EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 7201
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
On March 26 2017 08:16 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: ??? https://twitter.com/seanspicer/status/229644347228950528 look at date. old tweet aimed at Obama. People bringing it back because it's hilarious now. | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
9037 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States43953 Posts
On March 26 2017 08:42 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: Dammit KwarK. I read it once, refreshed and you added more. I followed and understood the first time around. Now I'm a fucking expert haha. Good knowledge to pass around. It's baffling to me that people can actually be politically active while not bothering to understand how the country is run. They want to have opinions on everything but they don't really care about what the opinions are, they just really like having them. Both sides completely refuse to understand social security in a case of deliberate ignorance. The Dems are hardline "no cuts under any circumstances, that's your money you paid in, don't let it be stolen" which is never how it worked and doesn't even make sense unless you think that somewhere there is an underground bunker with all your social security payroll tax dollars just piling up in a special locked vault with your name on it. The Republicans just pretend not to be able to count when it suits them and pretend that the original rate wasn't simply a reflection of the needs divided by the workers (which would obviously change over time) but a magical number that can't be touched. Previously both sides have been able to come together and make adjustments which both reduce payouts (Republican plan) and increase payins (Democrat plan) to make it work. Doesn't look good at the moment for doing that again though. | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
9037 Posts
On March 26 2017 08:45 KwarK wrote: It's baffling to me that people can actually be politically active while not bothering to understand how the country is run. They want to have opinions on everything but they don't really care about what the opinions are, they just really like having them. Both sides completely refuse to understand social security. The Dems are hardline "no cuts under any circumstances, that's your money you paid in, don't let it be stolen" which is never how it worked and doesn't even make sense unless you think that somewhere there is an underground bunker with all your social security payroll tax dollars just piling up in a special locked vault with your name on it. The Republicans just pretend not to be able to count when it suits them. Previously both sides have been able to come together and make adjustments which both reduce payouts (Republican plan) and increase payins (Democrat plan) to make it work. Doesn't look good at the moment for doing that again though. I agree. That's the hard part. To find the information you need to be academically involved on the issues at hand. People, like you said, have opinions, but they don't understand the issue at a fundamental level. There are layers to this and people generally only see the latest. To do the work necessary to have an informed opinion isn't worth a lot of people's time and we get the current climate. I'll admit, I didn't vote this round. So I don't have a leg to stand on. But I stick with the issues and I try to be informed as much as possible about the problems we as a society face. It's easy to be narrow minded and not see the larger picture. I can't. I have to think about my nieces and nephews. Their future is what I'm worried about, not my own since I'm 30. I'll make it work somehow with what I have available, but to leave them a mess to fix is not responsible in the least. And I feel that a lot of people who vote don't think beyond themselves. Literally. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43953 Posts
On March 26 2017 08:53 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: I agree. That's the hard part. To find the information you need to be academically involved on the issues at hand. People, like you said, have opinions, but they don't understand the issue at a fundamental level. There are layers to this and people generally only see the latest. To do the work necessary to have an informed opinion isn't worth a lot of people's time and we get the current climate. I'll admit, I didn't vote this round. So I don't have a leg to stand on. But I stick with the issues and I try to be informed as much as possible about the problems we as a society face. It's easy to be narrow minded and not see the larger picture. I can't. I have to think about my nieces and nephews. Their future is what I'm worried about, not my own since I'm 30. I'll make it work somehow with what I have available, but to leave them a mess to fix is not responsible in the least. And I feel that a lot of people who vote don't think beyond themselves. Literally. Well the issue is that this On March 26 2017 05:46 Aesthetician wrote: Is literally the Democratic Party line. It's what the Democrats say whenever the Republicans try and cut Social Security in their adjustments. It's half the reason why adjustments haven't been made so far. What he said is completely untrue, and so is the Democratic Party line, but he's spouting it hook, line and sinker. But somewhere along the line he's picked up the idea that giving people healthcare is putting Social Security in danger, even though they're completely unrelated, and so now he's campaigning for the Republicans, whose party line is "we need to cut Social Security".All i know is my dad is on social security and i would hate to see him lose his benefits because we're giving medicaid to people under 30. Sorry, but he paid into that fund for his whole life. I mean what the fuck. Just three months ago the GOP introduced a bill to raise the age of eligibility for Social Security from 67 to 69 and cut payouts by between 11 and 35% depending on income. I mean at a certain point it's no different to saying "well I voted Republican in 2016 because I think it really is time for a woman president and Clinton is the woman to do it". This is a guy who is literally talking about his political activism in his area and he has no idea that the list of policies he supports and opposes was actually taken from the Democrat manifesto, not the Republican. If anyone is curious, the Republican policy on Social Security is "it's going bankrupt unless an adjustment is made so either scrap it completely and let people do their own retirement savings because free market (one half of the party) or lower the payouts because never increase taxes under any circumstance (the other half of the party). The last time the Democrats tried to fix it they tried to remove the cap on the Social Security tax for high earners. Right now the Social Security payroll deduction is one of the few fundamentally (not functionally regressive, literally regressive) regressive taxes in the United States. How it works is you have a flat 6.2% paid by employee and 6.2% paid by employer for a total of 12.4/106.2 or 11.67% flat tax rate (fucking employer paid taxes are just hidden employee taxes and bad math). However it only applies to the first $127,200 you earn. After that it drops to 0%. So if you earn $100k then you pay 11.67% on that. If you earn $200k then you pay 11.67% on the first $127,200, 0% on the $72,800 following it. It's regressive for a reason but that's their plan for fixing it. No cuts on payouts. | ||
|
ShoCkeyy
7815 Posts
| ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
9037 Posts
Now, to stop bullying the buy (we know he's not the only one), it is a complicated measure for sure when it comes to politicians looking for re-election and pleasing the base. They have to prostrate and all that. But at the same time, they are harming the voter bloc. There is no way possible for the poor and disenfranchised to gain a foothold if they believe everything that is spoon fed to them. You can start to see it at town hall meetings that get posted. People are starting to pay more attention. And they are starting to understand that a lot of what was promised to them isn't going to happen, and if he does, it will harm them as well. I think a lot of it is "America is a white country" bullshit that people want to happen still. But America hasn't been a white man's country since Kennedy. For all the grandstanding that has been done, the status quo has not changed. It only changed names. The GOP will eat itself if given enough time and maybe something better will emerge. But this "Freedom Caucus" sounds like a new Tea Party and they are doing more harm than good (from what I understand. Not up to date with the factions) Trump has found out the hard way that he isn't cut out for this, and a lot of his party is starting to gag that he's in charge. Say what you will about Obama, but at least he was a boring President. | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
9037 Posts
On March 26 2017 09:01 ShoCkeyy wrote: Thanks for that, I'm always trying to learn about how social security works all the time. Currently I know you can look into your own, and how much you've paid in through the social security site. But I'm more curious on how people that receive it works. My grandma is 83, and I feel like every year that she gets older, the less she receives, even though she needs a lot more to help maintain. Either way - any insight is always useful. So, I had Hodgkin's Lymphoma. I got a letter last year telling me every detail about my social security. It even came with a handy information pamphlet to explain everything to me. I'm assuming I got it because of cancer and not because I was approaching 30. The information is out there for you to learn and for your to understand. It just takes a little time and effort. You'll be glad you did. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43953 Posts
Ted Cruz on social security. We ought to gradually increase the retirement age. We ought to change the rate of increase in benefits so that it matches inflation, rather than exceeding inflation. My plan eliminates the payroll tax (KwarK note: the Social Security tax) Rand Paul on social security my tax plan is it gets rid of the payroll tax I've a bill to fix Social Security. For both of them you have to gradually raise the age. You will also have to means-test the benefits and declare there's not enough money. It isn't "I put money in, I'm getting it back. But we have the baby boomers getting ready to retire; subsequently doubling the amount of people already dependent on an unsustainable system...To sustain our current system, we may need to raise the retirement age for future generations. Marco Rubio on social security [cutting benefits]has to be on the table, including the way we index increases in the cost of living I think that has to be on the table. That's got to be part of the solution, the retirement age gradually increases for people of my generation. Trump never spoke about it at all beyond saying it was going to be great (no, literally) but Pence said this in the VP debate. Donald Trump and I are going to cut taxes and reform government programs so we can meet the obligations of Social Security make of that what you will This isn't a misrepresentation, it is a reflective sample of the broader policies regarding Social Security. As an individual I would actually really welcome the Republican attacks on Social Security. My retirement fund is doing awesomely and I would love to have that extra 12% to invest towards my retirement. Scrap the tax, fuck the old, let me invest in the private retirement accounts which the Republicans have been pushing as their privatized solution to Social Security. But for the society I want to live in there has to be some provision for the old so I lean Democrat, even if I think the Democratic argument is completely false and the Republican policies would actually be awesome for me (while fucking over the old and the poor). | ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
| ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23895 Posts
On March 26 2017 09:42 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote: Interestingly Bernie sanders on Medicare, lower age to 55 (at least now he thinks that plus public option is how you fix obamacare.) https://twitter.com/SenSanders/status/845671102345039872 Republicans and reality have people acknowledging the ACA needs improvement, public option is the most obvious answer. Let Republicans tell people why they shouldn't have healthcare if they really don't want to put it to a vote. | ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
def easier to push than Krugman's idea of increasing subsidies and penalties for non coverage. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23895 Posts
On March 26 2017 10:02 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote: but yeah is Dems start pushing public option it puts Republicans in an awkward position because democrats can say their trying to fix it. It just shits all over their message in 2016 and on their big money insurance donors so they are being dragged into it and looking for a way for insurance companies not to lose out. Democrats should be nothing but Nina Turner, Bernie Sanders, and Keith Ellison on every channel every day ramming home a public option. But then they couldn't talk about Russia all day. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43953 Posts
This country truly is an amazing place. The political divide isn't whether the plot of Die Hard 4 actually happened, it is whether the part of the villain was played by Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan. Either way, they want the gold returned and they want the army to guard the vault from now on to keep it safe from the executive. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
| ||
|
Atreides
United States2393 Posts
I guess to clarify my understanding is that self employment tax is at 15% on the first 85000? | ||
|
KwarK
United States43953 Posts
On March 26 2017 10:46 Atreides wrote: Kwark I'm curious on your explanation of how self employment fits in to social security? Basically I believe that both the rate and the cap are different (maybe other things too I don't know). Why? I guess to clarify my understanding is that self employment tax is at 15% on the first 85000? So payroll deductions are 6.2% for Social Security and 2.9% for Medicare for the employee. However the employer also has to pay 6.2% for Social Security on behalf of the employee. If you're self employed then you end up paying all three, 15.3/106.2. However if you're not self employed you still have them come out of your total compensation, the second 6.2% is just a stealth tax. It is still money being earned by you for the value you provided to the employer being taken by the government either way. The only difference is if they leave you a receipt on your pay stub saying that they took it. If you're employed then you get a receipt for 9.1%, even though they took 15. | ||
| ||
