US Politics -- Where Candidates Fall like Leaves

[aceluby]

Because it's the future 40's cohort that has to pay for those extra benefit years for the now 40's cohort.

Thus, the cost is passed on to the future 40's cohort.

Which is, by definition, passing the buck to younger generations.

[TrackerNeil]

Let's all keep in mind that there is a very, very simple solution to the problem that looms twenty years off. We can just raise or eliminate the payroll cap. Done. So I can't get excited over a problem that is a generation away that we know now how to solve.

[TerraPrime]

Because it's the future 40's cohort that has to pay for those extra benefit years for the now 40's cohort.

Thus, the cost is passed on to the future 40's cohort.

So.... you're agreeing with me? Or is English just that fcking daft a language that you can say the same thing but mean the opposite? I'm so confused.

[aceluby]

Let's all keep in mind that there is a very, very simple solution to the problem that looms twenty years off. We can just raise or eliminate the payroll cap. Done. So I can't get excited over a problem that is a generation away that we know now how to solve.

A-fucking-men.  Just eliminate the damn thing.  Why should someone making $100k a year have to pay a higher percentage than someone making $1M a year?

[TrackerNeil]

A-fucking-men.  Just eliminate the damn thing.  Why should someone making $100k a year have to pay a higher percentage than someone making $1M a year?

I know, right? But then we have a major political party that is almost in lockstep on no-new-taxes-no-matter-what-even-if-the-world-is-collapsing, so I don't know. I think that, come 2036, it's entirely possible Congress will simply borrow to keep the program at 100%. Argh.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

I know, right? But then we have a major political party that is almost in lockstep on no-new-taxes-no-matter-what-even-if-the-world-is-collapsing, so I don't know. I think that, come 2036, it's entirely possible Congress will simply borrow to keep the program at 100%. Argh.

It really is quite fascinating in a horrid way that a political party could exist that unilaterally opposes raising taxes. There is nothing fiscally responsible about that approach.

[aceluby]

It really is quite fascinating in a horrid way that a political party could exist that unilaterally opposes raising taxes. There is nothing fiscally responsible about that approach.

It's fascinating, but not surprising.  It's just dogma.  No need for proof, just believe what we tell you is true and it is.  Lower taxes is better.  Lower spending is better.  Deficits are bad when we tell you and good when we tell you.  The economy is better when we run it.  Entitlements cause debt.

<waves hands>

Just 'believe'.

[DanteGabriel]

It really is quite fascinating in a horrid way that a political party could exist that unilaterally opposes raising taxes. There is nothing fiscally responsible about that approach.

Not that surprising, considering this country was founded by rich guys who thought they paid too much in taxes to their government.

[Fez]

A-fucking-men.  Just eliminate the damn thing.  Why should someone making $100k a year have to pay a higher percentage than someone making $1M a year?

I wouldn't support eliminating the tax cap on earnings unless you also eliminate the cap on benefits (at the very least the hard cap, but you should probably also weaken the soft cap below it). Otherwise, like the issue with means testing social security, you've now turned a retirement program into a welfare program. And there's nothing that causes a government program to lose more public support than for it to be perceived as welfare.

I also think only eliminating the earnings cap and not the benefits cap is the rare example of an unfair tax on the wealthy. Its why under current law, the benefit cap is pegged to the earnings cap (which does go up by a few thousand dollars each year); to avoid that very issue.

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

 

You and your hand waving.

And part of the problem for Democrats/Liberals is that the positions Republican politicians take sound better on a gut level if you don't bother to think things out.

[TrackerNeil]

You and your hand waving.

And part of the problem for Democrats/Liberals is that the positions Republican politicians take sound better on a gut level if you don't bother to think things out.

The problem of course being that Republicans can never cut the spending they'd need to cut to actually balance the budget--that being Social Security and Medicare--because Americans won't stand for it. So when they are in power, Republicans slash everything they can get away with, cut taxes, then use deficit spending to fund everything else. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

The problem of course being that Republicans can never cut the spending they'd need to cut to actually balance the budget--that being Social Security and Medicare--because Americans won't stand for it. So when they are in power, Republicans slash everything they can get away with, cut taxes, then use deficit spending to fund everything else. 

I don't disagree with anything you said, but you're going deeper into the weeds than my comment was intending. I was just getting at the point that Republicans say something as if it is fact while Democrats try to explain why something is fact. And in an era reduced to 140 chacater tweets and 6 second vine videos explaining makes you fall behind.

[aceluby]

I don't disagree with anything you said, but you're going deeper into the weeds than my comment was intending. I was just getting at the point that Republicans say something as if it is fact while Democrats try to explain why something is fact. And in an era reduced to 140 chacater tweets and 6 second vine videos explaining makes you fall behind.

Yep, when you can spout bumper sticker slogans all day (which is what Republicans have been REALLY good at for 40 years), and it takes 10 min or longer to explain why it's ridiculous; it doesn't matter what you say because the bumper sticker slogan has already stuck and was lost 30 seconds into the explanation.

Welfare causes deficits.

Illegals steal your jobs.

The rich create jobs.

Refugees are terrorists.

Obama is a failure.

And on... and on... and on....

[Commodore]

looking forward to this, Dems have nothing comparable

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/candidates/2015/11/19/6-things-to-watch-for-at-the-gops-thanksgiving-event/76049258/

The last time GOP presidential hopefuls were gathered around a "Thanksgiving table" facing an Iowa audience of religious conservatives, Michele Bachmann noticed everyone had drinking glasses, but no one had water.

The Minnesota congresswoman, who described herself as a sinner in need of a savior, grabbed the water pitcher and did the pouring for her five rivals in November 2011.

"We did it on purpose," Bob Vander Plaats, president of the Family Leader Christian advocacy group said this week, "to see who would serve."

Four years later, faith and service will again be central themes of the Family Leader's "Presidential Family Forum," set for Friday night in Des Moines.

Seven 2016 candidates will gather in an arrangement reminiscent of Leonardo da Vinci's painting of "The Last Supper," behind a table specially made by West End Architectural Salvage in Des Moines. They'll answer questions meant to encourage them to bare their souls and reveal their true character.

The event will be an opportunity for the 2016 field to inspire and alter the opinions of the base of the Republican party in Iowa, Vander Plaats said. An October Iowa Poll by the Register and Bloomberg Politics showed that 42 percent of likely GOP caucusgoers consider themselves to be evangelical Christians. More than 1,600 people are expected to attend.

[Chris G]

looking forward to this, Dems have nothing comparable

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/candidates/2015/11/19/6-things-to-watch-for-at-the-gops-thanksgiving-event/76049258/

Because it is dumb as hell. Who cares who pours water for someone?  Obviously this group thinks it is some kind of test, but it's a dumb test.

[TerraPrime]

looking forward to this, Dems have nothing comparable

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/candidates/2015/11/19/6-things-to-watch-for-at-the-gops-thanksgiving-event/76049258/

That is a criterion of selecting candidate that I can not related to. It seems as arbitrary and superficial as criticizing candidates who don't wear American flag lapel pins.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

 

That is a criterion of selecting candidate that I can not related to. It seems as arbitrary and superficial as criticizing candidates who don't wear American flag lapel pins.

It may also be quasi illegal, being a religious litmus test of sorts.

Or as Chris said: Dumb!

[TerraPrime]

It may also be quasi illegal, being a religious litmus test of sorts.

Or as Chris said: Dumb!

Whut?

Far as I know, there are no laws on how any voter may evaluate candidates. So, I have no earthly idea where "illegal", quasi or otherwise, comes in. Care to enlighten me?

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

It may also be quasi illegal, being a religious litmus test of sorts.

Or as Chris said: Dumb!

I don't think you know what the "No Religious Test" Clause of the Constitution actually means. 

[All-for-Joffrey]

looking forward to this, Dems have nothing comparable

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/candidates/2015/11/19/6-things-to-watch-for-at-the-gops-thanksgiving-event/76049258/

I'm really ok with this. Considering the fact that we have something called the 1st amendment that should prevent a president from infusing their religious beliefs in government, a candidate's religion or lack thereof should be completely irrelevant.