BeaverFever

Yeah the new “pixilated moose” which is an ADDITION to, not a REPLACEMENT of, the Army logo. Pretty sure the political government had little to no involvement in it’s development or marketing That said I agree it looks like a turd amd I question its value

Noems lame attempt to describe the dog as vicious when she can’t even give one example or detail of it hurting another human. shows she’s full of shit. Young dogs jump up on people and playfully nip, she hasn’t been able to describe anything other rhat. The Golden retriever would have gone after the chickens too it’s what unsupervised young dogs do you simpleton @WestCanMan: repeating the above for you dumb ass since you completely ignored the inconvenient facts the first time.

YOU clear have no idea. Go on, keep pretending what she did was perfectly normal and that dogs are some kind of rare exotic creature that nobody here has any experience with. Even rural republicans and hunting dog experts people who ought to know are outraged at Noem. In fact the only people defending her seem to be a small number city-dwelling internet trolls like yourself

LMAO they only liar here is you, you internet kook You LIE that the dog bit her or anyone else You LIE that a dog going after chickens especially an adolescent hunting dog she trained to go after pheasants is unusual You are such a rabid internet kook you will say anything to defend your cult members from even the most heinous Actually that that the majority of society including republicans condemn Ps I love being called “low-IQ” by a low-income high school dropout liek you whose shown repeatedly his mental capacity has never evolved past his early adolescent years You’re a hilarious joke

Bullshit. Once again the only one proved worthless is you, due to your low intellect. She offers no explanation of why a puppy would be “dangerous” despite having ample opportunity to do so. She only describes how it embarrassed her on a hunting trip and how it did what dogs do when am irresponsible owner fails to secure them on chicken farm, especially one she had been training to hunt fowl and was returning from a fowl hunting trip Her account doesn’t have any “little Timmy had to get stitches,” no “little Susie is afraid to be in the same room the dog” …..in fact she mentions how her child asks for the dog after it had been shot. All you have is that one brief sentence fragment to cling to, which she clearly inserted as limp justification, while you ignore everything else You are one of the worst offenders on this forum when it comes to being someone who only sees what they want to see and only believes what they want to believe. Also people rescue and give away vicious dogs all the time. ALL THE TIME. Some rescue groups even specialize in it. Not that this dog was vicious. Remember that husky that killed a baby and was still adopted out? The normal thing to do if no new owner an be found is to with call a rescue group or at least give the dog up to SPCA/Humane Society authorities who will then decide what to do with it. ALSO 14 months isn’t fully grown for many breeds including this one. Look it up. Add that to the long list of things you don’t know And no, it didn’t bite her. She claims it “went to bite her” when sh grabs it. More of her BS trying to justify her cruelty. Even Trump Jr is making fun of her, don’t contradict your masters.

What BS. The “bitten people” part is clearly exaggerated as despite her detailed description of everything else the dog did to deserve execution, including embarrassing her, she offers no details of it’s aggression or biting just a brief mention in a sentence fragment Second, attacking chickens is normal dog behaviour ESPECIALLY FOR A DOG SHE JUST TRAINED TO HUNT PHEASANTS AND WAS BRINGING HOME FROM A PHEASANT HUNTING TRIP. Third, it’s not like the dog stole her keys and freed herself to attack the chickens, Noem chose to take this dog to a chicken farm knowing what happens when dogs and chickens mix, especially dogs trained to kill ground birds and just returning from a ground bird-killing trip, and she failed to properly secure it. The animal is an animal what is Noem’s excuse. You still offer no explanation as to why she couldn’t have done the normal decent thing which is to give the dog away. Below I offer you this wise comment I stumbled across on another forum, in its entirety, as well as the official tweet of the rescue society for this particular dog breed: —— The only 'obvious and political' thing in this thread is defending killing a 14 month old puppy for the sin of being a puppy because the perpetrator of the act is a high-profile GOP figure. If you substituted 'Hillary Clinton' or 'Kamala Harris' in place of 'Kristi Noem' with all the same circumstances and explanations that she has given, you guys would be all over it like flies on shit. And I would not be making excuses for either of them. Wrong is wrong no matter if you're an R or a D. We liberals on this board are always accused of putting 'team' first, but you guys are just as guilty. I know you've been involved in dog rescue, Manny, as have I for about the last 25 years. My wife and I are members and supporters of Afghan Hound Rescue of Central Ohio. We have rescued dogs, fostered dogs, transported dogs for the rescue, etc. No one we know in the dog rescue community would agree that a 14 month old dog deserved to be put down like this. That's exactly why there are rescues, shelters, humane societies, etc, to give puppies and dogs a second chance. Purebred dogs even have the advantage of having breed-specific rescues to rehabilitate and rehome them. Here is the rescue group for German Wirehaired Pointers. http://www.nationalgwprescue.com/ She was too lazy to take a more humane route. Kristi Noem failed this dog. Then thought it was good idea to broadcast it to the world in her book to somehow make her more appealing to the MAGA world. She failed the dog, but succeeded in her end game, witnessed by the response in this thread. https://www.vitalmx.com/forums/non-moto/shooting-14-month-old-dogs?page=2 ——————————-

She could have given the dog away, which is what every single non-deplorable human does By all accounts 14 months is still considered immature for this breed SOME human societies humanely euthanize dogs AS A LAST RESORT when all other options fail. Im not aware of them “shooting” dogs. If you uave a link, provide it. And that’s AFTER an owner has given up their dog Noem is not the ASPCA and a private owner shooting their own puppy as a FIRST RESORT when they decide the dog is “worthless” is in no way the same thing. Stop saying things so utterly dumb The only childish behaviour is you feeling compelled to justify any and all actions by a member of your tribe including shooting a puppy in the face

Pfft! Not a 14 months old puppy they don’t! Even when shelters do put older dogs down its a LAST RESORT when ALL OTHER OPTIONS HAVE BEEN EXHAUSTED , not a FIRST RESORT like Noem did. Are you serious? No what I said is the truth it’s right there in her own words dumbass. Why don’t you try reading for a change.

They foster them out, dumbass. Especially puppies. It definitely doesn’t take puppies to a gravel pit and shoot them in the face because they are “worthless” for hunting.

Sure they have. Ive said it on this forum myself. “shooting a puppy in the face’ is an expression Well you can see for yourself from responses in this thread, some conservatives in this forum clearly do agree. But I also said multiple times Noem is getting criticized from across the political spectrum. LMAO!!! BULLSHIT YOU’RE the party that is pro death penalty and a-ok with mass deaths and starvation of women and children in Gaza pal. Killing a puppy because you “hate” it and it is “less than useless” for hunting is pretty horrible though

LMAO the only liar here is you trying to gaslight us into believing your nonsense as if a dog is some sort rare exotic animal that we couldn’t possibly understand how to deal with. But then again you’ve proven yourself to have among the most malleable minds in this forum so you probably believe every word you say.

Baloney thats why she’s getting backlash across the political spectrum. And describing the exuberant puppy an untrainable vicious dog is dubious.

Tactical vehicle on the fast track by Chris Thatcher If you are among the handful of companies considering submitting a proposal for the Light Tactical Vehicle (LTV) project, know this: If you don’t have vehicles in your warehouse ready to be shipped in the next months, put the brakes on your submission. Product availability and ability to meet the Army’s delivery schedule are two of the critical criteria for a rapid procurement project that will acquire up to 108 off-road vehicles for the brigade in Latvia. Since 2017, the Army has been kicking the proverbial tires on a tactical vehicle for the light infantry battalions, as well as reconnaissance, intelligence, electronic warfare, and other light units — a rugged four-wheel platform capable of transporting dismounted troops and their gear closer to an objective. Through a “buy and try” in 2017 and 2018, various units have put 36 Polaris MRZR-D utility task vehicles through a variety of scenarios over varied terrain to better understand the Army’s longer-term requirements for what is known as the Light Forces Enhancement (LFE) project. Most recently, members of the 3rd Battalion, The Royal Canadian Regiment (3 RCR), conducted weapons tests, mounting a .50 calibre heavy machine gun, a 40 mm grenade launcher, and a BGM-71 TOW (Tube-launched, Optically-tracked, Wire-guided) heavy anti-tank missile on the platform. While LFE remains ongoing, the Army has determined it will need light tactical vehicles in Latvia for dismounted sub-units and platoons within the mechanized battalions that will make up a significant portion of the Canadian-led multinational brigade. And, it will need them delivered, with trained operators, for a NATO exercise in November. Consequently, LFE is now being conducted in two phases. Under the LTV project, the Army will acquire up to 108 vehicles in the coming months, for delivery in early August. The legacy LFE project will then acquire up to 222 more vehicles in the coming years, informed in part by feedback from the units employing the first batch in Latvia. Both projects are being treated independently and procured under separate budgets, one as part of Operation Uplift for Latvia, and the other through the Army’s normal capital procurement program. The combined value is over $100 million. “For LTV, we are removing all parts (from the Statement of Requirements) that are not necessary to buy a vehicle that is already in service with allies, NATO or Five Eyes,” said Major Samir Khelil, the project lead for the Directorate of Land Requirements. “We don’t want a prototype; we don’t want to test a vehicle and then need to do some upgrades. We want one in service and combat proven. If we decide we want some specific additional capabilities or requirements, those will be put into Phase 2 of LFE for the remaining 222 vehicles.” To have vehicles in Latvia ahead of the NATO exercise in November, the Army will need to take delivery of a significant portion of the 108 LTV fleet by late summer, to then complete final checks and conduct initial operator training — a critical step to understand the limits of the off-road ride — before the platforms are shipped to Europe, he said. “It will take a month to ship the vehicle overseas … so we’ll need them by the start of August. That is why availability is a top criteria.” A request for information (RFI) — the third since the LFE project launched — was issued last year with the primary intent of gathering market data on vehicle availability. If a company can meet the project specifications, but only after a modification that could take several months to complete, their vehicle will likely be ruled out because it will not be delivered on time, he added. Almost 10 companies responded, and one more has come forward with an offer since the RFI closed in December, so Khelil expects at least three or four strong contenders to respond to the request for proposals, released on April 19. The U.S. Army Infantry Squad Vehicle. Photo: GM Defense WEIGHT OF EXPECTATIONS The overall project might now be on two tracks, but the core requirements remain the same, said Khelil. The Army is ultimately seeking 330 vehicles in two variants, a personnel carrier with four to nine seats and a flatbed cargo platform with two to four seats. It will also acquire up to 33 tactical trailers. The platforms must be large enough to carry ammunition, fuel, water, food, and gear to sustain soldiers for at least 72 hours, but light enough to be transported and airdropped by a CH-147 Chinook helicopter. “The weight is a very important factor for us,” said Khelil. “We don’t want to rely on the trailers to mitigate the fact we carry a lot of weight,” he added, noting the difficulty of manoeuvring a vehicle towing a trailer on a dark and narrow track at 3:00 o’clock in the morning. Weight will be a determining factor as well in whether the project seeks a hardtop for the vehicle. It might provide protection, but it could also mean sacrificing personal gear. “We can have a protective cabin, but that comes with a price — weight,” he said. Trials in Petawawa over the past 18 months with the MRZR-D and various weapons have given the project team a good idea of platform requirements when firing from a stationary position and on the move. The weapon systems that will be incorporated onto the LTV tranche are still being determined. “Every weapon has its own challenges,” Khelil observed. “We are looking at different systems, from the C6 (general purpose machine gun) with a calibre of 7.62, to the .50 calibre, the anti-tank guided missile system, and the 40-millimetre grenade launcher.” The small MRZR has proven to be a “very good buy and try to inform the [LFE] project — we learned a lot of information from that platform,” he said. But it confirmed that the Army “requires something way more robust” for its light troops. To help determine exactly what the eventual LFE solution should include, the project team will be gathering feedback from units in Latvia on the performance of the LTV. “We’ll keep an eye on what is happening in theatre,” he said. “We have a liaison officer overseas, and we can [get] information in different ways. https://canadianarmytoday.com/tactical-vehicle-on-the-fast-track/

Initial construction to begin in June on new Canadian warships The work is proceeding even though the Canadian government has yet to sign the actual construction contract to start building the 15 warships. Get the latest from David Pugliese, Ottawa Citizen straight to your inbox Published Apr 30, 2024 • Last updated 5 hours ago • 3 minute read An artist rendering of the Canadian Surface Combatant. Photo by Lockheed Martin Canada /SUBMITTED Initial construction of the first of the new Canadian warships estimated to cost as much as $80 billion will begin in June even though an actual contract to build the vessels has yet to be signed. National Defence’s procurement chief Troy Crosby recently told parliamentarians that low-rate production activities on the Canadian Surface Combatant will begin sometime next month. That will include building a small section of the first structure on the vessel at Irving Shipbuilding on the east coast. That work is proceeding even though the Canadian government has yet to sign the actual construction contract to start building the 15 warships. National Defence spokesman Kened Sadiku explained the contract to build the first ships — known as the implementation contract — won’t be awarded until later this year or early 2025. But under the current existing deal, low-rate production activities on the ships are covered and building a small section allows for construction techniques to be further refined. “Full-rate production is expected to begin under an implementation contract in 2025,” Sadiku noted. The first completed CSC was originally to be delivered in the early 2020s. But in February 2021, National Defence admitted the delivery of the first vessel wouldn’t take place until 2030 or 2031. The project has already faced significant increases in cost from the original estimated price tag of $26 billion. Parliamentary Budget Officer Yves Giroux now estimates the cost of the ships to be around $84 billion. National Defence maintains the cost will be between $56 billion and $60 billion, and its officials have insisted that figure will not go up. Critics have labelled the CSC project, the largest single purchase in Canadian history, as a bottomless money pit with little accountability or oversight. Since the construction contract has yet to be signed, they have called for the project to be halted or at least reviewed. National Defence remains steadfast it will not alter course and that the project, which will acquire ships to replace the current Halifax-class frigates, is a success so far. Conservative MP Kelly McCauley said he and other MPs believed the construction of the CSC alone would eventually cost more than $100 billion. This newspaper reported Jan. 24 that National Defence has brought in a new and unprecedented shroud of secrecy around the CSC costs. After withholding documents for almost three years, the department released nearly 1,700 pages of records that were supposed to outline specific costs and work done so far on the CSC program. But all the details of what taxpayers have so far spent and what type of work has been done by Irving Shipbuilding for that money were censored from the records. In an April 8 appearance before the Senate defence committee, Crosby pointed to ongoing problems with the Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ships being built for the Royal Canadian Navy. He testified that National Defence’s handlings of those problems “gives me great confidence in our ability to take on the much more complex delivery of the Canadian Surface Combatant in the coming years.” As reported earlier by Postmedia, the CSC program was pitched as a relatively low-cost, off-the-shelf replacement for the Halifax class of warships with a high level of Canadian industrial content. But, over time, the navy has asked for changes that have frequently replaced Canadian-built content with U.S. technology, the net effect being the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars to Canadian industry and an increase in overall cost, the Postmedia report added. As costs increased, federal officials have also made it more difficult to get details on spending on the project. Federal officials have on two occasions tried to stymie attempts by the Parliamentary Budget Officer to obtain details and budget outlines of the CSC project, as well as those of other vessel construction programs under the government’s National Shipbuilding Strategy. Industry executives have previously pointed out that the secrecy is not based on security concerns, but on worries the news media and opposition MPs would be able to use the information to keep close tabs on the problem-plagued military procurement system. https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/initial-construction-to-begin-in-june-on-new-canadian-warships

How ridiculous. Dogs are not shot in the face due to being “untrainable”. They’re not even shot in the face for being aggressive. And were talking about a puppy here that still has plenty of options beside being shot in the face Sounds to le like it was just typical playful puppy behaviour not a viscous aggressive mature dog as you’d have us believe There is no municipal ordinance requiring owners to shoot their dog or even euthanize on their own. A viscous dog will be seized by authorities following an attack and the authorities will then determine if they need to euthanize the dog based on the circumstances and history. Don’t try to conflate that with Noem shooting the dog because it embarrassed her on a hunting trip and so she decided it was “less than useless” therefore “had to” be shot. Also notice that despite having a farm she shot the dog and goat at a gravel out (some else’s private property) in front of the people working there

It was a 14-month old puppy and the behaviour sounds like typical untrained puppy behaviour. If she wasn’t up for keeping the dog she could have given it away which is what most people do. I’ll say it a third time: Millions of people own or have grown up with dogs and know that a 14-month old puppy can be trained or simply given away. You can’t gaslight us into thinking shooting puppies is normal. And that’s why she’s getting backlash even from fellow conservatives.

Baloney there’s no liability. People give away dogs all the time, especially vicious ones. But what she describes sounds like simply typical puppy behaviour. As I said, Millions of people own or have grown up with dogs and know that a 14-month old puppy can be trained or simply given away. You can’t gaslight us into thinking shooting puppies is normal. That’s why she’s getting backlash even from fellow conservatives and has just tanked her VP hopes.

LMAO cats too,eh? it wouldn’t surprise me if Republicans and hateful folks like you also shoot your cats! Millions of people own or have grown up with dogs and know that a14-month old puppy can be trained or simply given away. You can’t gaslight us into thinking shooting puppies is normal.

It’s long been an expression and joke that Conservatives are so cruel and mean spirited they would shoot a puppy in the face. Recently South Dakota Governor and Trump VP pick hopeful Kriti Noem proved there’s an element of truth to the expression. In her new autobiography which she must have mistakenly thought would endear her to people as being tough and decisive, she recounted how she took her young, healthy, wire-haired pointer puppy Cricket to a gravel pit and shot her after she hadn’t done well in hunting training.and then misbehaved on a hunting trip “having the time of her life” instead of hunting. “I hated that dog” she wrote. “It had to he done”. Contrary to Noem’s expectations, public reaction has been overwhelmingly negative over the absurdity of “hating” and “having to” shoot a puppy because it’s exuberant and not a good hunter. Even Republicans are distancing themselves from her. The story goes on to describe how she then went back and shot a goat the same way Noem continues to spin out in damage control mode but she might have also just shot dead her career as well Trump VP contender Kristi Noem writes of killing dog – and goat – in new book ..,Noem decided to kill the unnamed goat the same way she had just killed Cricket the dog. But though she “dragged him to a gravel pit”, the goat jumped as she shot and therefore survived the wound. Noem says she went back to her truck, retrieved another shell, then “hurried back to the gravel pit and put him down”. At that point, Noem writes, she realised a construction crew had watched her kill both animals. The startled workers swiftly got back to work, she writes, only for a school bus to arrive and drop off Noem’s children. “Kennedy looked around confused,” Noem writes of her daughter, who asked: “Hey, where’s Cricket?” …. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2024/apr/26/trump-kristi-noem-shot-dog-and-goat-book

That is patently ridiculous. While i'm sure there is some weird fake scenario a person could concoct where somehow the value of a growing practice DECREASES over time, that's not a reasonable thing to say. Who says its a growing practice? How can a doctor know if his practice will grow if at all in the future? Some practices are capped in size due to the provincial billing model. The population is aging and elderly patients die. How can a doctor possibly know what he’s going to get for his practice decades in the future or what appetite other doctors will have to buy it? My argument is that doctors don’t know how much they’ll get for their practice decades in the future when they decide to sell. At most they’re guessing in a range with a high end and low end and they could be way off. And it’s questionable how much this tax change moves them out of that range. The first $125k of gains is still tax free (50% of $250k), the inclusion for the rest is 16% higher than the 1999 rate. So the total tax payable isn’t going up by 16%, the amount of taxable money in excess of $250k is going up the amount of money the dr is actually out is then a percentage of the added 16%, it may not be a materially different amount depending on whatever write offs and deductions he has. So assuming the doc doesn’t have any tax deductions right offs, loopholes etc (and they have many) if they sold their practice for a million dollar capital gain the extra tax payable under the new rules is about $75k. That sounds like a lot of money but out of a million dollar capital gains it’s less than 8% and probably well within the margin of error for someone planning to sell decades from now. And that’s on a million dollars. How many practices sell for a million dollars? Probably none. A quick look online shows the biggest ones selling at or below $600k some for as little as $200k range. Sigh…no. Are you for real? Let’s not pretend and not move on because you clearly don’t understand. First of all, all sellers will be in the same boat so decreasing net profit from sales puts upward pressure on prices get it? If docs aren’t getting the price they want they’ll begin holding out until they do that’s how markets work. For someone who constantly chirps about how the carbon tax on industry is eventually passed on to consumers through higher prices I’m surprised you can’t apply the same concept here. Secondly they might choose to invest more in their business now to increase its sale value later Who makes $40k or less? Most earners make more than that. Besides your example is apples to oranges. Every penny of wages they earn is counted towards their tax bracket including using up the basic exemption unlike Capital gains So if you have $40k of wages you have $40k of taxable income, some of which is taxed at 0% but if you have $40k of capital gains you have only $20k of taxable income some of which will also be taxed at 0% That’s why doctors make high salaries. Most people who have capital gains aren’t doctors and the capital gains tax break wasn’t invented in 1999 as a tuition rebate for doctors. Fair enough but the rest of us are building up investments in RRSPS etc and when we withdraw 100% of it is taxable. They get increases often. They also get to do “income sprinkling” to lower their taxable income and they get to make traditional stock and other investments through their businesses and extract the income at a lower rate. Not at all the same thing as a pension plan and it’s not being “cut in half” And doctors can participate in an actual pension plan if they want I don’t think that’s an accurate description at all. “They” didn’t tell doctors “they could rely on selling their business for their retirement” it’s just what some doctors decided to do amongst themselves. And not because they didn’t have any other options to save for retirement, they have more options than most of society. Doctors were selling their practices long before the 1999 tax break and will be doing so long after. The past 25 years it was a nice cushy little perk but they’re not going to retire in poverty.

There’s negative coverage of Trudeau just about every single day in just about every single MSM outlet including CBC. If Trudeau kicks a puppy in the face as a PR stunt its not “slanted coverage” to write an article criticizing that one specific thing and nobody else.

A columnist is still an opinion and it is certainly valid to discuss the new vulgarity in in modern politics and the Prime Minister to be stadium under “F Trudeau” flags given expletive-laden speeches. And make no mistake about it, PP didn’t accidentally let a F word slip out or accidentally stand under a F Trudeau flag, it was all a deliberate decision to present himself to the public this way. When Diagolon mused about raping PP’s wife, PP complained to police and publicly called them “odious losers”. Now he’s buddy buddy with them again? PP’s performance is new to Canadian politics and it is worthy of comment, period. I don’t know why you conservatives think the job of the media is only to flatter you and only mention the things you want to hear but you should get over it. Also lets get real you and the other conservatives don’t believe in reaching across the aisle. You believe the “left” should reach out to you bit you believe reaching out to the left is treason. In the US even moderate conservative are labeled left wing communists these days and from what I can see Canada isn’t too far behind. PP in particular has built a 20+ year career out being a snarky combative politician who adds insults and name calling into nearly everything he says. You think his majority government is going to “reach across the divide”? To whom? You think standing under F Trudeau flags and swearing about Trudeau is “reaching across the divide”? what a joke.

They don’t know how much they will sell it for in the future or if they will have any gain at all. Maybe they will factor the higher tax into their valuation and find a way to sell their practice at a higher price than they would have otherwise and so end up with the same net profit. They might even have a loss. Therefore the amount of future tax “loss” is hypothetical. That describes a huge section of society who don’t also get the privilege of having 50% of their income being exempt from taxes. Look once again I will remind you that the 50% CG inclusion you seem to cherish so much was only introduced in 1999 by a previous Liberal government and had been tinkered with up and down in decades prior. It is not some red line we’ve never crossed before. And yet we had doctors before 1999. didn’t we? Arguably the quality of healthcare was even better back then (it’s almost as if decades of slashing taxes and defunding programs makes them worse 💡) Doctors have many investment and tax strategies and business opportunities available to them and there is an entire cottage industry of consultants specializing in advising them. To the extent that these new rules even materially affect their plans, they are better positioned than most to adapt and they will change their strategies and expectations accordingly. The feared mass exodus to the US has been threatened many time over decades but never happened. Families are actually not as interalionally mobile as some suggest.

1) An opinion piece is not evidence of media bias 2) The same very same news outlets publish opinion pieces criticizing Trudeau pretty much every single day 3) Pierre Poillievre himself once complained about Diagolon after its leader suggested during a podcast that they should rape his wife. It’s fair to ask why PP decided to hook up with these folks in a diagolon -marked trailer and make deliberate a show of swearing and vulgarity. If he wants to hang out with vulgar extremists he deserves to be judged accordingly He’s trying to have it both ways.

I honestly don’t think anyone is going to pack up their family and relocate to foreign country because of a hypothetical additional tax they might incur decades in the future And unless they do so before June when the CG increases, they’re only to end up incurring the tax now instead of decades from now Besides doctors make a lot of money it’s not like selling their business is their only retirement option they have more opportunities to save and invest than the vast majority of society. They can invest in stocks and bonds and mutual funds like the rest of us plebes. Not to mention that in addition to their day job many also dabble in all these private healthcare rackets doing corporate and executive wellness programs and side-gig consulting for insurance companies etc. They’re not going to be retiring in poverty.