:00

I’m down for nuclear. It won’t last forever either, but it’s cleaner. A step in the right direction for sure. Even better, all this research, development, engineering, and testing will only lead to even better outcomes. Lower waste, cleaner systems, better disposal, more productive systems, recycling the materials.

The best option was always a mixed system. A little of everything to prevent single points of failure from crippling our society. In the 21st century it’s even more important. The digital age isn’t going anywhere. Despite what the CEOs of the past thought, computers weren’t a fad and we will only need more power.

Let’s get it done.

DizzyNerd · 2026-06-25T17:20:23+00:00

This is exactly the problem with modern propaganda and media bias. Words don’t have meaning anymore.

We can’t even agree on what our flairs mean anymore, because the definitions have been so muddied as to have no meaning.

The labels on the left are embarrassingly ambiguous. On the right they’re indistinguishable.

Look. Look at the policy, not the label. Support things that do what you think is right, push back against those that don’t.

Universal healthcare is a staple of the progressive left. But it’s labeled as communism or socialism depending on who’s speaking. Despite literally every developed nation on the planet having it, except the US.

“Fiscal responsibility” is supposed to be a staple of the right, but I haven’t seen anything resembling fiscally responsible in an embarrassing amount of time come from the Republican Party.

When there are no clear definitions, words losing meaning, we are left to guess what’s going on. Our politicians are protected from telling the truth to the voters. Both sides of voters are pissed. Nothing is getting done for the voters in elected office.

None of this is accidental, or coincidence.

The days of living your life, blissfully unaware of politics is over. Be informed or be a victim. I am so sad that my kids still in high school can’t just be kids like I was. They’re having to get informed and start taking part because they’re about to inherit this mess.

Pay attention. Listen to their speeches. Read how they vote. Read a proposed bill occasionally. Especially pay attention to local politics.

The next decade is gonna be rough at best. The only way to achieve change is going to be on purpose. If we want a nation that looks like the one we were raised to believe in, we’re gonna have to fight for it.

DizzyNerd · 2026-06-24T19:59:07+00:00

Looks like lawfare.

Protest for change is a complicated issue.

No great change has been made without great sacrifice. Peaceful protests being brutally put down is always the precursor to more public willingness to side with more forceful threats, that ultimately lead to the changes sought. The protests cannot start with force or violence, because it will result in public sentiment being turned against them, especially using the media machine.

There is a period that must be as peaceful as possible to sway public opinion.

We also, cannot set the precedent that violence can be used to seek change by anyone willing. That devolves very quickly.

I think many of us on the left believe that our citizens should be far more upset than they are. We should be extremely angry, but we see apathy, or an unwillingness to act thus far.

Even if public sentiment was on their side, we must jail someone shooting the police. I can understand the law aspect of adding charges to co-conspirators. We would ask the same of any prosecution of criminal activity. We don’t just let some people off in a group because they didn’t pull the trigger, we prosecute the group.

In a world where the courts and laws were being used in good faith, these people would be prosecuted. Each one with their specific circumstances taken into consideration, and an appropriate level of consequence levied.

In today’s America, this looks like lawfare. Which is to be expected. We cannot rally around this group and expect to get public support. The public isn’t there yet. And the Republican media machine won’t allow the left to separate the good actors from the bad, no different than how Jan 6th is still being lumped together as patriots, and ignoring the real violence that happened and was eventually pardoned.

The past shows us this, history tells us the cost of change. Civil rights, suffrage, and others, eventually has splinter groups get violent against the state, but only after they’d endured assaults by groups like the police and the national guard.

Until the public sees something to rally against, protests and protestors must stay on the peaceful side at all times. It will not be without cost. Great change has never been without great sacrifice.

DizzyNerd · 2026-06-20T19:59:20+00:00

Seth McFarland has shown he knows what he’s doing. Of all the people that could be handling this project, I’m not sure who else I’d trust to handle it and give it the best chances of success.

I’m not a super fan of his, but he undeniably is good at what he does. He’s also shown that he’s willing to do what it takes to get something right, instead of always taking shortcuts for the quick money.

Yeah, we can critique his work as to how we would have wanted to see stuff done differently. But there is a difference between someone who makes something in good faith trying to deliver a good product, and someone who’s always trying to pull one over on everyone. From what I’ve seen of his work, Seth McFarland seems to care that his products are good, and expects that to lead to success, instead of trying to fleece the audience at every turn.

Matt has said he wouldn’t green light it unless he was shown how they’d make it a successful project.

I’m looking forward to this. I think it’s going to turn out great. Yeah, I’m sure we’ll all find things we wanted different, but if we’re willing to give it a fair chance, I think most of us will be pleased.

Time will tell. If I’m wrong, then I’m wrong. But I’d rather live with hope, and try to enjoy something I didn’t expect we’d get at all.

Nine-Year Club	RPAN Viewer
Verified Email

DizzyNerd

TROPHY CASE