|
|
Netherlands6068 Posts
On August 30 2012 05:31 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2012 05:07 Derez wrote:On August 30 2012 04:54 Defacer wrote:
The cold hard truth is that tax revenue must rise as the boomers age and America doubles the number of people on Social Security and Medicare. I'm not even sure if gutting defense or medicare will cover it. Social Security is untouchable debt the government already owes boomers who have been paying taxes their entire lives.
Social security isn't untouchable, and there's no 'debt' the government owes to boomers that have been paying all their lives (they've been paying way too little in the first place). While people might feel like they deserve it, that's not how the system works and eventual cutbacks on social security are simply unavoidable, even with tax increases. That's pretty much true for any developed nation in the world. I'm not well versed on social security, but isn't american SS running a surplus for the next several years or so? Any SS cut just seems like a way to pay for corporate tax cuts straight from working class pockets.
It should be till about 2017, but current projections have the trust fund broke by 2040. Aside from who gets taxed for it, some part of the population is going to be paying a higher social security tax than the generation before them. Additionally, the current social security surplusses are 'invested' into the US government debt (about 20% of overall US debt), which will have to be refinanced at a higher rate when they expire, adding to the tax burden overall.
All I ment to say was that people feel that social security is something they 'save' for themselves, which isn't true at all. The babyboom generation has done an excellent job of taking more than their fair share out of the economic system and leaving the next generation with the problem. Sadly, no party actually cares about intergenerational justice: as long as you get reelected in 4 years, whats the problem?
|
Wow. How many times do you get to use the phrase "intergenerational justice"? That should be used by casters because that sounds awesome. Could be the name of a punk band.
|
On August 30 2012 06:00 xDaunt wrote:
What, are we really going to pretend that Obama wouldn't have pushed for the inclusion of a public option and single payer system in Obamacare if he could have gotten the support for it from his own party?
No. I recall there where factions of the Democratic Congress that was pissed Obama wasn't pushing for single payer.
|
On August 30 2012 06:37 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2012 06:00 xDaunt wrote:
What, are we really going to pretend that Obama wouldn't have pushed for the inclusion of a public option and single payer system in Obamacare if he could have gotten the support for it from his own party? No. I recall there where factions of the Democratic Congress that was pissed Obama wasn't pushing for single payer.
And the only real politicking Obama did was to strongarm progressive Democrats into shutting up about the public option.
|
On August 30 2012 06:37 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2012 06:00 xDaunt wrote:
What, are we really going to pretend that Obama wouldn't have pushed for the inclusion of a public option and single payer system in Obamacare if he could have gotten the support for it from his own party? No. I recall there where factions of the Democratic Congress that was pissed Obama wasn't pushing for single payer.
Right. What I'm saying is that the only reason Obama didn't push for single-payer is because he couldn't gather enough support from democrats (and obviously wasn't going to get support from republicans) to pass it. The blue dogs wouldn't do it, and Obama had arm-wrestle a bunch of them into voting for Obamacare.
Ideologically, does anyone not think that Obama would pass single-payer if he could? I don't have any doubt whatsoever that he would.
|
On August 30 2012 06:45 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2012 06:37 Defacer wrote:On August 30 2012 06:00 xDaunt wrote:
What, are we really going to pretend that Obama wouldn't have pushed for the inclusion of a public option and single payer system in Obamacare if he could have gotten the support for it from his own party? No. I recall there where factions of the Democratic Congress that was pissed Obama wasn't pushing for single payer. Right. What I'm saying is that the only reason Obama didn't push for single-payer is because he couldn't gather enough support from democrats (and obviously wasn't going to get support from republicans) to pass it. The blue dogs wouldn't do it, and Obama had arm-wrestle a bunch of them into voting for Obamacare. Ideologically, does anyone not think that Obama would pass single-payer if he could? I don't have any doubt whatsoever that he would.
I think its a kind of moot point, since there are plenty of really extreme things that many democrats/republicans would do if it were politically possible. Doesn't mean its really indicative of the politician per se.
|
On August 30 2012 06:45 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2012 06:37 Defacer wrote:On August 30 2012 06:00 xDaunt wrote:
What, are we really going to pretend that Obama wouldn't have pushed for the inclusion of a public option and single payer system in Obamacare if he could have gotten the support for it from his own party? No. I recall there where factions of the Democratic Congress that was pissed Obama wasn't pushing for single payer. Right. What I'm saying is that the only reason Obama didn't push for single-payer is because he couldn't gather enough support from democrats (and obviously wasn't going to get support from republicans) to pass it. The blue dogs wouldn't do it, and Obama had arm-wrestle a bunch of them into voting for Obamacare. Ideologically, does anyone not think that Obama would pass single-payer if he could? I don't have any doubt whatsoever that he would.
Is this how you judge people? By your own fanciful image of them in your head besides the actual actions that they do? Or is this just how you judge democrats? The Republicans can even do actions and you still won't think that they are crazy ideologically.
I doubt Obama would even want to do something that could have a drastic effect on the healthcare industry. He's shown that he is a pretty big corporatist, so no, I doubt he would actually favor fully socialized medicine.
|
On August 30 2012 06:25 Derez wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2012 05:31 Roe wrote:On August 30 2012 05:07 Derez wrote:On August 30 2012 04:54 Defacer wrote:
The cold hard truth is that tax revenue must rise as the boomers age and America doubles the number of people on Social Security and Medicare. I'm not even sure if gutting defense or medicare will cover it. Social Security is untouchable debt the government already owes boomers who have been paying taxes their entire lives.
Social security isn't untouchable, and there's no 'debt' the government owes to boomers that have been paying all their lives (they've been paying way too little in the first place). While people might feel like they deserve it, that's not how the system works and eventual cutbacks on social security are simply unavoidable, even with tax increases. That's pretty much true for any developed nation in the world. I'm not well versed on social security, but isn't american SS running a surplus for the next several years or so? Any SS cut just seems like a way to pay for corporate tax cuts straight from working class pockets. It should be till about 2017, but current projections have the trust fund broke by 2040. Aside from who gets taxed for it, some part of the population is going to be paying a higher social security tax than the generation before them. Additionally, the current social security surplusses are 'invested' into the US government debt (about 20% of overall US debt), which will have to be refinanced at a higher rate when they expire, adding to the tax burden overall. All I ment to say was that people feel that social security is something they 'save' for themselves, which isn't true at all. The babyboom generation has done an excellent job of taking more than their fair share out of the economic system and leaving the next generation with the problem. Sadly, no party actually cares about intergenerational justice: as long as you get reelected in 4 years, whats the problem?
That's sort of the problem we all face in the coming future, as all the babyboomers go into seniority and become old, the burden on healthcare and social security is going to become heavier. What can you do though. Cutting corporate taxes won't affect them, cutting SS/healthcare would only hurt them because they paid into it their whole lives expecting to be paid back a fair amount. I think all you can do is increase taxes to accommodate the extra burden while they're still around. I don't know, the alternative of letting all the old people die off so we don't have to pay more money is a little sick.
|
Most of the AmA with Obama was rather empty on news as can be expected, but 2 quotes stand out to me:
Money has always been a factor in politics, but we are seeing something new in the no-holds barred flow of seven and eight figure checks, most undisclosed, into super-PACs; they fundamentally threaten to overwhelm the political process over the long run and drown out the voices of ordinary citizens. We need to start with passing the Disclose Act that is already written and been sponsored in Congress - to at least force disclosure of who is giving to who. We should also pass legislation prohibiting the bundling of campaign contributions from lobbyists. Over the longer term, I think we need to seriously consider mobilizing a constitutional amendment process to overturn Citizens United (assuming the Supreme Court doesn't revisit it). Even if the amendment process falls short, it can shine a spotlight of the super-PAC phenomenon and help apply pressure for change.
He is using very clear language about super-PACs and it is clear that he is passionately against how it works at the moment and especially the problem of no disclosure of who are supporting them economically. I am surprised that he is so much against it. He might be hurting his own super-PACs by this kind of damning language against them!
Second quote:
I understand how tough it is out there for recent grads. You're right - your long term prospects are great, but that doesn't help in the short term. Obviously some of the steps we have taken already help young people at the start of their careers. Because of the health care bill, you can stay on your parent's plan until you're twenty six. Because of our student loan bill, we are lowering the debt burdens that young people have to carry. But the key for your future, and all our futures, is an economy that is growing and creating solid middle class jobs - and that's why the choice in this election is so important. The other party has two ideas for growth - more taxs cuts for the wealthy (paid for by raising tax burdens on the middle class and gutting investments like education) and getting rid of regulations we've put in place to control the excesses on wall street and help consumers. These ideas have been tried, they didnt work, and will make the economy worse. I want to keep promoting advanced manufacturing that will bring jobs back to America, promote all-American energy sources (including wind and solar), keep investing in education and make college more affordable, rebuild our infrastructure, invest in science, and reduce our deficit in a balanced way with prudent spending cuts and higher taxes on folks making more than $250,000/year. I don't promise that this will solve all our immediate economic challenges, but my plans will lay the foundation for long term growth for your generation, and for generations to follow. So don't be discouraged - we didn't get into this fix overnight, and we won't get out overnight, but we are making progress and with your help will make more.
Mostly it seems defensive if anything. He is basically not saying anything other than Republicans = bad. Granted, it is limited how much he can say since the "why haven't you already..." is at every exit of the road. But given his money in politics opinion you should expect a little more from him on this issue, like a small piece of his second term plan.
The source for these quotes:
http://www.reddit.com/user/PresidentObama
|
On August 30 2012 07:15 radiatoren wrote:Mostly it seems defensive if anything. He is basically not saying anything other than Republicans = bad. Granted, it is limited how much he can say since the "why haven't you already..." is at every exit of the road. But given his money in politics opinion you should expect a little more from him on this issue, like a small piece of his second term plan. The source for these quotes: http://www.reddit.com/user/PresidentObama
Obama doesn't really have much of a choice other than to run on "Republicans are bad." He can't run on his record at all, which is a real problem, because the election will inevitably be a referendum on him.
|
Oh no.... the Bachmann cometh.... CNN why do you even give her air-time 
|
On August 30 2012 05:25 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2012 05:07 Derez wrote:On August 30 2012 04:54 Defacer wrote:
The cold hard truth is that tax revenue must rise as the boomers age and America doubles the number of people on Social Security and Medicare. I'm not even sure if gutting defense or medicare will cover it. Social Security is untouchable debt the government already owes boomers who have been paying taxes their entire lives.
Social security isn't untouchable, and there's no 'debt' the government owes to boomers that have been paying all their lives (they've been paying way too little in the first place). While people might feel like they deserve it, that's not how the system works and eventual cutbacks on social security are simply unavoidable, even with tax increases. That's pretty much true for any developed nation in the world. You made me sad ... for Americans. The Canadian Revenue Agency confirmed that the Canadian Pension Plan is secure for the next 75 years, even accounting for factors such as longer life expectancy, earlier retirement or another financial shock.
Aren't benefits lower for the CPP than SS?
|
On August 30 2012 08:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2012 05:25 Defacer wrote:On August 30 2012 05:07 Derez wrote:On August 30 2012 04:54 Defacer wrote:
The cold hard truth is that tax revenue must rise as the boomers age and America doubles the number of people on Social Security and Medicare. I'm not even sure if gutting defense or medicare will cover it. Social Security is untouchable debt the government already owes boomers who have been paying taxes their entire lives.
Social security isn't untouchable, and there's no 'debt' the government owes to boomers that have been paying all their lives (they've been paying way too little in the first place). While people might feel like they deserve it, that's not how the system works and eventual cutbacks on social security are simply unavoidable, even with tax increases. That's pretty much true for any developed nation in the world. You made me sad ... for Americans. The Canadian Revenue Agency confirmed that the Canadian Pension Plan is secure for the next 75 years, even accounting for factors such as longer life expectancy, earlier retirement or another financial shock. Aren't benefits lower for the CPP than SS?
Not sure. I'll research it tonight and get back to you. Unless you're baiting me and already know the answer. If so, by all means, enlighten me.
|
On August 30 2012 06:45 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2012 06:37 Defacer wrote:On August 30 2012 06:00 xDaunt wrote:
What, are we really going to pretend that Obama wouldn't have pushed for the inclusion of a public option and single payer system in Obamacare if he could have gotten the support for it from his own party? No. I recall there where factions of the Democratic Congress that was pissed Obama wasn't pushing for single payer. Right. What I'm saying is that the only reason Obama didn't push for single-payer is because he couldn't gather enough support from democrats (and obviously wasn't going to get support from republicans) to pass it. The blue dogs wouldn't do it, and Obama had arm-wrestle a bunch of them into voting for Obamacare. Ideologically, does anyone not think that Obama would pass single-payer if he could? I don't have any doubt whatsoever that he would.
Single-payer is a better system to me, personally, but that's a whole other fucking argument I don't want to get into. My concern with the individual mandate is that while it expands healthcare coverage and raises the standards of insurances and what they have to cover, it doesn't do much in the way of regulating and controlling costs. US healthcare is horribly overpriced and inefficient compared to other countries.
|
Canada11350 Posts
Oh I was dozing off listening to OneMoreGame. Rand Paul is on.
|
|
|
Hahaha... What you know, not who you know, yeah right. All big bussiness execs I have ever talked too say it is quite the opposite. Good speaker but as always spouting lies as politicians always seem to do. Good at spreading the bipartisan ideas though, the US could use less polarization.
|
Weird, he said you did build that. This is turning into a convention to find as many different voices to say "You did build that" as possible.
|
On August 30 2012 06:25 Derez wrote:
Sadly, no party actually cares about intergenerational justice: as long as you get reelected in 4 years, whats the problem?
Yes, as my favorite Confucian Daniel A. Bell points out, liberal democracy is decent at looking after the interests of voters, but very bad at looking after the interests of non-voters, like future generations.
|
Goddamnnit still at work. Yesterday the RNC was obviously pandering to the ladies and the 'others', what's the theme today?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
