US Politics: Georgia on Our Minds

[DMC]

2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

I doubt there would be a split decision. There's little reason to see why voters would split their tickets.

While it's certainly more likely one party wins both than a split outcome, the difference between the two isn't that large for all the reasons raised by Ormond, Kal, and Fury.  Put another way, due to the closeness of each race and the eccentricities therein, the likelihood of a split outcome - either way - is greater than the isolated likelihood of either party winning both.

47 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Interesting, why to many “hate” Loeffler?  She did better than any other Republican in the initial race?

As others touched on, Loeffler never had a reliable base from the get-go.  While never explicit, Trump made his preference for Collins over her clear even before she was appointed.  And her record over only a year has given no reason for any non-Trumpists to lend her any avid support.  Coupled with the influence of the Perdue name in Georgia politics and the natural advantages of (elected) incumbency, and Perdue is rather objectively a significantly superior candidate.

And the mirror image of that also disadvantages Loeffler - Warnock is (obviously) going to have stronger/more intense support among black voters whereas the only advantage Ossoff has vis-a-vis Warnock among Democratic constituencies is the young vote.  And the early vote shows black turnout has actually gone up (as a proportion of the electorate) since November - in particular those how didn't vote in November skew more African American - while younger voters have (unsurprisingly) decreased as a proportion of the electorate.  While my updated preferences would pretty much be exactly what @Maithanet predicted, all these reasons are why before November's election I picked Warnock to win his runoff and Ossoff to lose his.

47 minutes ago, Fury Resurrected said:

There’s also a not zero number of people who consciously or unconsciously still do not think women should be in positions of power

Yep, just as there's a non-zero number of people (especially in Georgia) that aren't going to vote for a black candidate.  And, hell, by that token there's a non-zero number of people that will be motivated to vote for a black candidate that may well not vote for Ossoff.  Virtually impossible to discern how all these factors interact before the fact.

2 minutes ago, Corvinus85 said:

Checks location of poster - Long Beach, CA. VOTER FRAUD!!! I knew it, the Jedi are taking over!!!

Ossoff and Warnock; good for Georgia, good for America, good for democracy, good for the Jedi, good for saying fuck it might as well do it if they're gonna baselessly accuse us of doing it anyway.

[kairparavel]

Hi. In a place not Georgia this happened today. Everything is fine. Just fine. I've had CNN on for an hour and not a second has been dedicated to covering this absolutely fucked up situation.

 https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/01/05/dangerous-time-another-ugly-gop-power-play-unfolds-pennsylvania/

Quote

The GOP-controlled Pennsylvania State Senate just refused to seat Democratic Sen. Jim Brewster, even as numerous other senators did get seated, after Brewster defeated his Republican opponent by 69 votes.

Quote

The GOP candidate is doing this even though the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled that the ballots are valid. And the state has even certified the results, which Democrats point out calls into question the need for the review by GOP senators in the first place.

Quote

[Lt. Gov] Fetterman, who is the state Senate’s presiding officer, tried to block the refusal to seat Brewster. So Republicans voted to remove Fetterman and replace him as presiding officer with the Republican interim Senate president pro tempore, Jake Corman

 

*Ah, this was mentioned a few pages back. Missed it.

[Myshkin]

19 minutes ago, Corvinus85 said:

Checks location of poster - Long Beach, CA. VOTER FRAUD!!! I knew it, the Jedi are taking over!!!

Long Beach is the coolest city in the US, and therefore Long Beacherinos are allowed to vote anywhere they choose. It’s in the constitution. You should read it sometime, commie.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

18 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Yes, this is true. Other than making healthcare accessible to everyone, whether they are an employee or independent contractor, another area I think that needs to be fixed is pensions. I'm afraid some of these people gig work won't or are not saving enough so they can retire at a reasonable age. There are a related set of issues here which include 1) low wages for some people, 2) public policy, and 3) the ability to separate good advice from bullshit when it comes to investment choices.

While I have moved further and further left on my views on healthcare as I have “grown up”, I am more and more deeply...concerned about the idea of pensions as a policy matter.

• As a moral and ethical matter I stipulate that it is just and proper to make sure that our elderly populations are comfortable.  In addition, I think both wage base AND wage growth should be supported.  I don’t have great answers on this, and am actually concerned we are trending in the wrong direction.
• However, equally, as the population as a whole ages while life expectancy expands, I think it is unreasonable (and unfair) to make the following (smaller) generations fund long work-free retirements for their parents.  Thus, maybe we are only quibbling over what age is “reasonable”, but I don’t think any person should be guaranteed basic income until that person is basically unable to work (I’m waiting for the pitchforks from the board mind you).  
• I agree that putting all savings decisions in the hands of each individual isn’t necessarily efficient or conducive to everyone getting an “early” retirement. But I’m not sure that private pensions are the answer (tend to be poorly run and end up at the PBGC anyhow - don’t even get me started about multi employer plans, because I’ll just bring up Central States).  Again, demographics are not on our side on this.  Maybe more regulation of IRA investment decisions?
• I’m also not sure that putting it in public hands is a great idea either.  Public investment in private enterprise has led to pension funds seeking return all kinds of places, but through alternative investments in particular (balanced portfolio, blah blah blah) which perpetuates systemic risk seeking in search of yield.  Note that I’m not focused as much on the “micro” effect on the pension in question, but more on the macro market effect.
• The other way, of course, is to tax the f*ck out of existing workers.  Maybe you can accumulate enough through a very robust estate tax, but not sure that works out actuarially. So, you basically end up in a classic pension ponzi with a narrowing class of “contributors” in a low GDP growth world transferring earnings to non-earners (who are maybe consumers but maybe not?)  I guess we could re-up Social Security as an idea with realistic payouts coming out of it, but the contribution levels would have to be vastly increased (should have done it in the 1950s and 1960s, oh well).
• Of course, either way we are looking at a Dickensian decade.  I should change my name to Mlle. Fezziwig.

So, in short, I think the whole thing is a bit of a morass.  

[Castellan]

53 minutes ago, Fury Resurrected said:

I think you’d be surprised. While there’s a lot of overlap, sexism doesn’t belong to whites only or racists only.

or even mostly

[Martell Spy]

6 minutes ago, Myshkin said:

Long Beach is the coolest city in the US, and therefore Long Beacherinos are allowed to vote anywhere they choose. It’s in the constitution. You should read it sometime, commie.

I just assumed you longhairs voted only on the beach, possibly while wearing wetsuits and those surfing slippers. What little I know of Long Beach CA comes from Lodge 49, however.

[Kalbear]

7 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

So, in short, I think the whole thing is a bit of a morass.  

YOU'RE A MORE ASS

[DMC]

While the PA legislature going all Trumpian is nauseating, and the GOP members' vapid souls will rue the day they had the gall to disrespect John Fetterman, it might be best to ease up on the outrage. 

The GOP's rationale is that while the results are certified, Ziccarelli only lost by 69 votes, has lodged an official challenge in the legislature, and is continuing to pursue legal challenges (albeit now at the federal level where such involvement is ethically murky).  This is not so much different than Rita Hart's ongoing challenge in the Iowa 2nd - she lost by only 6 votes, lodged an official challenge with the House, and actually (I think mistakenly) abandoned any further legal challenges when they were still available to her.  While Pelosi seated Miller-Meeks on a provisional basis, and I'm happy she did, there were many Democrats that did not want her to - effectively doing the same thing the PA GOP is doing now.

OTOH, this all may just be due to me having an inherent bias against Jim Brewster since his advertising campaign was horribly outdated and kinda creepy and I was quite sick of seeing his unsettling mug on my television throughout the fall.

[Myshkin]

8 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

I just assumed you longhairs voted only on the beach, possibly while wearing wet-suits and those surfing slippers. What little I know of Long Beach CA comes from Lodge 49, however.

Of course we vote on the beach, that’s why we made it so long. When we hand our ballots over to the groms working as election volunteers we tell them where we want our votes to be counted. As for attire, it is indeed mostly wetsuits, but that’s because of the big post-vote paddle-out to the Queen Mary. You’re technically allowed to wear anything you want, as long as it’s not Angels gear. Go back to Orange County you freaks! 

[The Anti-Targ]

5 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

While I have moved further and further left on my views on healthcare as I have “grown up”, I am more and more deeply...concerned about the idea of pensions as a policy matter.

• As a moral and ethical matter I stipulate that it is just and proper to make sure that our elderly populations are comfortable.  In addition, I think both wage base AND wage growth should be supported.  I don’t have great answers on this, and am actually concerned we are trending in the wrong direction.
• However, equally, as the population as a whole ages while life expectancy expands, I think it is unreasonable (and unfair) to make the following (smaller) generations fund long work-free retirements for their parents.  Thus, maybe we are only quibbling over what age is “reasonable”, but I don’t think any person should be guaranteed basic income until that person is basically unable to work (I’m waiting for the pitchforks from the board mind you).  
• I agree that putting all savings decisions in the hands of each individual isn’t necessarily efficient or conducive to everyone getting an “early” retirement. But I’m not sure that private pensions are the answer (tend to be poorly run and end up at the PBGC anyhow - don’t even get me started about multi employer plans, because I’ll just bring up Central States).  Again, demographics are not on our side on this.  Maybe more regulation of IRA investment decisions?
• I’m also not sure that putting it in public hands is a great idea either.  Public investment in private enterprise has led to pension funds seeking return all kinds of places, but through alternative investments in particular (balanced portfolio, blah blah blah) which perpetuates systemic risk seeking in search of yield.  Note that I’m not focused as much on the “micro” effect on the pension in question, but more on the macro market effect.
• The other way, of course, is to tax the f*ck out of existing workers.  Maybe you can accumulate enough through a very robust estate tax, but not sure that works out actuarially. So, you basically end up in a classic pension ponzi with a narrowing class of “contributors” in a low GDP growth world transferring earnings to non-earners (who are maybe consumers but maybe not?)  I guess we could re-up Social Security as an idea with realistic payouts coming out of it, but the contribution levels would have to be vastly increased (should have done it in the 1950s and 1960s, oh well).
• Of course, either way we are looking at a Dickensian decade.  I should change my name to Mlle. Fezziwig.

So, in short, I think the whole thing is a bit of a morass.  

Given a lot more people are coming around to the idea that a UBI, or something like it (I prefer a GMI to a UBI), is both affordable and necessary in a decent society most of the arguments around the costs of retirement age and income entitlements are redundant.

Again there's this erroneous notion that taxes need to be collected to pay for everything the govt spends in a 1 to 1 ratio. It's simply not true. Govts have a lot more headroom than people think to be able to fund certain things entirely by new money, basic pensions could easily be one of those things.

And of course my moral position is that it is more important to ensure people have enough money to live on than to spend such a huge % of the govt budget on defense. So if there is a book balancing exercise needed defense should be seen as more discretionary than pensions.

[Spockydog]

2 hours ago, Reny of Storms End said:

Maybe I'm wrong and the Dems will do something about this, besides hoping for national attention/outrage to sway the decisions. So disgusted and saddened with the state I live in right now. 

Some folks need to go to jail. Simple as that. If not, America is doomed. 

[Relic]

Are we there yet?

[Martell Spy]

MAGA figureheads and pro-Trump activists are vowing to excommunicate Republicans who vigorously oppose the doomed effort to keep President Donald Trump in power.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/05/maga-trump-revenge-republican-traitors-454924

Quote

 

The threats have played out in recent days with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, who was once seen as a possible ally in Trump’s efforts to overturn President-elect Joe Biden’s win in the swing state. But Raffensperger has consistently refused to validate Trump’s baseless voter fraud claims, and on Saturday, he bluntly told the president the rigged-election theories were simply wrong. After a recording of the Saturday call leaked to the press, the MAGA world erupted with incandescent rage.

“A national security threat,” proclaimed Charlie Kirk, MAGA youth leader and Turning Point USA co-founder. “Brad Raffensperger should immediately be investigated.”

In the coming days, that MAGA revenge complex could target everyone from low-level members of Congress to Vice President Mike Pence, as Congress meets on Jan. 6 to formally certify Biden’s victory. “Republicans,” Trump warned on Twitter, “NEVER FORGET!” speaking to lawmakers who have said they will not oppose Biden’s certification. And Trump allies are plotting to fund potential pro-MAGA primary challengers to oust those disloyal Republicans.

“We’ll put some money behind” trying to oust these Republicans, said Alex Bruesewitz, one of the organizers of Stop the Steal, an organization linked to high-profile MAGA personalities that is helping organize a major Jan. 6 pro-Trump rally in Washington.

The swift move to vengeance offers a preview of how Trump and his MAGA community plan to reshape the GOP in the coming months — creating Trump loyalty tests for Republicans, then working to evict anyone who doesn’t fall in line. The goal is to identify those who are most worthy of inheriting the MAGA base with Trump out of office. But the result may be that no one except Trump can rally the MAGA coalition.

 

 

[DMC]

15 minutes ago, Chataya de Fleury said:

@DMC - I would typically never vote for a preacher / priest / minister....

Until now.

While I generally favor an aversion to religious figures running for elected office, I definitely think this should be determined on a case-by-case basis.  Only zealots, evangelicals, atheists and siths deal in absolutes.

[DanteGabriel]

4 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

I was wondering who the woman lawyer on the Trump call was, Cleta Mitchell. As an aside, who the hell names their child Cleta? 

...

She works for a large law firm, Foley & Lardner, who apparently were taken by surprise by her role in Saturday's phone call.

Interesting.

 

The law firm put out a statement that they had made a decision in November not to get involved in contesting the Presidential election, and expressing their "concern" that Mitchell was involved in this call. Their ignorance rings hollow since she's been involved in this for months for anyone who cared to look. They started getting trashed on social media for Mitchell's part in Trump's sedition.

And now she has resigned from the firm.

I am sure she'll have plenty of work from Trumpworld and the wingnut welfare system.

 

[Mlle. Zabzie]

32 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Given a lot more people are coming around to the idea that a UBI, or something like it (I prefer a GMI to a UBI), is both affordable and necessary in a decent society most of the arguments around the costs of retirement age and income entitlements are redundant.

Again there's this erroneous notion that taxes need to be collected to pay for everything the govt spends in a 1 to 1 ratio. It's simply not true. Govts have a lot more headroom than people think to be able to fund certain things entirely by new money, basic pensions could easily be one of those things.

And of course my moral position is that it is more important to ensure people have enough money to live on than to spend such a huge % of the govt budget on defense. So if there is a book balancing exercise needed defense should be seen as more discretionary than pensions.

Trust me, I absolutely do NOT think that the tax base needs to cover everything in a one to one ratio.  I mean, LMAO, I live in the USA in the 21st century. Duh.  And I also think we have A LOT of room to inflate, currently (Interest rates being like functionally zero right now).  One place OGE and I really agree is that we should be inflating the pants off right now.  But there is also a limit, and there is also at base a concept that the resources to support that kind of redistribution do, in fact, have to come from somewhere.  It can come from (I) borrowing (which presumably will be paid off by a combination of refinancing (assuming our credit stays good) and inflation, (ii) just flat out inflation (which, to be clear, is redistributive between lenders/creditors on the one hand to borrowers on the other), and/or (iii) redistribution (I.e., taxation of income or consumption(proxy for current GDP) and/or wealth).  And while it is really easy to eye the defense budget (everyone mildly left of center does, and even on the right wing if they see “regulations” or “waste” rather than NEW FIGHTER JETS), my four decades on this planet suggest that a notable decrease in our defense budget as a percentage of GDP is about as likely as both the Jets and the Lions being decent football teams AT THE SAME TIME AND PLAYING AGAINST EACH OTHER IN THE SUPERB OWL (so, yeah, not so likely?).

22 minutes ago, Chataya de Fleury said:

OMG!!! ARE WE THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO KNOW ABOUT CENTRAL STATES!!!?!!!!

Right?  OMG Central States!

[DMC]

4 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Right?  OMG Central States!

The preferred nomenclature is Flyover States.

[IheartIheartTesla]

First results from Georgia are already trickling in. Not much to report yet, although there hasnt been too much evidence of vote splitting.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

17 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

I am sure she'll have plenty of work from Trumpworld and the wingnut welfare system.

The sad thing is the grift will never end, and too many people are happy to take advantage of that.

[OldGimletEye]

59 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

While I have moved further and further left on my views on healthcare as I have “grown up”, I am more and more deeply...concerned about the idea of pensions as a policy matter.

• As a moral and ethical matter I stipulate that it is just and proper to make sure that our elderly populations are comfortable.  In addition, I think both wage base AND wage growth should be supported.  I don’t have great answers on this, and am actually concerned we are trending in the wrong direction.
• However, equally, as the population as a whole ages while life expectancy expands, I think it is unreasonable (and unfair) to make the following (smaller) generations fund long work-free retirements for their parents.  Thus, maybe we are only quibbling over what age is “reasonable”, but I don’t think any person should be guaranteed basic income until that person is basically unable to work (I’m waiting for the pitchforks from the board mind you).  
• I agree that putting all savings decisions in the hands of each individual isn’t necessarily efficient or conducive to everyone getting an “early” retirement. But I’m not sure that private pensions are the answer (tend to be poorly run and end up at the PBGC anyhow - don’t even get me started about multi employer plans, because I’ll just bring up Central States).  Again, demographics are not on our side on this.  Maybe more regulation of IRA investment decisions?
• I’m also not sure that putting it in public hands is a great idea either.  Public investment in private enterprise has led to pension funds seeking return all kinds of places, but through alternative investments in particular (balanced portfolio, blah blah blah) which perpetuates systemic risk seeking in search of yield.  Note that I’m not focused as much on the “micro” effect on the pension in question, but more on the macro market effect.
• The other way, of course, is to tax the f*ck out of existing workers.  Maybe you can accumulate enough through a very robust estate tax, but not sure that works out actuarially. So, you basically end up in a classic pension ponzi with a narrowing class of “contributors” in a low GDP growth world transferring earnings to non-earners (who are maybe consumers but maybe not?)  I guess we could re-up Social Security as an idea with realistic payouts coming out of it, but the contribution levels would have to be vastly increased (should have done it in the 1950s and 1960s, oh well).
• Of course, either way we are looking at a Dickensian decade.  I should change my name to Mlle. Fezziwig.

So, in short, I think the whole thing is a bit of a morass.  

Don't worry, I don't think I'm proposing anything as radical as you might suppose. I imagine a lot people get started saving for their retirement, because of employer contribution matching. One idea, then, might be giving gig workers, under a certain income, matching contributions to their savings. Or maybe, eliminating the tax benefits for employer contribution matching (like healthcare tax benefits, its not "free". It comes out of somebody's butt, one way or another).

 A big problem, is simply people are hesitant to save early, They hear about the likes Bernie Madoff, and Enron, and the whole investing process seems mystifying and full of charlatans. Given most people are at least somewhat loss averse, no wonder they are hesitant. We need to figure out someway to make the whole process less mystifying for the average person. Many smart people don't know the difference between a nominal return and a real return. Or they don't understand diversification.

Anyway, there is more than one way to solve this problem. But, it is problem we need to figure out, as people live longer and more of them might be gig workers during their lifetimes.