U.S. Politics, 6

[Paladin of Ice]

Something has to give. In its current state, social security is not sustainable in the long term. Bush tried to solve it by investing it and praying the market would continue to grow. For people who like black humor, it would have been funny if he succeeded, but since he did not do anything, we're still stuck with the same problem. I don't think anyone knows how to solve it.

(emphasis mine)

Bullshit. How to "save" Social Security:

1) Eliminate the cap on SS taxes. Currently the amount of income that can be taxed to contribute to SS is capped at $106,000, iirc. So someone who makes 106,000 and someone else who makes 106,000,000 pay the exact same amount into SS.

2) Up SS age to at least 70. When SS first came out the age requirement was 65 and the average life expectancy was 63. It was set up to take care of people living longer than average, not everyone. Its role has since expanded, which I think is a good thing, but it can't be treated the same way. Either the way it accumulates revenue has to be changed and expanded to deal with this, or when benefits kick in has to be adjusted. Thems your choices, pick your poison.

3) Make it a federal crime and automatic loss of your position in Congress if you suggest using SS money for anything else. For decades politicians have been raiding SS money and giving back only IOUs. Make that impossible and the program will never lack for money again, and we'll possibly get rid of a couple of assholes in Congress.

Problem solved.

[Fez]

Regarding the bolded part:

Nope. Plenty of people would like to see the "full retirement age" gradually rise to 70, but the way the law is at present, no one's full retirement age is higher than 67:

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/retire2/agereduction.htm

Ah yes, you're right. That was the chart I was thinking of, just thought it went up higher. My apologies.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

<thread drift>

As far as the avatar from FLoW is concerned, I'd just like to say that not everyone's taste runs the same way. We're all butt-fuck ugly in somebody's eyes. Each and every one of us. It'd do us a world of good to be less sneering of someone who fails to meet the beauty standard du-jour. We would find it incredibly rude if someone were to make comments about the looks of a woman in this way, and it's no less rude to do so about the looks of a man, especially since unlike movie stars or pop singers, this person is not plying his trade for livelihood based on his looks.

Finally, for what it's worth, I'd much rather have "The Animal" in bed with me, than Orlando Bloom or Justin Beiber or "Edward". By a long, country-fucking mile.

</thread drift>

Far be it for me to let a mere icon stir up so much revulsion and controversy. I hope my new one will help bring us all together in a more harmonious spirit of brotherhood and love. :grouphug:

[Trebla]

Far be it for me to let a mere icon stir up so much revulsion and controversy. I hope my new one will help bring us all together in a more harmonious spirit of brotherhood and love. :grouphug:

Now if you can get your new icon to have your old one's green tongue you would by my God! :D

[Trebla]

*double post*

[IheartTesla]

I was just perusing some of the recent polls, which place Republicans way ahead of the Democrats on a generic ballot (7 pts I think), which doesnt speak well about the chances of the latter in November. Although the public still considers the Republicans more responsible for the current state of the economy, they think both parties will be equally good (or bad) at handling it.

Independents are trending Republican with a 20 pt lead. Doesnt look good at all.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I was just perusing some of the recent polls, which place Republicans way ahead of the Democrats on a generic ballot (7 pts I think), which doesnt speak well about the chances of the latter in November. Although the public still considers the Republicans more responsible for the current state of the economy, they think both parties will be equally good (or bad) at handling it.

Independents are trending Republican with a 20 pt lead. Doesnt look good at all.

It does to me. :P

If it's any consolation, I've read a fair number of analyses claiming that a GOP win in November makes Obama's reelection more likely.

[IheartTesla]

I have a vague hope that the Republicans will be more 'constructive' when they have some say in government (say they take back the House, dont know about the Senate) than right now.

Although I dont see how a Republican win in November will make things easier for Obama. There will be even less legislation passed than till now, and I dont see the economy improving as a result. The voters wont be nuanced in their interpretation of who is responsible for the sluggish response.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I have a vague hope that the Republicans will be more 'constructive' when they have some say in government (say they take back the House, dont know about the Senate) than right now.

There is a genuine difference in opinion as to what should be done about the economy, and the two parties are pointed in exactly the opposite direction on that. There are those who say we need more stimulus, and those who say we need more austerity. It was interesting over the weekend that Obama was campaigning based on the "GOP is the party of NO we can't" theme, and the GOP basically responded by agreeing, and saying that they were saying "no" to more out of control Democratic spending. So to Republicans, being "constructive" means to stop spending money.

Although I dont see how a Republican win in November will make things easier for Obama. There will be even less legislation passed than till now, and I dont see the economy improving as a result. The voters wont be nuanced in their interpretation of who is responsible for the sluggish response.

Well, I think there are three things that go into thought that a GOP victory in November will help Obama in 2012.

First, to the extent there are people who are not happy with either party, including those who prefer divided government, those folks may be more reluctant to vote for a GOP Presidential candidate if Congress is controlled by the GOP. They might like a GOP Congress as a "check" on the President, but they may not like it otherwise. Second, there is the whole diffusion of responsibility aspect. If there is a GOP Congress, the GOP will bear at least some more responsibility for economic conditions in 2012 than if it is absolute Democratic control until then. And finally, there's the "Bill Clinton" theory that Republicans will moderate the President somewhat, and actually work with him to pass things that make both parties more popular. I rather doubt that in this case, though.

[TerraPrime]

There is a genuine difference in opinion as to what should be done about the economy, and the two parties are pointed in exactly the opposite direction on that. There are those who say we need more stimulus, and those who say we need more austerity. It was interesting over the weekend that Obama was campaigning based on the "GOP is the party of NO we can't" theme, and the GOP basically responded by agreeing, and saying that they were saying "no" to more out of control Democratic spending. So to Republicans, being "constructive" means to stop spending money.

Of course there are genuine differences in opinion on how to fix the economy. The frustrating part of it is that the voters, or most of them, seem to want immediate results. Obama was elected in Nov of 2008 and took office in 2009. It's been less than 2 years. The economy does not turn around that fast, regardless of which approach you take. Especially when the problems that created the economic town-turn took a decade of deregulation to develop. I just wish the voting public would have some patience and some foresight, and not get fidgety like a kid in a car ride. Yes honey, we're not there yet, but we literally just pulled out of the driveway and we still have 100 miles to go.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Of course there are genuine differences in opinion on how to fix the economy. The frustrating part of it is that the voters, or most of them, seem to want immediate results. Obama was elected in Nov of 2008 and took office in 2009. It's been less than 2 years. The economy does not turn around that fast, regardless of which approach you take. Especially when the problems that created the economic town-turn took a decade of deregulation to develop. I just wish the voting public would have some patience and some foresight, and not get fidgety like a kid in a car ride. Yes honey, we're not there yet, but we literally just pulled out of the driveway and we still have 100 miles to go.

The problem is that is pretty inconsistent with the rationale offered for things like the stimulus (I'm leaving the financial bailout out of this). Either the government can/does play a big role, in which case something like the stimulus might work, or it doesn't, in which case it's really just throwing money away in terms of a recovery. And now the President is talking about a new homeowner program, and new business credits, and some new kind of bank/lending institution....does this stuff work, or not?

And isn't he at least partly responsible for creating the expectation that things will turn around? I mean, it was his Administration that labelled this the "recovery summer". I think that disconnect between all this additional spending, justified by promises of a recovery, combined with the lack of a recovery, is what is really freaking people out. They see exploding deficits, but no stimulative effect/boost to the economy that might justify them. That, combined with the state of the economy itself, is sort of a political double-whammy.

[Swordfish]

Of course there are genuine differences in opinion on how to fix the economy. The frustrating part of it is that the voters, or most of them, seem to want immediate results. Obama was elected in Nov of 2008 and took office in 2009. It's been less than 2 years. The economy does not turn around that fast, regardless of which approach you take. Especially when the problems that created the economic town-turn took a decade of deregulation to develop. I just wish the voting public would have some patience and some foresight, and not get fidgety like a kid in a car ride. Yes honey, we're not there yet, but we literally just pulled out of the driveway and we still have 100 miles to go.

There's a pretty big assumption in here though that they are doing the correct things to 'fix' it.

Isn't it possible that people don't think say, more stimulus for example, will help things in the short term OR the long term, and will in actuality make things WORSE in the long term?

[Shryke]

Independents are trending Republican with a 20 pt lead. Doesnt look good at all.

This isn't a new phenomenon though, and isn't what you might think. Ever since the GOP's image has tanked around the end of GWB's reign, GOP voters have been re-identifying as "Independents" and pulling the Independents sharply to the right.

[Shryke]

There's a pretty big assumption in here though that they are doing the correct things to 'fix' it.

Isn't it possible that people don't think say, more stimulus for example, will help things in the short term OR the long term, and will in actuality make things WORSE in the long term?

It's the standard response from the largest school of economic thought.

And the stimulus hasn't "done nothing" as it's stopped major job hemorrhaging all over the place (especially in State and Local governments, who employ ALOT of people). It just it only slowed the economic dive down but didn't get it going the other way.

[Shryke]

There's a lot of people arguing that this strategy was the worst thing you could possibly do, and which was done because of the politics of stimulus.

By spending a shitload of money but not actually jumpstarting the economy, you've just made a huge down payment that does not increase tax revenue enough to cover said shitload of money.

I'm not sure I 100% buy that argument, but that's what it is.

But if you lay those people off, your tax base gets poorer, your revenue goes down, your costs go up again as you have to pay support for all those people and your economy takes a big hit as suddenly people are spending less.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Having just returned from a visit with my racist republican father I can share new fascinating facts with you.

-Arizona's immigration laws aren't unconstitutional because "Folks want them".

-Gays aren't actually real people. Also they want to steal your jobs (to clarify, illegals don't want your jobs anymore, its gays)

-Armed revolt against the government is an acceptable response to a mosque being built on the ground zero site.

-It would not be terrorism if private American citizens were to blow up Islamic holy sites, it would be "justice".

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Tormund,

Is your Dad my mother-in-law in disguise?

[IheartTesla]

This isn't a new phenomenon though, and isn't what you might think. Ever since the GOP's image has tanked around the end of GWB's reign, GOP voters have been re-identifying as "Independents" and pulling the Independents sharply to the right.

I dont think its enough to explain a 20 point swing from the 2008 elections to now. Or even if it does, many of those GOP-reidentifying voters did vote for Obama (and the Dems in the House/Senate) and will no longer do so. Either way, the Dems are looking at big losses in the House.