Politics

[Irish Houstonian]

This is what Paul Ryan's budget plan intended to do. The benefit pay-out was not going to change for anyone 50 and older. The changes would affect taxpayers younger than 50. But then all the special interest groups started with all the "Ryan is going to screw old people and push them off a cliff." The AARP was running these misleading scare ads with a bunch of indigent retirees telling the camera "hands off my Social Security." But no one was planning to touch their beloved Social Security, the changes would come down the road. But Heaven forbid facts get in the way of politically charged rhetoric.

But he actually pushed an old lady off a cliff. I saw it on TV with my own eyes.

 

[chicago51]

This is what Paul Ryan's budget plan intended to do. The benefit pay-out was not going to change for anyone 50 and older. The changes would affect taxpayers younger than 50. But then all the special interest groups started with all the "Ryan is going to screw old people and push them off a cliff." The AARP was running these misleading scare ads with a bunch of indigent retirees telling the camera "hands off my Social Security." But no one was planning to touch their beloved Social Security, the changes would come down the road. But Heaven forbid facts get in the way of politically charged rhetoric.

Ryan's plan actually doesn't touch Social Security. Republicans wouldn't dare **** off current Seniors as they are a huge segment of their base.

It is only Medicare where the 55 and under plan applies. Ryan's whole Medicare voucher plan actually might actually work okay if it was tide to the cost of health care or if health care cost rose at the same rate as inflation; which is not the case in the US. Basically the younger you are and the longer you live the more you get hammered under Ryan's plan. Basically the vouchers go up by a set rate so over time the voucher is going to cover a smaller and smaller portion of one's health insurance premium as time goes on.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Ore. Senate approves Democrats' pension cuts

This will not be the last state to try this. What is surprising is that they are reducing benefits for those already in retirement. I personally don't like that.

I also love the gem that the state wants to reduce contributions to the pension to fund other measures, but doesn't want to further cut pension promises. No flaw in that logic......we promise to pay, but please let us take the money that we should set aside to pay you in the future to help with other measures. We promise the money will be there for you when you retire.

 

[irishff1014]

Ore. Senate approves Democrats' pension cuts

This will not be the last state to try this. What is surprising is that they are reducing benefits for those already in retirement. I personally don't like that.

I also love the gem that the state wants to reduce contributions to the pension to fund other measures, but doesn't want to further cut pension promises. No flaw in that logic......we promise to pay, but please let us take the money that we should set aside to pay you in the future to help with other measures. We promise the money will be there for you when you retire.

That is Bull sh!t there.

 

[phgreek]

But he actually pushed an old lady off a cliff. I saw it on TV with my own eyes.

me too...100,000X

 

[Black Irish]

Ryan's plan actually doesn't touch Social Security. Republicans wouldn't dare **** off current Seniors as they are a huge segment of their base.

It is only Medicare where the 55 and under plan applies. Ryan's whole Medicare voucher plan actually might actually work okay if it was tide to the cost of health care or if health care cost rose at the same rate as inflation; which is not the case in the US. Basically the younger you are and the longer you live the more you get hammered under Ryan's plan. Basically the vouchers go up by a set rate so over time the voucher is going to cover a smaller and smaller portion of one's health insurance premium as time goes on.

At least people would know what's coming and plan for the future. Of course, too many people in this country are not very good at that. Buy smart phones and SUVs now and start saving for retirement... uh, later or something?

 

[phgreek]

At least people would know what's coming and plan for the future. Of course, too many people in this country are not very good at that. Buy smart phones and SUVs now and start saving for retirement... uh, later or something?

Yea I'm not sure what happened to understanding of debt, and its consequences down stream (at the individual level, because of course, it has been proven in this thread that national debt won't have any consequences...so do as Uncle Sugar says not as he does)

Cars ... Biggest pissing away of personal wealth opportunity ever known.

 

[Cackalacky]

President Obama got elected with promises that he would not be cutting Social Security or Medicare. He ought to keep those promises. As a taxpayer, who has been paying into Social Security for over 40 years, I find it troubling that as I approach retirement the benefits I paid for could be reduced or (if Paul Ryan has his way) eliminated. **** right I will be mad if that happens.

Regarding MHP, she says what needs to be said. We are all responsible for the children growing up in our neighborhoods. If we don't help to educate them, we will pay the price when they are jobless and over-crowding our prisons. Don't cut funding for education on an annual basis and then complain that the youth of today are out of control.

The main problem in this country is wealth-disparity. The middle class used to be able to dream of joining the upper-class some day or at least maintaining a minimum standard of living that allowed them to own a home and support a family. That dream is fading fast as poverty-stricken numbers rise and off-shore bank accounts swell.

There are plenty of areas that can be cut in the federal budget without cutting programs that help the poor and the sick.

I recently read an article by a Republican strategist that postulates Obama's current tact of the chained CPI is a win/win/win scenario for the Dems. The person provided the following scenarios that are most likely to happen:

1. Republicans have to choose the CPI instead of raising taxes. Current over 55 peoples revolt and Dems win in long term down the road. Republicans lose yet another demographic as they voted for cutting SS.
2. Republicans do not vote for Chained CPI and vote for choosing higher taxes for revenue. Republican base revolts.
3. Party splits on the vote, and Chained CPI never becomes law anyway. Obama comes out looking like a bipartisan, Republicans have egg on their face.

If republicans choose chained CPI over raising taxes, which was their original proposal back in 2012..., kiss the next election goodbye. The Democrats will cream them for it. There is a very large political danger in messing with SS.

Anyway, I thought this was an interesting take.


And meanwhile "The Nation" is saying the exact opposite. That it is good politics for the GOP ....LOL.....

 

[chicago51]

I recently read an article by a Republican strategist that postulates Obama's current tact of the chained CPI is a win/win/win scenario for the Dems. The person provided the following scenarios that are most likely to happen:

1. Republicans have to choose the CPI instead of raising taxes. Current over 55 peoples revolt and Dems win in long term down the road. Republicans lose yet another demographic as they voted for cutting SS.
2. Republicans do not vote for Chained CPI and vote for choosing higher taxes for revenue. Republican base revolts.
3. Party splits on the vote, and Chained CPI never becomes law anyway. Obama comes out looking like a bipartisan, Republicans have egg on their face.

If republicans choose chained CPI over raising taxes, which was their original proposal back in 2012..., kiss the next election goodbye. The Democrats will cream them for it. There is a very large political danger in messing with SS.

Anyway, I thought this was an interesting take.


And meanwhile "The Nation" is saying the exact opposite. That it is good politics for the GOP ....LOL.....

Or it could be because Obama is ahead of the curb in terms of the Democratic Party is concerned. Obama essentially very moderately from entitlements and puts that money into investments. Why? Because the coalition that got Obama elected consisted mainly of minorities, the millenial generation, and college educated whites (especially woman). Not surprisingly the things Obama has pushed gun control, same sex marriage, immigration, and now the budget favor the priorities of this coalition.

The fact is despite Democrats being valient defenders of entitlements 3 of 5 Seniors voted for Romney in 2012. Seniors are a big part of the GOP base which is why Ryan's plan for Medicare goes into effect 10 years down the line, why Romney ran to Obama's left attacking him for the $760 billion in Medicare savings/cuts/whatever you want to call it from Obamacare saying he would put in back into Medicare. Why? Because it would gain the approval of current Senoirs.

The fact is investmenting in infrastructure, and smart education/career training investments do a heck of a lot more in promoting upward mobility and improving the economy than retirement programs do. Look I am a supporter of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid but I won't freak out like some my liberal friends regarding a small adjustment in the caculation of SS if it means we get the investments we need. Especially since Obama's wants protections for the very vulnerable in his Chained CPI proposal. SS is supposed to be an anti poverty program and it has worked great at that, but it is not necessarily supposed provide a comfortable living.

Putting on my polictical strategist hat here: If I am the GOP I would make an offer to Obama. Give Obama the infrastructure and education investments he wants in enchage for entitlement reform. The kicker is no tax increases only deficit neutral tax reform. If Obama wants improve the economy he may just agree that. Again as liberal I would be supportive of moderate entitlement reform only if it came with taxes and investment. Obama though wants to look good his second term and may just take a deal without taxes to make himself look good. Not saying I agree but that is what I would do from a GOP strategist stand point.

Some articles that go more in depth on this:
A New Budget for a New Party - NationalJournal.com

Obama’s budget and the ‘coalition of the ascendant’

 

[Irish Houstonian]

Yea I'm not sure what happened to understanding of debt, and its consequences down stream ....

Agreed. 6% of every tax dollar goes just to debt service.

 

[Black Irish]

Agreed. 6% of every tax dollar goes just to debt service.

People who say that Social Security doesn't contribute to the deficit need to look at that chart. It's almost a quarter of our national spending.

 

[Black Irish]

Or it could be because Obama is ahead of the curb in terms of the Democratic Party is concerned. Obama essentially very moderately from entitlements and puts that money into investments. Why? Because the coalition that got Obama elected consisted mainly of minorities, the millenial generation, and college educated whites (especially woman). Not surprisingly the things Obama has pushed gun control, same sex marriage, immigration, and now the budget favor the priorities of this coalition.

The fact is despite Democrats being valient defenders of entitlements 3 of 5 Seniors voted for Romney in 2012. Seniors are a big part of the GOP base which is why Ryan's plan for Medicare goes into effect 10 years down the line, why Romney ran to Obama's left attacking him for the $760 billion in Medicare savings/cuts/whatever you want to call it from Obamacare saying he would put in back into Medicare. Why? Because it would gain the approval of current Senoirs.

The fact is investmenting in infrastructure, and smart education/career training investments do a heck of a lot more in promoting upward mobility and improving the economy than retirement programs do. Look I am a supporter of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid but I won't freak out like some my liberal friends regarding a small adjustment in the caculation of SS if it means we get the investments we need. Especially since Obama's wants protections for the very vulnerable in his Chained CPI proposal. SS is supposed to be an anti poverty program and it has worked great at that, but it is not necessarily supposed provide a comfortable living.

Putting on my polictical strategist hat here: If I am the GOP I would make an offer to Obama. Give Obama the infrastructure and education investments he wants in enchage for entitlement reform. The kicker is no tax increases only deficit neutral tax reform. If Obama wants improve the economy he may just agree that. Again as liberal I would be supportive of moderate entitlement reform only if it came with taxes and investment. Obama though wants to look good his second term and may just take a deal without taxes to make himself look good. Not saying I agree but that is what I would do from a GOP strategist stand point.

Some articles that go more in depth on this:
A New Budget for a New Party - NationalJournal.com

Obama’s budget and the ‘coalition of the ascendant’

I'll go one better. I think the GOP should make a gamble with regard to what I bolded. Give Obama & company their "millionaires and billionaires" tax hike in exchange for infrastructure investment. But, the federal government has to revisit their "prevailing wage" pay structure that is a perpetual gift to construction unions. The GOP has to push the fact that infrastructure work has to be priced competitively, and not loaded with a bunch of union-friendly provisions. They should really go on the offensive about how unions foster an environment of non-competition and cost inflation. The GOP can then play towards independent blue collar workers who aren't on board with union monopolies. It will be harder to call Republicans the party of the rich if they do that and agree to a tax hike on the rich. Will the GOP alienate union workers with that strategy? Sure, but the unions aren't supporting them anyway. The GOP needs to take better risks if they want to move back into dominance.

 

[chicago51]

I'll go one better. I think the GOP should make a gamble with regard to what I bolded. Give Obama & company their "millionaires and billionaires" tax hike in exchange for infrastructure investment. But, the federal government has to revisit their "prevailing wage" pay structure that is a perpetual gift to construction unions. The GOP has to push the fact that infrastructure work has to be priced competitively, and not loaded with a bunch of union-friendly provisions. They should really go on the offensive about how unions foster an environment of non-competition and cost inflation. The GOP can then play towards independent blue collar workers who aren't on board with union monopolies. It will be harder to call Republicans the party of the rich if they do that and agree to a tax hike on the rich. Will the GOP alienate union workers with that strategy? Sure, but the unions aren't supporting them anyway. The GOP needs to take better risks if they want to move back into dominance.

I agree with this. If non union employees can get more bang for our tax payer buck we should do it. I am for opening up publicly funded work projects to competition both private and public and let the free market decide. If a private company gives a better price and quality we should use them.

 

[chicago51]

Breakdown of the bipartisan "gang of eight" immigration bill.

Washington Post

 

[Downinthebend]

Eh, it still ought to be more open than that. In my mind, anyone that wants to be a part of this country ought to be able to, and after some period (5 years?) of "good" standing they should be given citizenship.

Border control wouldn't be too much of an issue under this, so two birds one stone.

 

[chicago51]

Eh, it still ought to be more open than that. In my mind, anyone that wants to be a part of this country ought to be able to, and after some period (5 years?) of "good" standing they should be given citizenship.

Border control wouldn't be too much of an issue under this, so two birds one stone.

I would suggest that if we want to stop illegal immigration all we got to do is make an example out of company's hiring illegal. If we throw a couple of CEOs in jail even it is for just a short time it put a stop to illegal hiring. Without employment it takes away the incentive to come here illegally.

Then it is just a matter of dealing with illegal immigrant that are here. I agree 5 years is fine with me, 13 seems a bit steep. If Obama had his way it would be about 7 years for citizenship. Obama knows any plan he proposes is dead on arrival for a number of reason so he is wise to take a back seat on this in my opinion. The Gang of 8's plan is an improvement to our immigration system even if its not perfect to some.

 

[Downinthebend]

I would suggest that if we want to stop illegal immigration all we got to do is make an example out of company's hiring illegal. If we throw a couple of CEOs in jail even it is for just a short time it put a stop to illegal hiring. Without employment it takes away the incentive to come here illegally.

Then it is just a matter of dealing with illegal immigrant that are here. I agree 5 years is fine with me, 13 seems a bit steep. If Obama had his way it would be about 7 years for citizenship. Obama knows any plan he proposes is dead on arrival for a number of reason so he is wise to take a back seat on this in my opinion. The Gang of 8's plan is an improvement to our immigration system even if its not perfect to some.

I mean, I certainly think its a step ... closer. Hard to not get closer from our previous situation. But I don't really have a problem with companies hiring "illegal" immigrants, as I would want all of them to be allowed to be legal "residents" if they choose. Then after 5 years if they want to become citizens, have at it.

 

[RDU Irish]

Agreed. 6% of every tax dollar goes just to debt service.

If/When interest rates go up that percentage will explode. Further reason to believe the government will do everything it can to keep interest rates low for the forseeable future.

 

[Black Irish]

I think the first step should be to make temporary work visas easier to get. I'm not an expert, but from what I've read it is not a seamless process (big shock). To give someone a work visa they should: 1.) Have a clear criminal record from their home country 2.) Have a job lined up 3.) Have a verifiable place to stay 4.) Check in with the local ICE office once a month to verify that they are still working and have a fixed address. After 5-7 years of that, if they want to become citizens, they can start the process.

 

[Black Irish]

If/When interest rates go up that percentage will explode. Further reason to believe the government will do everything it can to keep interest rates low for the forseeable future.

The fed can just refinance into a variable rate 2/28 mortgage. Nothing bad ever came out of that. Oh wait...

 

[chicago51]

I think the liberals and liberatarians can get united on this one. I hope the CISPA cybersecurity bill dies in the Senate, after passing the House.

CISPA critics bolstered by Obama veto threat - Washington Post

This needs to die in the Senate, Obama is not a heavy veto President. He has signed things despite his veto threats in the past.

A bit on CISPA:
What is CISPA, and what does it mean for you? FAQ | ZDNet

I personally think it would be a government overreach if CISPA became law.

 

[BobD]

The President was pretty dang funny at the White House Correspondent Dinner.

One of his comments went something like this: The Republicans have said they need to do a better job at reaching out to minorities. I have a suggestion on where they could start.

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

The President was pretty dang funny at the White House Correspondent Dinner.

One of his comments went something like this: The Republicans have said they need to do a better job at reaching out to minorities. I have a suggestion on where they could start.

He had me laughing my butt off.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Just so we're clear, you guys know they bring on people to write that right? I thought I read that Jon Stewart's staff did this year's speech.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Just so we're clear, you guys know they bring on people to write that right? I thought I read that Jon Stewart's staff did this year's speech.

Sure. But it was way funnier than when Bush joked about searching for weapons of mass destruction in the White House.

 

[phgreek]

The President was pretty dang funny at the White House Correspondent Dinner.

One of his comments went something like this: The Republicans have said they need to do a better job at reaching out to minorities. I have a suggestion on where they could start.

I reach out to him every day...as do most conservatives. Just like a liberal to want more than the one finger. Ya know though...in preparation for more productive outreach, maybe he should starch his suits more so there'd be something to grab when they in fact reached out...

I think he is becoming less a rookie...and I actually understand his stance on Syria...was kinda ok with Libya...

truth be told...If we were going to get into Syria...that needed to happen a year ago. Now, who the hell knows who you are helping, arming, lifting into power...screw that. Rather see us help refugees, and let Syria implode. No one likes chemical weapons, and we sure as hell don't like to see them deployed...but its not like we can fire a rocket into a building and vaporize them...if we happen to get 90% efficiency, and there is collateral damage involving chem...we're screwed. I think all you can hope for is we get intel as to locations and keep track of that ****...and capture it when we can.

 

[chicago51]

I hate White House correspondant dinner's regardless of who is President.

All it is a bunch well connected and priviledge inviduals having dinner with other well connect and priviledge individuals.

As for Syria, I hope we don't get into another war. If anything I hope we just shoot some cruise missiles in the areas that we suspect chemical weapons are being used.

I do think Obama in a way is becoming less of a rookie. These dinners he is having with Senators trying to work on a budget deal that is better than what we currently have I think is a step in the right direction. Everyone knows what my views are but if I had an issue with Obama it was experience. That is why I voted for Hillary back in 2008 even Obama is a bit further left than her. I think it is fair criticism that Obama didn't really know how to work the system to get votes. Not saying that working the system is going to get you everything you want, after all they couldn't a watered down background check bill through the Senate. I do think that Obama's approach this 2nd term as been better (looks like we may improve the immigration system), although it is pretty easy to improve when you don't have Rahm Emmanuel as your top advisor anymore.

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

Just so we're clear, you guys know they bring on people to write that right? I thought I read that Jon Stewart's staff did this year's speech.

Everybody knows that they have comedy writers write the material.

 

[chicago51]

Don't know if people have seen.

So the austerity study from Harvard that many conservative economist and Republican politicians including Paul Ryan have cited to make there had an error. Turns out the study's result are wrong and when calculated correctly show a different result.

Reinhart-Rogoff Study on Debt Faces a Challenge on Accuracy - NYTimes.com

Speeking of comedy ... Stephen Colbert's take on wrong austerity study:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/GgMV4KV6Qw0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[phgreek]

Don't know if people have seen.

So the austerity study from Harvard that many conservative economist and Republican politicians including Paul Ryan have cited to make there had an error. Turns out the study's result are wrong and when calculated correctly show a different result.



Reinhart-Rogoff Study on Debt Faces a Challenge on Accuracy - NYTimes.com

Speeking of comedy ... Stephen Colbert's take on wrong austerity study:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/GgMV4KV6Qw0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Colbert is funny...shame there are really people who watch that and ascribe wisdom there.

The article you attached acknowledges a math error...but seems to shrug and say nothing changed because multiple alternative studies came to the same conclusion...even if this study's underlying math was wrong...so while certainly embarrassing to some Ivy leaguers, its conclusions were ...well ....right, correct, consistent.

A 90% debt load ...mmmhmm...no problem...

so the entire discussion is more or less academia "proving" an elephant COULD hang from its tail, over a cliff, from a dandelion...won't see any of those squirrely little pricks standing under the elephant when they try that sh!t out now will ya?

Edit: The real point is time...for how long isn't it?