|
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. |
On June 13 2017 07:22 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2017 07:21 Buckyman wrote:
What would y'all think of a rehabilitation-focused proposal that lets people on Social Security disability benefits work part-time at less than the normal minimum wage, without losing their disability benefits? Social security disability takes on two forms, DIB and SSI, but both forms require that an individual certify that they are unable to work a job available to them in the economy. Further, having worked for the SSA as an intern, I can tell you that its system of disability adjudication is actually quite impressive and does an extremely good job of screening out bogus claimants. Thus, I'm not sure why SSDIB reform is a good route to go.
It's targeted at people that can't do a full job at full speed, but aren't completely disabled. In the spirit of equal pay for equal work, they might be able to do equal work in three times as much time, and thus be able to work for 1/3 minimum wage on to of DIB. They benefit (or they wouldn't work), the employer benefits (saving vs. minimum wage for a task that literally even a blind person can do), society benefits (getting productivity from someone who would otherwise be totally unproductive) and for some category of disabled person it might even rehabilitate them to the point where they are able to work a regular job.
Or, that's the theory. In practice, we won't know until we try.
|
People who can't do a job at full speed that are still adjudged not disabled don't get any benefits, so I'm not sure what problem you're addressing here. If you're suggesting that we add another layer of benefits onto the system in a way that encourages borderline disabled folks to find gainful though likely limited employment, I'm down with that because ODAR is a highly underrated system that could be used to further shore up a very dilapidated social welfare system.
|
On June 13 2017 07:22 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2017 07:19 Sermokala wrote:
A UBI with democracy scares me a bit personally. Its easy to see people pledging to increase it to get votes and then not having a way to pay for it later. It would probably be better for everyone if we had a UBI instead of social services (it would lower a lot of administrative and bureaucratic costs to achieve the same end) but the long term on it scares me more then a social welfare state would. I actually think the exact opposite can be argued given the degree to which those services best provided by government fair poorly in free market environments; part of the problem with UBI is that it fails to address the problems inherent to treating education, healthcare, and housing as market goods. I accordingly think a hybrid UBI/social services system would likely be best, though of course, the political feasibility of it is up in the air. Show nested quote +On June 13 2017 07:21 Buckyman wrote:
What would y'all think of a rehabilitation-focused proposal that lets people on Social Security disability benefits work part-time at less than the normal minimum wage, without losing their disability benefits? Social security disability takes on two forms, DIB and SSI, but both forms require that an individual certify that they are unable to work a job available to them in the economy. Further, having worked for the SSA as an intern, I can tell you that its system of disability adjudication is actually quite impressive and does an extremely good job of screening out bogus claimants. Thus, I'm not sure why SSDIB reform is a good route to go.
It would be a first step to quantify the basket of benefits that a family living under the poverty line or unemployed gets and how much the government spends to give them that and then to make argument about how much someone needs to live at that level and how best to give that to them.
|
|
|
I wonder if he cooked that idea up on his own.
|
Just do it Donald. Don't let anyone boss you around. You're both President and a big boy!
|
He'd do it, and I don't even think it would be a mistake on his part. His approval rating is at 34%, and it will not go any lower because base is cult like. If he fires Mueller, he gets off the hook, and just rolls along at 30% approval. He would be a 1 term president, with a permanent russia cloud, but it would not result in impeachment.
|
Firing Mueller would not get Trump off the hook.
|
Would Mueller not be reinstated again almost immediately?
|
By who? He can just fire the deputy AG and get someone loyal. Trump is not the type of individual who is going to go into a impeachment round lol, he's going to go out swinging, or in other words, firing.
|
The law surrounding the dismissal powers of the president relative to a special prosecutor is unclear enough to render a "fire first, ask questions later" approach a pretty surefire way to inspire an immense legal controversy.
|
On June 13 2017 08:49 farvacola wrote:
The law surrounding the dismissal powers of the president relative to a special prosecutor is unclear enough to render a "fire first, ask questions later" approach a pretty surefire way to inspire an immense legal controversy.
In other words, no big deal to trump.
|
On June 13 2017 08:37 farvacola wrote:
Firing Mueller would not get Trump off the hook.
Sure but firing the guy investigating you totally gives the old ego a boost.
What's public outrage in the face of Trump anyways?
/s
|
congress could appoint him as a special prosecutor (unless they removed that law entirely); and they might feel pressured enough to do so. and at any rate; firing mueller would increase the heat to the point where more republicans would be compelled to support pursueing the investigation very seriously.
|
I assume this would require republican support
|
Firing Mueller would just make the speedrun tool assisted. Pathetic. SAD.
|
On June 13 2017 08:49 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2017 08:49 farvacola wrote:
The law surrounding the dismissal powers of the president relative to a special prosecutor is unclear enough to render a "fire first, ask questions later" approach a pretty surefire way to inspire an immense legal controversy. In other words, no big deal to trump.
Nope, these are waters deeper than those previously tread by Trump, particularly because of pre-existing DoJ special prosecutor dismissal regulations and the lack of an undergirding statute.
|
On June 13 2017 08:51 Gahlo wrote:
Firing Mueller would just make the speedrun tool assisted. Pathetic. SAD.
for a speedrun you would be foolish to not take advantage of a tried and true route 
|
On June 13 2017 08:51 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2017 08:49 biology]major wrote:On June 13 2017 08:49 farvacola wrote:
The law surrounding the dismissal powers of the president relative to a special prosecutor is unclear enough to render a "fire first, ask questions later" approach a pretty surefire way to inspire an immense legal controversy. In other words, no big deal to trump. Nope, these are waters deeper than those previously tread by Trump, particularly because of pre-existing DoJ special prosecutor dismissal regulations and the lack of an undergirding statute.
Ok well I'm glad these restrictions are in place then, I was losing faith in the system and realized Trump could just fire anyone in the executive branch who got in his way. Good to know
|
On June 13 2017 07:19 Sermokala wrote:
A UBI with democracy scares me a bit personally. Its easy to see people pledging to increase it to get votes and then not having a way to pay for it later. It would probably be better for everyone if we had a UBI instead of social services (it would lower a lot of administrative and bureaucratic costs to achieve the same end) but the long term on it scares me more then a social welfare state would.
the same problems already exist with social security; and many other gov't benefits.
It'd be helpful if we made changes to the system to ensure actuarially sound budgetting for these things. not sure of the optimal way to do that; but something is needed.
either way; paying for stuff with debt then having too much debt is going to be an issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
