US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1598

On January 27 2015 07:40 xDaunt wrote:

Is it? ISIS doesn't seem to be materially weakening. In fact, I'd argue that Obama's request for additional war powers strongly suggests that what we're doing right now is having insufficient effect, if any.

On January 27 2015 08:04 Gorsameth wrote:

There are 2 ways to deal with the Middle East imo. You either leave and ignore it or you send the several hundred thousand soldiers in and pacify the entire region. Are you willing to commit the entirety of the US army in an all out war to occupy Syria/Irak/maybe Lebanon and maintain an occupational force for several decades while turning the reason into a more civilized version?

You say the US should do more but forget that more means you are going in to occupy territory again and that didn't exactly go well last time so you need to go big or die in a ditch and there is no way anyone in America (outside those selling to the military) is willing to do that.

Social Security is often described as "the third rail of American politics" -- touch it and you'll get zapped.

So why do Republicans keep sidling up to it and sticking their fingers out?

There's a brewing controversy in Congress over a small part of the program, which is just the latest version of an old routine that goes like this: Republicans say Social Security is going broke, and they propose changes that would cut benefits or otherwise undermine the program. Democrats shout "Republicans are trying to cut Social Security!" Then the Republicans, scared of a backlash from older voters, back off.

And why do we keep going through this? Republicans will tell you it's because the program is in peril, and if we don't cut it back, it won't be there at all for future generations. Democrats will tell you it's because Republicans never liked the program in the first place, and would love to kill it.

That may be an exaggeration, but the fact is that Republicans hate big government, and government doesn't come any bigger than Social Security.

It's also the most successful and beloved social program in American history. Most of us are too young to remember when growing old in America almost inevitably meant a miserable descent into poverty, but until the middle of the 20th century, that's what it was.

The current controversy revolves around a rule change Republicans made as soon as the new Congress was sworn in this month. Social Security is actually two separate programs, Old Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI), and the much smaller Disability Insurance program (DI). The disability program will be facing a funding shortfall next year, and to ensure that disabled people continue to get all their benefits, Congress would have to move some money from OASI into DI. This isn't anything new -- it's been done many times in recent years.

But House Republicans adopted a parliamentary rule barring the House from allowing that transfer unless it was accompanied by benefit cuts or tax increases. If it can't get worked out, people on DI could see their benefits cut substantially.

So why would Republicans insist on this? My guess is that they think forcing a mini-crisis over the Disability Insurance program's finances will allow for a debate on the program that will make it easier to do what they've wanted to do for a long time: cut it back somehow, either by reducing benefits, increasing the retirement age, or even partially privatizing it. The justification is always that the program is "going broke." But that's just not true.

When people say that, what they're usually referring to is that, according to the projections in the Social Security Trustees' latest report, in 2033 the program's trust fund will be exhausted. But even if there are no changes between now and then, the program would not be "broke." That's because it would still be taking in billions of dollars in taxes every day and paying them out in benefits. Even under this scenario, the program will still pay 77% of recipient's benefits after 2033, according to the report.

Legal marijuana is the fastest-growing industry in the United States and if the trend toward legalization spreads to all 50 states, marijuana could become larger than the organic food industry, according to a new report obtained by The Huffington Post.

Researchers from The ArcView Group, a cannabis industry investment and research firm based in Oakland, California, found that the U.S. market for legal cannabis grew 74 percent in 2014 to $2.7 billion, up from $1.5 billion in 2013.

The group surveyed hundreds of medical and recreational marijuana retailers in states where sales are legal, as well as ancillary business operators and independent cultivators of the plant, over the course of seven months during 2013 and 2014. ArcView also compiled data from state agencies, nonprofit organizations and private companies in the marijuana industry for a more complete look at the marketplace.

"In the last year, the rise of the cannabis industry went from an interesting cocktail conversation to being taken seriously as the fastest growing industry in America," Troy Dayton, CEO of The ArcView Group and publisher of the third edition of the State of Legal Marijuana Markets, said in the executive summary of the report. "At this point, it’s hard to imagine that any serious businessperson who is paying attention hasn’t spent some time thinking about the possibilities in this market."

The report also projects a strong year for legal marijuana in 2015 and projects 32 percent growth in the market. Dayton said that places "cannabis in the top spot" when compared with other fast-growing industries.

Over the next five years, the marijuana industry is expected to continue to grow, with ArcView predicting that 14 more states will legalize recreational marijuana and two more states will legalize medical marijuana. At least 10 states are already considering legalizing recreational marijuana in just the next two years through ballot measures or state legislatures.

On January 27 2015 10:27 Danglars wrote:
And tune in soon for the 2016 primary edition of the Politicization of Fact Checkers. Appear objective when you assert that Republicans just straight up lie more!

I'm recalling just how old that scheme truly is. From back in the era when State of the Unions were pretty fun, here's a gem on the extremely concerned media, + Show Spoiler +

On January 27 2015 10:40 IgnE wrote:
The Social Security is broke lie is one of the most egregious told.

The Koch brothers’ operation intends to spend $889 million in the run-up to the 2016 elections — an historic sum that in many ways would mark Charles and David Koch and their fellow conservative mega-donors as more powerful than the official Republican Party.

The figure, which more than doubles the amount spent by the Republican National Committee during the last presidential election cycle, prompted cheers from some in the GOP who are looking for all the help they can get headed into a potentially tough 2016 election landscape.

But while the leaked details seemed in part a show of defiance to Democrats, who had targeted the brothers as bogeymen, the spending goal also appeared to be a show of dominance to rival factions on the right, including the RNC.

A spokesman for the RNC did not respond to a request for comment Monday. Some Republicans, however, quietly grumbled about the continued migration of power and money from the political parties and their candidates to super-rich donors emboldened by recent court decisions loosening campaign finance restrictions.

The budget figure was shared with donors during a Monday morning session at the Koch network’s annual winter donor gathering at the Ritz Carlton in Rancho Mirage, California, according to an attendee.

On January 27 2015 11:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

The objective reality is that SS can't meet all its obligations. Calling it broke is a pretty reasonable use of the word. I mean, is an insolvent bank not broke? Is a business or household in bankruptcy not broke?

Edit: It's pretty much a bi-partisan consensus that entitlements need work. Obama agrees that they need some reforms and has supported cuts in the past. I guess he just secretly wants to destroy SS? Good to know

On January 27 2015 12:12 IgnE wrote:


Everyone is broke on a long enough timeline. We have talked here many times about pensions that weren't broke and suddenly go broke.

On January 27 2015 12:44 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

The objective math says that SS can't meet its obligations.

Assuming that pensions suddenly go broke (they do?) would imply erring on the side of caution, which is the opposite of your position.

Edit: And the article StealtBlue quoted is a joke. The logic is so internally inconsistent that it is hard to read without feeling pain. It's totally not broke, AND we can totally fix it's totally not broke-ness with tax increases? Huh?

On January 27 2015 13:06 oneofthem wrote:
they could be managing the fund better for more return though, it is currently t-bonds.

On January 26 2015 17:57 GreenHorizons wrote:



So are you against closed primaries? And/or do you advocate top 2 type primaries?

On January 28 2015 04:39 Sub40APM wrote:
So many Katrinas. http://nomoremister.blogspot.ca/2013/11/the-canonical-list-of-obamas-katrinas.html