EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 7957
| 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
| ||
|
IyMoon
United States1249 Posts
On June 28 2017 04:01 Tachion wrote: I thought they only needed 51 votes for tax reform due to bypassing the filibuster through the budget reconciliation process? They can't move on to taxes though according to senate rules until they either pass or drop healthcare. I could be wrong, but as far as I know to pass under reconciliation it has to decrees the deficit over 10 years time. You can pass healthcare reform this way because of the huge cuts to Medicaid. However, if you are slashing taxes for the wealthy, no amount of pie in the sky talk about how it will spur the economy is going to make the CBO score it as anything but adding to the deficit. So it will be subject to the 60 vote threshold. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23954 Posts
On June 28 2017 04:04 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: https://twitter.com/AP/status/879776311253905408 Wow, that took long enough. Wonder if it goes anywhere (since it was obvious as fuck they did it, and Rahm helped) though. For our legal folks, how much longer do you think we'll be waiting for the Slager sentencing? | ||
|
Tachion
Canada8573 Posts
On June 28 2017 04:07 IyMoon wrote: I could be wrong, but as far as I know to pass under reconciliation it has to decrees the deficit over 10 years time. You can pass healthcare reform this way because of the huge cuts to Medicaid. However, if you are slashing taxes for the wealthy, no amount of pie in the sky talk about how it will spur the economy is going to make the CBO score it as anything but adding to the deficit. So it will be subject to the 60 vote threshold. Could they have used the cuts to medicaid in the healthcare bill to fund the tax cuts in their tax reform bill? Or are they judged each on their own merit? | ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
| ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On June 28 2017 04:01 Tachion wrote: I thought they only needed 51 votes for tax reform due to bypassing the filibuster through the budget reconciliation process? They can't move on to taxes though according to senate rules until they either pass or drop healthcare. Reconciliation is only for budget changes and can’t be done outside congresses fiscal 2017, which ends in September. I think it also has to be the first issue the congress takes up and no other bills can be worked on during that time. All budget changes must start in the House, so any tax bill would need to start there, make it out, get a 1 or 2 CBO’s and then be voted on. The GOP has a hard time raising the debt ceiling, which only says they will pay for things they passed previously. They are going to need 60 votes in the Senate. This reconciliation plan was bad when the Democrats did it and it still sucks now. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
of course none of that is politically viable, but that wasn't the question I was looking at. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On June 28 2017 04:43 zlefin wrote: In response to earlier on Illinois which I said i'd come back to: I'd say I'd go for haircuts to the pension obligations; more taxes; and some spending cuts; a number of structural reforms; and prosecute as many of the corrupt as possible. of course none of that is politically viable, but that wasn't the question I was looking at. The Illinois Constitution has to be amended before they can address any of those issues. They cannot lower the amounts until that is changed. They are trapped in a problem they created for themselves that they will never have the political will to undo. | ||
KwarK
United States43989 Posts
I'm not relying upon it but that is an earned benefit, I should be able to expect to rely upon it. On the one hand I feel like there should be Federally issued standards to ensure that pensions cannot promise more than they can fund with contributions but on the other, I certainly wouldn't want pension funds to be run the same way the SSA is. What I really want is my employer to offer me a 401k instead (or whatever the Republican privatized pension offer turns out to be) but they discriminate the retirement plans available based on job title here because fuck them. | ||
|
FueledUpAndReadyToGo
Netherlands30548 Posts
On June 28 2017 03:27 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Have we ever had a President this superficial? That's pretty hilarious due to the global warming article then | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On June 28 2017 05:09 KwarK wrote: As someone who has a significant portion of my salary mandated into a pension scheme against my will I would be pretty pissed if I was subsequently told I wasn't getting all of it. 23% of my pretax salary gets put into a pension before I even think about the rest of my retirement savings etc. There is no mathematical way that a well managed pension fund couldn't balance that, given compound gains expected over 30 years. I'm not relying upon it but that is an earned benefit, I should be able to expect to rely upon it. On the one hand I feel like there should be Federally issued standards to ensure that pensions cannot promise more than they can fund with contributions but on the other, I certainly wouldn't want pension funds to be run the same way the SSA is. What I really want is my employer to offer me a 401k instead (or whatever the Republican privatized pension offer turns out to be) but they discriminate the retirement plans available based on job title here because fuck them. fortunately, the situation in illinois doesn't sound like the former worry; and more like the latter situation. sadly; promises with pension plans without considering the long term costs seems to be commonplace. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43989 Posts
On June 28 2017 05:14 zlefin wrote: fortunately, the situation in illinois doesn't sound like the former worry; and more like the latter situation. sadly; promises with pension plans without considering the long term costs seems to be commonplace. And yet I looked up the actuarial reports on my pension plan and it turns out we're also underfunded. Which is insane. There is no mathematical explanation for this. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
rough idea for IL would be -if disbursements > contribution, you're getting your future payments cut significantly -if disbursements < contribution, your payout might take a hit but your expected lifetime payout will remain ok -buyout offers - if not enough takers, then lottery system w/ the disbursements > conditions group receiving greater "win" chance (scaled by the delta) -set aside portion of funds/ savings for healthcare and other services for retirees - "structured benefits" vs cash payout, which theoretically could offset the haircut in some ways -publicly run retirement plan like a TSP with a hefty scaling match (more you save, higher % you match); those who take the buyout can put their monies here within a x year grace period. independent accounts vs. pension. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On June 28 2017 05:32 KwarK wrote: And yet I looked up the actuarial reports on my pension plan and it turns out we're also underfunded. Which is insane. There is no mathematical explanation for this. most pension plans are underfunded, aren't they? that seems like the norm to me. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
This week, our organization at OpenTheBooks.com debuted our interactive info mapping platform giving context to the 7,499 retired Illinois educators who pulled-down a pension of $100,000 or more. These retirees cost Illinois taxpayers $900 million (2015). Individually, these pension millionaires contributed so little to the system that they ‘broke-even’ on their ‘cost-basis’ within the first 20-months of retirement. It takes the equivalent of all income taxes paid by 330,177 individual Illinois taxpayers to fund the nearly $1 billion for the 7,499 ‘highly compensated’ six-figure retirees. By any estimation, this is unsustainable. Illinois only has 6.2 million people with jobs. Forbes Paid in vs paid out is one place to start looking. Also check the calculation of pension benefits as well as the bookkeeping tricks to make pension scheme look sustainable until the very end. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
| ||
|
Blitzkrieg0
United States13132 Posts
On June 28 2017 05:32 KwarK wrote: And yet I looked up the actuarial reports on my pension plan and it turns out we're also underfunded. Which is insane. There is no mathematical explanation for this. Sounds like they're running a Ponzi scheme instead of actually saving for the future. | ||
|
micronesia
United States24773 Posts
For the military, the current switch is from the legacy pension system which is very good for the servicemember, to the 'blended retirement system' which passes much of the risk of the investing to the employee rather than the agency. The key differences between the two systems are as follows: Legacy: It takes 20 years to get vested (so the majority of service members never get anything out of the system), however, any retirement after 20 years means you start collecting payments, regardless of how young you are (essentially you could be 37-38 and start collecting, and start a new career). Your payment works out to 2.5% x YEARS x salary (average of top 36 months I believe). New: You get up to 5% matching on TSP (like a 401k); You also can retire after 20+ years of service, but you only get 2% x YEARS x salary. There are a few other second-order changes as well. This system benefits people who don't stay in for 20 years because they get at least matching contributions from the government that stay with them after the separate. When I was teaching, the pension system was being changed to require teachers to pay more money into the system (more years of contributions), amongst other changes (don't know the rest of it because I was grandfathered into the legacy system and obviously didn't care as long as it was worse for me  ) | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
“The White House has been very involved in these discussion,” Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, said in announcing the postponement. “They’re very anxious to help.” But the Republican Senate leaders have made it known that they would much rather negotiate with Mr. Pence than the president, according to several White House and congressional officials. And some of the White House’s efforts have clearly been counterproductive. Mr. McConnell made clear his unhappiness to the White House after a “super PAC” aligned with Mr. Trump started an ad campaign against Senator Dean Heller, Republican of Nevada, when he said last week that he opposed the health care bill. The majority leader called the White House chief of staff, Reince Priebus, to complain that the attacks were “beyond stupid,” according to two Republicans with knowledge of the tense exchange on Saturday. Mr. McConnell, who has been toiling for weeks, mostly in private, to put together a measure that would satisfy hard-liners and moderates, told Mr. Priebus in his call that the assault by the group, America First, not only jeopardized the bill’s prospects but also imperiled Mr. Heller’s already difficult path to re-election. www.nytimes.com | ||
| ||
