If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   Three-quarters of all states are run through single-party government, which has led to the establishment of what are essentially 2 Americas. Herpistan and Derpistan, let's call them   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 196
    More: Stupid, red states, Democratic Governors Association, alternative model, National Governors Association, establishments, Republican Governors Association, National Conference of State Legislatures, state governments  
•       •       •

5133 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Dec 2013 at 1:43 PM (42 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



196 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-12-29 11:47:59 AM  
In every Derp house and in every Derp town every Derp eats his bread with the butter side down!

Long live Herpistan.
 
2013-12-29 12:02:08 PM  
Every Herp man and woman, every Herp kit and pup, every one of those Herps eats bread butter side up!

Long live Derpistan.
 
2013-12-29 12:21:38 PM  
Both sides are bad, so vote Herpderpublicat.
 
2013-12-29 12:44:04 PM  
So... Big-Endians and Little-Endians

/neither too Swift
 
2013-12-29 12:52:48 PM  
I'm a proud citizen of Herpistan.
 
2013-12-29 01:26:27 PM  
Good. Single party government is in a lot of ways a lot better - it lets you, as the voter, actually judge the government on its merits. Gridlocked government is a farking disaster of governance, both on a practical level and on an accountability level.
 
2013-12-29 01:50:40 PM  
Blue states in the year 2050:
1.bp.blogspot.com

Red States in the Year 2050:
www.centives.net
 
2013-12-29 01:51:30 PM  
FTA: "One is grounded in principles of lean and limited government and on traditional values; the other is built on a belief in the essential role of government and on tenets of cultural liberalism."

Why this shiat again?
 
2013-12-29 01:53:33 PM  
One is grounded in principles of lean and limited government and on traditional values; the other is built on a belief in the essential role of government and on tenets of cultural liberalism.

Uh huh.  Sure, that's a euphemistic way of phrasing, scared old xenophobes.
 
2013-12-29 01:56:05 PM  
*considers posting, then just says "meh" and goes back to skyrim*
 
2013-12-29 01:57:28 PM  
Yeah I live in New York, the State has a moderate liberal governor (and before that two moderate libs and a moderate repub before that) and far-left run democrat state assembly and a staunchly conservative run Republican State Senate. And nothing gets done and it works out pretty well. The state went for nearly six years without a budget not that long ago, and it still ran pretty well. NYC which has until jan 1, 4 republicans and 47 democrats to be 3 repubs and 48 dems next year. And 44 of the dems identify as liberal. We had a liberal mayor (except on taxes) for 12 years now and a fringe liberal incoming, and NYC is billions in debt and badly managed. I think when we had a repub mayor like Rudy with a liberal council, things worked out better and maybe if the city council was more balanced the city would be run better.

 I like the split, it keeps things balanced and normal
 
2013-12-29 01:57:56 PM  
Republican states have pursued economic and fiscal strategies built around lower taxes, deeper spending cuts and less regulation. They have declined to set up state health-insurance exchanges to implement President Obama's Affordable Care Act. They have clashed with labor unions.

Blue states have also been forced to cut spending, given the budgetary pressures caused by the recession. But rather than cutting more deeply, a number of them also have raised taxes to pay for education or infrastructure. They have backed the president on the main elements of his health-care law.


If this is actually true, then we should soon have enough data to judge which approach really worked best.  Prediction: The data is ignored and the right keeps both index fingers firmly planted in ears, chants lalalala.
 
2013-12-29 01:59:23 PM  

jedihirsch: Yeah I live in New York, the State has a moderate liberal governor (and before that two moderate libs and a moderate repub before that) and far-left run democrat state assembly and a staunchly conservative run Republican State Senate. And nothing gets done and it works out pretty well. The state went for nearly six years without a budget not that long ago, and it still ran pretty well. NYC which has until jan 1, 4 republicans and 47 democrats to be 3 repubs and 48 dems next year. And 44 of the dems identify as liberal. We had a liberal mayor (except on taxes) for 12 years now and a fringe liberal incoming, and NYC is billions in debt and badly managed. I think when we had a repub mayor like Rudy with a liberal council, things worked out better and maybe if the city council was more balanced the city would be run better.

 I like the split, it keeps things balanced and normal


This is s truly terrible argument.
 
2013-12-29 01:59:45 PM  

TV's Vinnie: Blue states in the year 2050:
[1.bp.blogspot.com image 850x680]

Red States in the Year 2050:
[www.centives.net image 800x526]


The latter is Wichita, KS, right?
 
2013-12-29 02:01:21 PM  

jedihirsch: Yeah I live in New York, the State has a moderate liberal governor (and before that two moderate libs and a moderate repub before that) and far-left run democrat state assembly and a staunchly conservative run Republican State Senate. And nothing gets done and it works out pretty well. The state went for nearly six years without a budget not that long ago, and it still ran pretty well. NYC which has until jan 1, 4 republicans and 47 democrats to be 3 repubs and 48 dems next year. And 44 of the dems identify as liberal. We had a liberal mayor (except on taxes) for 12 years now and a fringe liberal incoming, and NYC is billions in debt and badly managed. I think when we had a repub mayor like Rudy with a liberal council, things worked out better and maybe if the city council was more balanced the city would be run better.

 I like the split, it keeps things balanced and normal


California has been on an amazing tear since the Democrats completely took over.  Single party government can work, just not single party Republican government.
 
2013-12-29 02:01:36 PM  

El Pachuco: One is grounded in principles of lean and limited government and on traditional values; the other is built on a belief in the essential role of government and on tenets of cultural liberalism.

Uh huh.  Sure, that's a euphemistic way of phrasing, scared old xenophobes.


And

northbysouth.kenyon.edu
 
2013-12-29 02:01:39 PM  
Or we could get to the psychology of it, and call them My Team and The Bad People.
 
2013-12-29 02:03:01 PM  
A derp in every pot.

It worked great for Detroit, which was once one of the wealthiest and refined cities of the world.
 
2013-12-29 02:06:46 PM  

Son of Thunder: Or we could get to the psychology of it, and call them My Team and The Bad People.


So you're saying both sides are bad?  How should I vote then?
 
2013-12-29 02:07:27 PM  

make me some tea: I'm a proud citizen of Herpistan.


O.o

/Couldn't resist the joke.
//*throws some teriyaki-marinated chicken thighs on the grill as peace offering*
 
2013-12-29 02:08:49 PM  
Stupid should be trumped by obvious.

We dont even know who the candidates for the 2016 election will be since Obummer is term limited and the republicans arent the party in power at the second but we can already call like 3/4 of the states results for the 2016 election.
 
2013-12-29 02:09:31 PM  
Florida tag = state run by teabaggers.
 
2013-12-29 02:10:56 PM  

TV's Vinnie: Red States in the Year 2050:
[www.centives.net image 800x526]


Analogy doesn't work. Looks like there's some adequate volcano monitoring, a completed construction project and a fluency in Black Speech.
 
2013-12-29 02:11:49 PM  

StopLurkListen: El Pachuco: One is grounded in principles of lean and limited government and on traditional values; the other is built on a belief in the essential role of government and on tenets of cultural liberalism.

Uh huh.  Sure, that's a euphemistic way of phrasing, scared old xenophobes.

And


Why are you showing a 50 year old pic of a Democrat controled at the time state?
 
2013-12-29 02:15:49 PM  

Bareefer Obonghit: In every Derp house and in every Derp town every Derp eats his bread with the butter side down!

Long live Herpistan.


Pocket Ninja: Every Herp man and woman, every Herp kit and pup, every one of those Herps eats bread butter side up!

Long live Derpistan.


I eat bread without butter.
 
2013-12-29 02:18:33 PM  
A prime example of  how conservatives would run a state (or country) if they get full control is NC. After 2012 the state legislature ended up with a veto proof majority of rabid, far right conservatives in both houses, with a rubber stamp conservative in the Governor's seat too.

The result has been a total reversal of decades of governing by liberals and progressives that had NC considered the most forward thinking state in the South. Voting restrictions, abortion restrictions, environmental deregulation, education defunding, taking power away from cities and counties (despite claims from conservatives that 'local government is the best'), implementing an anti-gay marriage amendment to the state constitution, raising taxes on the middle class and poor while lowering them on the rich, and passing business friendly laws were all accomplished in 2013, all over the objections of both the Democrats in the legislature and the public in general.

No telling what they'll come up with in 2014.
 
2013-12-29 02:18:52 PM  

TV's Vinnie: Blue states in the year 2050:
[1.bp.blogspot.com image 850x680]

Red States in the Year 2050:
[www.centives.net image 800x526]


Satisfying as such images may be, they don't take into account the red state propensity to accept more more from the federal government than they pay in taxes. The one statement you will never hear is a red state governor saying "Sorry, we can';t accept these extra funds from the Federal government. We'll just hobble along using the taxes collected in our state." As a Massachusettsian, I calculate that my Federal taxes could be cut by 25% with no change in services if we didn't have to prop up those Welfare queen states  like Mississippi, South Carolina and Alaska. When are you welfare cheats gonna start pulling your own weight?
 
2013-12-29 02:19:29 PM  

jedihirsch: Yeah I live in New York, the State has a moderate liberal governor (and before that two moderate libs and a moderate repub before that) and far-left run democrat state assembly and a staunchly conservative run Republican State Senate. And nothing gets done and it works out pretty well. The state went for nearly six years without a budget not that long ago, and it still ran pretty well. NYC which has until jan 1, 4 republicans and 47 democrats to be 3 repubs and 48 dems next year. And 44 of the dems identify as liberal. We had a liberal mayor (except on taxes) for 12 years now and a fringe liberal incoming, and NYC is billions in debt and badly managed. I think when we had a repub mayor like Rudy with a liberal council, things worked out better and maybe if the city council was more balanced the city would be run better.

 I like the split, it keeps things balanced and normal


Bloomberg, a liberal? Really?
 
2013-12-29 02:22:28 PM  

jedihirsch: Yeah I live in New York, the State has a moderate liberal governor (and before that two moderate libs and a moderate repub before that) and far-left run democrat state assembly and a staunchly conservative run Republican State Senate. And nothing gets done and it works out pretty well. The state went for nearly six years without a budget not that long ago, and it still ran pretty well. NYC which has until jan 1, 4 republicans and 47 democrats to be 3 repubs and 48 dems next year. And 44 of the dems identify as liberal. We had a liberal mayor (except on taxes) for 12 years now and a fringe liberal incoming, and NYC is billions in debt and badly managed. I think when we had a repub mayor like Rudy with a liberal council, things worked out better and maybe if the city council was more balanced the city would be run better.

 I like the split, it keeps things balanced and normal


I'm wondering how you are characterizing the performance of the state and city governments.  With respect to the deficit, the state and city budgets were in deficit around the same time, mainly because of the financial crisis (the state budget appears to be in balance as of 2013, although with projected deficits for 2014 and later; the city budget appears to be in deficit now but is projected to be balanced in 2015).
 
2013-12-29 02:22:42 PM  

IlGreven: Bareefer Obonghit: In every Derp house and in every Derp town every Derp eats his bread with the butter side down!

Long live Herpistan.

Pocket Ninja: Every Herp man and woman, every Herp kit and pup, every one of those Herps eats bread butter side up!

Long live Derpistan.

I eat bread without butter.


Oh look everyone, it's a buttertarian!
 
2013-12-29 02:23:05 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2013-12-29 02:24:08 PM  

Craptastic: IlGreven: Bareefer Obonghit: In every Derp house and in every Derp town every Derp eats his bread with the butter side down!

Long live Herpistan.

Pocket Ninja: Every Herp man and woman, every Herp kit and pup, every one of those Herps eats bread butter side up!

Long live Derpistan.

I eat bread without butter.

Oh look everyone, it's a buttertarian!


I eat without bread.
 
2013-12-29 02:25:36 PM  
Political polarization has ushered in a new era in state government, where single-party control of the levers of power has produced competing Americas. One is grounded in principles of lean and limited government and on traditional values LIBS SUCK; the other is built on a belief in the essential role of government and on tenets of cultural liberalism Repubs have become a bit wacko, don't you think?.


FTFWaPo
 
2013-12-29 02:27:22 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: jedihirsch: Yeah I live in New York, the State has a moderate liberal governor (and before that two moderate libs and a moderate repub before that) and far-left run democrat state assembly and a staunchly conservative run Republican State Senate. And nothing gets done and it works out pretty well. The state went for nearly six years without a budget not that long ago, and it still ran pretty well. NYC which has until jan 1, 4 republicans and 47 democrats to be 3 repubs and 48 dems next year. And 44 of the dems identify as liberal. We had a liberal mayor (except on taxes) for 12 years now and a fringe liberal incoming, and NYC is billions in debt and badly managed. I think when we had a repub mayor like Rudy with a liberal council, things worked out better and maybe if the city council was more balanced the city would be run better.

 I like the split, it keeps things balanced and normal

California has been on an amazing tear since the Democrats completely took over.  Single party government can work, just not single party Republican government.


All you had to do was shortchange state pensions by about a hundred billion and pray the feds bail you out when the bill comes due.
 
2013-12-29 02:28:32 PM  

El Pachuco: One is grounded in principles of lean and limited government and on traditional values; the other is built on a belief in the essential role of government and on tenets of cultural liberalism.

Uh huh.  Sure, that's a euphemistic way of phrasing, scared old xenophobes.


"He knew about concerned citizens. Wherever they were, they all spoke the same private language, where 'traditional values' meant 'hang someone'."  ~  T. Pratchett
 
2013-12-29 02:29:14 PM  

clambam: The one statement you will never hear is a red state governor saying "Sorry, we can';t accept these extra funds from the Federal government.


You don't pay attention too much do you?
 
2013-12-29 02:29:49 PM  

Oldiron_79: StopLurkListen: El Pachuco: One is grounded in principles of lean and limited government and on traditional values; the other is built on a belief in the essential role of government and on tenets of cultural liberalism.

Uh huh.  Sure, that's a euphemistic way of phrasing, scared old xenophobes.

And

Why are you showing a 50 year old pic of a Democrat controled at the time state?


That "sentence" only barely resembles standard written English. I'm guessing you were home schooled?
 
2013-12-29 02:36:26 PM  

Bendal: A prime example of  how conservatives would run a state (or country) if they get full control is NC. After 2012 the state legislature ended up with a veto proof majority of rabid, far right conservatives in both houses, with a rubber stamp conservative in the Governor's seat too.

The result has been a total reversal of decades of governing by liberals and progressives that had NC considered the most forward thinking state in the South. Voting restrictions, abortion restrictions, environmental deregulation, education defunding, taking power away from cities and counties (despite claims from conservatives that 'local government is the best'), implementing an anti-gay marriage amendment to the state constitution, raising taxes on the middle class and poor while lowering them on the rich, and passing business friendly laws were all accomplished in 2013, all over the objections of both the Democrats in the legislature and the public in general.

No telling what they'll come up with in 2014.


Sounds a lot like here in WI.
 
2013-12-29 02:37:32 PM  

BMulligan: Oldiron_79: StopLurkListen: El Pachuco: One is grounded in principles of lean and limited government and on traditional values; the other is built on a belief in the essential role of government and on tenets of cultural liberalism.

Uh huh.  Sure, that's a euphemistic way of phrasing, scared old xenophobes.

And

Why are you showing a 50 year old pic of a Democrat controled at the time state?

That "sentence" only barely resembles standard written English. I'm guessing you were home schooled?


THANK YOU! I was scared I was drunk and should go home and I really haven't had much to drink today. Also, I'm already home so I wasn't sure what steps to take next.. That word salad was just absurd.
 
2013-12-29 02:37:37 PM  

IlGreven: Bareefer Obonghit: In every Derp house and in every Derp town every Derp eats his bread with the butter side down!

Long live Herpistan.

Pocket Ninja: Every Herp man and woman, every Herp kit and pup, every one of those Herps eats bread butter side up!

Long live Derpistan.

I eat bread without butter.


That's a religion.
 
2013-12-29 02:37:51 PM  

IlGreven: Bareefer Obonghit: In every Derp house and in every Derp town every Derp eats his bread with the butter side down!

Long live Herpistan.

Pocket Ninja: Every Herp man and woman, every Herp kit and pup, every one of those Herps eats bread butter side up!

Long live Derpistan.

I eat bread without butter.


I voted for Kodos.
 
2013-12-29 02:38:29 PM  

Delay: FTA: "One is grounded in principles of lean and limited government and on traditional values; the other is built on a belief in the essential role of government and on tenets of cultural liberalism."

Why this shiat again?


Apparently we're still having the "Do we really need government" argument.

This is what happens when you don't teach civics in school, folks.
 
2013-12-29 02:41:51 PM  

Thrag: jedihirsch: Yeah I live in New York, the State has a moderate liberal governor (and before that two moderate libs and a moderate repub before that) and far-left run democrat state assembly and a staunchly conservative run Republican State Senate. And nothing gets done and it works out pretty well. The state went for nearly six years without a budget not that long ago, and it still ran pretty well. NYC which has until jan 1, 4 republicans and 47 democrats to be 3 repubs and 48 dems next year. And 44 of the dems identify as liberal. We had a liberal mayor (except on taxes) for 12 years now and a fringe liberal incoming, and NYC is billions in debt and badly managed. I think when we had a repub mayor like Rudy with a liberal council, things worked out better and maybe if the city council was more balanced the city would be run better.

 I like the split, it keeps things balanced and normal

Bloomberg, a liberal? Really?


Bloomberg is an aspiring benevolent dictator. I wouldn't brand him as either liberal or conservative.
 
2013-12-29 02:43:40 PM  

clambam: s a Massachusettsian, I calculate that my Federal taxes could be cut by 25% with no change in services if we didn't have to prop up those Welfare queen states  like Mississippi, South Carolina and Alaska. When are you welfare cheats gonna start pulling your own weight?


If you notice, WV is the biggest 'welfare cheat' and notice where it is located on the TFA's list.

www.ritholtz.com
 
2013-12-29 02:48:39 PM  

HeadLever: clambam: The one statement you will never hear is a red state governor saying "Sorry, we can';t accept these extra funds from the Federal government.

You don't pay attention too much do you?


No money in it for the politicians and their cronies. Screw the pre-school children of Louisiana.
 
2013-12-29 02:50:13 PM  

TV's Vinnie: Blue states in the year 2050:
[1.bp.blogspot.com image 850x680]

Red States in the Year 2050:
[www.centives.net image 800x526]


Name the specific Repub policies that will cause that to pass.
 
2013-12-29 02:51:42 PM  

HeadLever: clambam: The one statement you will never hear is a red state governor saying "Sorry, we can';t accept these extra funds from the Federal government.

You don't pay attention too much do you?



Oh sure, they make a big show about rejecting Federal money and saying "We can do it better on our own. With Blackjack. And Hookers". But then when things start falling apart, they come crawling back...
 
2013-12-29 02:53:39 PM  

make me some tea: Bloomberg is an aspiring benevolent dictator. I wouldn't brand him as either liberal or conservative.


And the NY Liberals who fought for him to get a third term have all regretted it.

/term limits is another form of mitigating risk
 
2013-12-29 02:55:13 PM  

gingerjet: make me some tea: Bloomberg is an aspiring benevolent dictator. I wouldn't brand him as either liberal or conservative.

And the NY Liberals who fought for him to get a third term have all regretted it.

/term limits is another form of mitigating risk


No, it isn't: Term limits leave the executive and the legislation at the mercy of the bureaucrats.
 
2013-12-29 02:55:45 PM  

make me some tea: Thrag: jedihirsch: Yeah I live in New York, the State has a moderate liberal governor (and before that two moderate libs and a moderate repub before that) and far-left run democrat state assembly and a staunchly conservative run Republican State Senate. And nothing gets done and it works out pretty well. The state went for nearly six years without a budget not that long ago, and it still ran pretty well. NYC which has until jan 1, 4 republicans and 47 democrats to be 3 repubs and 48 dems next year. And 44 of the dems identify as liberal. We had a liberal mayor (except on taxes) for 12 years now and a fringe liberal incoming, and NYC is billions in debt and badly managed. I think when we had a repub mayor like Rudy with a liberal council, things worked out better and maybe if the city council was more balanced the city would be run better.

 I like the split, it keeps things balanced and normal

Bloomberg, a liberal? Really?

Bloomberg is an aspiring benevolent dictator. I wouldn't brand him as either liberal or conservative.


He seems to be authoritarian when it comes to most people, but libertarian when it comes to people in his economic class ($10,000,000/year or greater).
 
2013-12-29 02:56:35 PM  

clambam: No money in it for the politicians and their cronies. Screw the pre-school children of Louisiana.


Lol, those goalpost heavy?
 
2013-12-29 02:57:24 PM  

BMulligan: Oldiron_79: StopLurkListen: El Pachuco: One is grounded in principles of lean and limited government and on traditional values; the other is built on a belief in the essential role of government and on tenets of cultural liberalism.

Uh huh.  Sure, that's a euphemistic way of phrasing, scared old xenophobes.

And

Why are you showing a 50 year old pic of a Democrat controled at the time state?

That "sentence" only barely resembles standard written English. I'm guessing you were home schooled?


Forget it Jake, it's Derptown
 
2013-12-29 03:01:51 PM  
This thread could not have started any better.
 
2013-12-29 03:01:57 PM  

El Pachuco: Republican states have pursued economic and fiscal strategies built around lower taxes, deeper spending cuts and less regulation. They have declined to set up state health-insurance exchanges to implement President Obama's Affordable Care Act. They have clashed with labor unions.

Blue states have also been forced to cut spending, given the budgetary pressures caused by the recession. But rather than cutting more deeply, a number of them also have raised taxes to pay for education or infrastructure. They have backed the president on the main elements of his health-care law.

If this is actually true, then we should soon have enough data to judge which approach really worked best.  Prediction: The data is ignored and the right keeps both index fingers firmly planted in ears, chants lalalala.


And if the blue state policies turn out to be failures, it will still be the Republican's fault, the way the Obamacare disaster is due to the GOP thinking evil thoughts at it.
 
2013-12-29 03:02:26 PM  

chuggernaught: TV's Vinnie: Blue states in the year 2050:
[1.bp.blogspot.com image 850x680]

Red States in the Year 2050:
[www.centives.net image 800x526]

Name the specific Repub policies that will cause that to pass.


Cuts to education spending, selling public utilities to private corporations and then leading them back at 150-200% markup, getting rid of union protections... I mean, how many are you looking for?
 
2013-12-29 03:03:27 PM  

glmorrs1: chuggernaught: TV's Vinnie: Blue states in the year 2050:
[1.bp.blogspot.com image 850x680]

Red States in the Year 2050:
[www.centives.net image 800x526]

Name the specific Repub policies that will cause that to pass.

Cuts to education spending, selling public utilities to private corporations and then leading them back at 150-200% markup, getting rid of union protections... I mean, how many are you looking for?


*leasing
 
2013-12-29 03:04:02 PM  

Kit Fister: *considers posting, then just says "meh" and goes back to skyrim*


Good. Save us the threadshiat.
 
2013-12-29 03:04:33 PM  

Bendal: A prime example of  how conservatives would run a state (or country) if they get full control is NC. After 2012 the state legislature ended up with a veto proof majority of rabid, far right conservatives in both houses, with a rubber stamp conservative in the Governor's seat too.

The result has been a total reversal of decades of governing by liberals and progressives that had NC considered the most forward thinking state in the South. Voting restrictions, abortion restrictions, environmental deregulation, education defunding, taking power away from cities and counties (despite claims from conservatives that 'local government is the best'), implementing an anti-gay marriage amendment to the state constitution, raising taxes on the middle class and poor while lowering them on the rich, and passing business friendly laws were all accomplished in 2013, all over the objections of both the Democrats in the legislature and the public in general.

No telling what they'll come up with in 2014.


I'm hoping the AA is as pissed off as they should be about the voter supression shiat. We are firmly a purple state now. It doesn't take much to swing the pendulum. The education cuts are not sitting well with the derpers either.
 
2013-12-29 03:08:16 PM  
You're not allowed to criticize both sides submitter, that means you must think that Both Sides Are Badtm.
 
2013-12-29 03:08:40 PM  

IlGreven: Bareefer Obonghit: In every Derp house and in every Derp town every Derp eats his bread with the butter side down!

Long live Herpistan.

Pocket Ninja: Every Herp man and woman, every Herp kit and pup, every one of those Herps eats bread butter side up!

Long live Derpistan.

I eat bread without butter.


why would anyone waste good butter by putting dry bread on it?
 
2013-12-29 03:09:53 PM  
I have a hard enough time just keeping up with national politics and those from my own state. I can't really give too much of a shiat about what is going around in state houses around the country.
 
2013-12-29 03:10:16 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: gingerjet: make me some tea: Bloomberg is an aspiring benevolent dictator. I wouldn't brand him as either liberal or conservative.

And the NY Liberals who fought for him to get a third term have all regretted it.

/term limits is another form of mitigating risk

No, it isn't: Term limits leave the executive and the legislation at the mercy of the bureaucrats.



I think there's valid arguments to be made on both sides of this argument, and it's something that we as a whole haven't really solved yet.

On one hand, term limits can be good because they prevent a cult-of-personality from perpetual rule and creating such an effective self-perpetuating machine that nobody can ever get them out of power, and corruption abounds.

On the other hand, term limits can be bad, because during a lame duck session the bureaucrat now has no incentive to serve the public beyond their public legacy, and is free to focus on crafting legislation and policies that will benefit him/her once out of office.


Which is worse? I haven't decided yet.

I just had a funny thought though. Perhaps instead of a straight term limit, we impose a system of handicaps. Say, for every year you serve in office past your initial term, 1% of your popular vote total subtracted during your next election for the same seat. So for a senator, you get your unadjusted vote total for your first and 2nd elections, but your third election puts you at a 6% disadvantage, increasing every term.

There's probably a billion things wrong with this, but it's interesting to think about.
 
2013-12-29 03:13:20 PM  

jjorsett: El Pachuco: Republican states have pursued economic and fiscal strategies built around lower taxes, deeper spending cuts and less regulation. They have declined to set up state health-insurance exchanges to implement President Obama's Affordable Care Act. They have clashed with labor unions.

Blue states have also been forced to cut spending, given the budgetary pressures caused by the recession. But rather than cutting more deeply, a number of them also have raised taxes to pay for education or infrastructure. They have backed the president on the main elements of his health-care law.

If this is actually true, then we should soon have enough data to judge which approach really worked best.  Prediction: The data is ignored and the right keeps both index fingers firmly planted in ears, chants lalalala.

And if the blue state policies turn out to be failures, it will still be the Republican's fault, the way the Obamacare disaster is due to the GOP thinking evil thoughts at it.


Hah yeah or say the failures of the left are a secret plot to usher in an even BetterPlan (tm). Just like how the ACA was a deliberate clusterfark to usher in single payer.
 
2013-12-29 03:14:47 PM  

jjorsett: Obamacare disaster


Millions of people gaining the opportunity for insurance... man, what a disaster.

/only because you think it is
//benghazibenghazibenghazibenghazi
 
2013-12-29 03:17:46 PM  

jjorsett: And if the blue state policies turn out to be failures, it will still be the Republican's fault, the way the Obamacare disaster is due to the GOP thinking evil thoughts at it.


I know you're not accepting responsibility here or anything, but this is a useful reminder of how the the Republicans did everything they could possibly think of to sabotage the ACA, including trying to repeal it 47 times.  Any program facing that much opposition is going to have a few tiny implementation problems.

Or, in terms simple enough for you to get:

Obama: The ACA will help millions of Americans get healthcare insurance.

GOP: Oh Hell Naw!!!! *sabotage*sabotage*sabotage*sabotage*sabotage *sabotage *sabotage *sa b otage *sabotage *sabotage *sabotage *sabotage *sabotage *sabotage *sab otage *sabotage *sabotage *sabotage *sabotage *sabotage *sabotage *sab otage *sabotage *sabotage *sabotage *sabotage *sabotage *sabotage *sab otage *sabotage *sabotage *sabotage *sabotage *sabotage *sabotage *sab otage *sabotage *sabotage *sabotage *sabotage *sabotage *sabotage *sab otage *sabotage *sabotage *sabotage *sabotage *sabotage *sabotage *sab otage *sabotage *sabotage *sabotage *sabotage *sabotage *sabotage *sab otage *sabotage *sabotage *sabotage *sabotage *sabotage *sabotage *sab otage *sabotage *sabotage *sabotage *sabotage *sabotage *sabotage *sab otage

GOP: Har har lookit all the problems with Obamacare!!!
 
2013-12-29 03:21:23 PM  

glmorrs1: chuggernaught: TV's Vinnie: Blue states in the year 2050:
[1.bp.blogspot.com image 850x680]

Red States in the Year 2050:
[www.centives.net image 800x526]

Name the specific Repub policies that will cause that to pass.

Cuts to education spending, selling public utilities to private corporations and then leading them back at 150-200% markup, getting rid of union protections... I mean, how many are you looking for?


Don't forget regressive taxation and the evisceration of environmental regulations.
 
2013-12-29 03:25:13 PM  

HeadLever: clambam: No money in it for the politicians and their cronies. Screw the pre-school children of Louisiana.

Lol, those goalpost heavy?


You are indeed technically correct, which is, as we all know, the best kind of correct. Doesn't obviate the fact though that Massachusetts gets 83 cents in services for every dollar it send to the Federal government, while Louisiana get $2.73 back. When you're sucking that ferociously at the Federal teat, I guess it's OK to turns down fourths on occasion.
 
2013-12-29 03:29:39 PM  

clambam: while Louisiana get $2.73 back. When you're sucking that ferociously at the Federal teat, I guess it's OK to turns down fourths on occasion.


Ok, I'll add geography to the growing list of stuff you know nothing about.  Look again - here let me help.  Louisiana looks like this:


www.washingtonpost.com
 
2013-12-29 03:43:55 PM  

Smackledorfer: Kit Fister: *considers posting, then just says "meh" and goes back to skyrim*

Good. Save us the threadshiat.


You know, I apologize for threadshiatting. I believe what I do because I only understand what I have encountered personally. I won't apologize for not always agreeing, but if my arguments or ignorance has upset you then I do.

I want to learn more and grow, and that's not always easy. So, thanks for challenging my beliefs.
 
2013-12-29 03:46:06 PM  

Delay: FTA: "One is grounded in principles of lean and limited government and on traditional values; the other is built on a belief in the essential role of government and on tenets of cultural liberalism."

Why this shiat again?


To be fair, it's impossible to hold both beliefs simultaneously. There's no way to believe your family -and- your government are essential.
 
2013-12-29 03:46:43 PM  
From their graphic, exactly one state (Utah) has had undivided, uninterrupted one-party rule since 1990. A state like Wisconsin- which switches back and forth between a unified Republican statehouse and a unified Democratic statehouse- can't really be said to be an example of one-party rule.
 
2013-12-29 03:52:49 PM  

glmorrs1: chuggernaught: TV's Vinnie: Blue states in the year 2050:
[1.bp.blogspot.com image 850x680]

Red States in the Year 2050:
[www.centives.net image 800x526]

Name the specific Repub policies that will cause that to pass.

Cuts to education spending, selling public utilities to private corporations and then leading them back at 150-200% markup, getting rid of union protections... I mean, how many are you looking for?


Enough that they will be devastating the next time I get into an argument with a mouth-breather that believes Repubs can do no wrong.
 
2013-12-29 04:10:45 PM  
Democrats have stock piles of ammunition to show how little Republicans care about America and it's people. To bad they won't use it.
 
2013-12-29 04:23:07 PM  

DamnYankees: Good. Single party government is in a lot of ways a lot better - it lets you, as the voter, actually judge the government on its merits. Gridlocked government is a farking disaster of governance, both on a practical level and on an accountability level.


In general principle I agree with you but as a general matter just because a government looks divided doesn't mean it actually is. Take New Mexico for example. Yes, technically we have divided government because we now have a Republican Governor. But she acts more liberal than some of the liberals. She expanded Medicaid. The only one area where on can say she has expressed conservative value is Law Enforcement and education. The problems with education in NM go way beyond any one party. The LEA issue is real. But fundamentally NM looks a lot more divided on paper than it actually is in practice.

So I'm skeptical as to how much the make-up of the parties actually makes in term of real world legislation. West Virgina is a Democrat state that acts nothing like Maryland and more like Republican Georgia.
 
2013-12-29 04:37:56 PM  

worlddan: l. But fundamentally NM looks a lot more divided on paper than it actually is in practice.


New Orleans is a tax whole. Though LA is more Republican, New Orleans is a liberal mecca of money suckage and corruption.
 
2013-12-29 04:41:57 PM  

MithrandirBooga: HeadLever: clambam: The one statement you will never hear is a red state governor saying "Sorry, we can';t accept these extra funds from the Federal government.

You don't pay attention too much do you?


Oh sure, they make a big show about rejecting Federal money and saying "We can do it better on our own. With Blackjack. And Hookers". But then when things start falling apart, they come crawling back...


Rick Scott in FL did something similar, but never came crawling back.  He rejected 2.4 billion in federal funds that would have been used to build high speed rail between Tampa, Orlando, and Miami (hopefully with eventual connection between other cities).  It would have created thousands of short and long term jobs and been a huge convenience for the people of Florida when finished, but he'd rather cut of his own nose than accept money from Obama.
 
2013-12-29 04:45:45 PM  

Nemo's Brother: worlddan: l. But fundamentally NM looks a lot more divided on paper than it actually is in practice.

New Orleans is a tax whole. Though LA is more Republican, New Orleans is a liberal mecca of money suckage and corruption.


New Orleans is one of the few worthwhile things about Louisiana.  Without NO, Louisiana would be popularly perceived like Alabama or Mississippi - a culture-less backwater filled with hicks, racists, and products of multi-generational incest.
 
2013-12-29 04:49:52 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: Without NO, Louisiana would be popularly perceived like Alabama or Mississippi - a culture-less backwater filled with hicks, racists, and products of multi-generational incest.


You mean it isn't now?  So long as your state's color is red, it really doesn't matter with the Koolaid drinkers.  Pretty sure NO was not excluded from Jesusland.
 
2013-12-29 04:51:06 PM  

chuggernaught: glmorrs1: chuggernaught: TV's Vinnie: Blue states in the year 2050:
[1.bp.blogspot.com image 850x680]

Red States in the Year 2050:
[www.centives.net image 800x526]

Name the specific Repub policies that will cause that to pass.

Cuts to education spending, selling public utilities to private corporations and then leading them back at 150-200% markup, getting rid of union protections... I mean, how many are you looking for?

Enough that they will be devastating the next time I get into an argument with a mouth-breather that believes Repubs can do no wrong.


I know the plural of anecdote is not data, but in my experience, no amount of facts or statistics will be enough. My mom's boyfriend thinks welfare is bankrupting the country and that it's all being wasted on welfare queens, and no matter how many times I show him articles and studies that say the opposite, he just dismisses them and says he knows he's right because he's "seen it with [his] own eyes."

It gets pretty infuriating.
 
2013-12-29 04:58:47 PM  

DamnYankees: jedihirsch: Yeah I live in New York, the State has a moderate liberal governor (and before that two moderate libs and a moderate repub before that) and far-left run democrat state assembly and a staunchly conservative run Republican State Senate. And nothing gets done and it works out pretty well. The state went for nearly six years without a budget not that long ago, and it still ran pretty well. NYC which has until jan 1, 4 republicans and 47 democrats to be 3 repubs and 48 dems next year. And 44 of the dems identify as liberal. We had a liberal mayor (except on taxes) for 12 years now and a fringe liberal incoming, and NYC is billions in debt and badly managed. I think when we had a repub mayor like Rudy with a liberal council, things worked out better and maybe if the city council was more balanced the city would be run better.

 I like the split, it keeps things balanced and normal

This is s truly terrible argument.


Not to mention that the New York State Senate is more complicated than what Damn Yankees said.  Hint:  "Indpendent" "Democratic" Caucus caucusing with the Republicans is the only reason that the Republicans currently have control of the State Senate, and I don't think Bloomberg can be described as liberal or conservative accurately.
 
2013-12-29 04:59:56 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: New Orleans is one of the few worthwhile things about Louisiana. Without NO, Louisiana would be popularly perceived like Alabama or Mississippi - a culture-less backwater filled with hicks, racists, and products of multi-generational incest.


You really don't know much about New Orleans then. It's a gathering point and there's a vibe to parts of it. But what you think of as "New Orleans" is only a small sliver of it and exists due in part because of the region around it. In fact, I've met as many people born and raised in the city outside of the city as I have in. Think of New Orleans more as a neutral mixing ground.
 
2013-12-29 05:01:12 PM  

TV's Vinnie: Blue states in the year 2050:
[1.bp.blogspot.com image 850x680]

Red States in the Year 2050:
[www.centives.net image 800x526]


FARK!!!
We better start building fences now.
 
2013-12-29 05:04:01 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: Nemo's Brother: worlddan: l. But fundamentally NM looks a lot more divided on paper than it actually is in practice.

New Orleans is a tax whole. Though LA is more Republican, New Orleans is a liberal mecca of money suckage and corruption.

New Orleans is one of the few worthwhile things about Louisiana.  Without NO, Louisiana would be popularly perceived like Alabama or Mississippi - a culture-less backwater filled with hicks, racists, and products of multi-generational incest.


What I'm trying to say is that if you think New Orleans would be the same without Chalmette, Arabi, Algiers, Metairie, Gretna, Kenner (Brah), Lafitte, Harvey, Marrero, Westwego, Lake Catherine, Belle Chasse, etc etc... then you're just simply lost.
 
2013-12-29 05:08:57 PM  

glmorrs1: My mom's boyfriend thinks welfare is bankrupting the country and that it's all being wasted on welfare queens, and no matter how many times I show him articles and studies that say the opposite, he just dismisses them and says he knows he's right because he's "seen it with [his] own eyes."


Welfare - if he means medicare and medicaid and SS - is one of the largest financial issues we have going forward as a country.  They need addressed or we will continue to go deeper and deeper into debt.  Being bankrupt and waste on welfare queens are defiantly partisan hyperbole, but there is some merit to part of his argument.
 
2013-12-29 05:10:32 PM  

Mrbogey: TuteTibiImperes: Nemo's Brother: worlddan: l. But fundamentally NM looks a lot more divided on paper than it actually is in practice.

New Orleans is a tax whole. Though LA is more Republican, New Orleans is a liberal mecca of money suckage and corruption.

New Orleans is one of the few worthwhile things about Louisiana.  Without NO, Louisiana would be popularly perceived like Alabama or Mississippi - a culture-less backwater filled with hicks, racists, and products of multi-generational incest.

What I'm trying to say is that if you think New Orleans would be the same without Chalmette, Arabi, Algiers, Metairie, Gretna, Kenner (Brah), Lafitte, Harvey, Marrero, Westwego, Lake Catherine, Belle Chasse, etc etc... then you're just simply lost.


I'm not trying to say that at all - I'm just saying that Louisiana would be far lesser without New Orleans.
 
2013-12-29 05:14:09 PM  

Mrbogey: TuteTibiImperes: Nemo's Brother: worlddan: l. But fundamentally NM looks a lot more divided on paper than it actually is in practice.

New Orleans is a tax whole. Though LA is more Republican, New Orleans is a liberal mecca of money suckage and corruption.

New Orleans is one of the few worthwhile things about Louisiana.  Without NO, Louisiana would be popularly perceived like Alabama or Mississippi - a culture-less backwater filled with hicks, racists, and products of multi-generational incest.

What I'm trying to say is that if you think New Orleans would be the same without Chalmette, Arabi, Algiers, Metairie, Gretna, Kenner (Brah), Lafitte, Harvey, Marrero, Westwego, Lake Catherine, Belle Chasse, etc etc... then you're just simply lost.


The same could be said the other way too, that the Northshore and Jefferson Parrish would just be another backwater parrish if it wasn't for New Orleans.

They both need each other in other words.
 
2013-12-29 05:19:52 PM  

jedihirsch: Yeah I live in New York, the State has a moderate liberal governor (and before that two moderate libs and a moderate repub before that) and far-left run democrat state assembly and a staunchly conservative run Republican State Senate. And nothing gets done and it works out pretty well. The state went for nearly six years without a budget not that long ago, and it still ran pretty well. NYC which has until jan 1, 4 republicans and 47 democrats to be 3 repubs and 48 dems next year. And 44 of the dems identify as liberal. We had a liberal mayor (except on

taxes) for 12 years now and a fringe liberal incoming, and NYC is billions in debt and badly managed. I think when we had a repub mayor like Rudy with a liberal council, things worked out better and maybe if the city council was more balanced the city would be run better.

 I like the split, it keeps things balanced and normal


I think I see the problem.
 
2013-12-29 05:22:14 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: I'm not trying to say that at all - I'm just saying that Louisiana would be far lesser without New Orleans.


Dude, the loss of New Orleans would be a cultural loss for the entire country.

/and the entire planet.   Even Geordies from Tyneside know this
 
2013-12-29 05:31:42 PM  

HeadLever: glmorrs1: My mom's boyfriend thinks welfare is bankrupting the country and that it's all being wasted on welfare queens, and no matter how many times I show him articles and studies that say the opposite, he just dismisses them and says he knows he's right because he's "seen it with [his] own eyes."

Welfare - if he means medicare and medicaid and SS - is one of the largest financial issues we have going forward as a country.  They need addressed or we will continue to go deeper and deeper into debt.  Being bankrupt and waste on welfare queens are defiantly partisan hyperbole, but there is some merit to part of his argument.


Stop dishonestly discussing ss as welfare.
 
2013-12-29 05:35:26 PM  

Kit Fister: *considers posting, then just says "meh" and goes back to skyrim*


Hey, look, both sides, it's the worst villain of them all: the willfully ignorant!
 
2013-12-29 05:37:47 PM  
FTFA: One is grounded in principles of lean and limited government and on traditional values;

"Traditional values" means "barefoot and pregnant" and "I hates them Feelthy Queers."  Which is incompatible with "lean and limited government."
 
2013-12-29 05:46:26 PM  

make me some tea: Thrag: jedihirsch: Yeah I live in New York, the State has a moderate liberal governor (and before that two moderate libs and a moderate repub before that) and far-left run democrat state assembly and a staunchly conservative run Republican State Senate. And nothing gets done and it works out pretty well. The state went for nearly six years without a budget not that long ago, and it still ran pretty well. NYC which has until jan 1, 4 republicans and 47 democrats to be 3 repubs and 48 dems next year. And 44 of the dems identify as liberal. We had a liberal mayor (except on taxes) for 12 years now and a fringe liberal incoming, and NYC is billions in debt and badly managed. I think when we had a repub mayor like Rudy with a liberal council, things worked out better and maybe if the city council was more balanced the city would be run better.

 I like the split, it keeps things balanced and normal

Bloomberg, a liberal? Really?

Bloomberg is an aspiring benevolent dictator. I wouldn't brand him as either liberal or conservative.


Same goes for Cuomo. Hooray for living up to your nickname, Empire State.
 
2013-12-29 06:03:06 PM  

Smackledorfer: Stop dishonestly discussing ss as welfare.

 
I was responding to an anecdote and had to make an assumption.  I fully qualified said assumption.

In other words, it is not your place to refute said assumption, but that belongs to  glmorrs1alone.
 
2013-12-29 06:48:20 PM  

EyeballKid: Kit Fister: *considers posting, then just says "meh" and goes back to skyrim*

Hey, look, both sides, it's the worst villain of them all: the willfully ignorant!


You assume it's willful or ignorance. Sometimes I just am tired of the whole thing, don't understand it, and am happy just watching it burn.
 
2013-12-29 06:52:28 PM  

Thrag: jedihirsch: Yeah I live in New York, the State has a moderate liberal governor (and before that two moderate libs and a moderate repub before that) and far-left run democrat state assembly and a staunchly conservative run Republican State Senate. And nothing gets done and it works out pretty well. The state went for nearly six years without a budget not that long ago, and it still ran pretty well. NYC which has until jan 1, 4 republicans and 47 democrats to be 3 repubs and 48 dems next year. And 44 of the dems identify as liberal. We had a liberal mayor (except on taxes) for 12 years now and a fringe liberal incoming, and NYC is billions in debt and badly managed. I think when we had a repub mayor like Rudy with a liberal council, things worked out better and maybe if the city council was more balanced the city would be run better.

 I like the split, it keeps things balanced and normal

Bloomberg, a liberal? Really?


The word liberal gets tossed around so easily this day that it has lost all meaning.

most people dont even know what a liberal even is anymore, but they sure know to hate them.
 
2013-12-29 07:06:11 PM  

teenage mutant ninja rapist: The word liberal gets tossed around so easily this day that it has lost all meaning.

most people dont even know what a liberal even is anymore, but they sure know to hate them.


The same could be said about conservatives.  According to Fark,we are all anti-government racist, homophobic, gun loving hicks that only hate the President because of his skin color.

/Strawmen are much easier toargue with than real issues.
 
2013-12-29 07:08:05 PM  

HeadLever: Smackledorfer: Stop dishonestly discussing ss as welfare.
 
I was responding to an anecdote and had to make an assumption.  I fully qualified said assumption.

In other words, it is not your place to refute said assumption, but that belongs to  glmorrs1alone.


Horseshiat.

You are consistent in your dishonest characterizing of ss.It isn't limited to this thread. Further, even if this other person was stupid enough to consider ss welfare, then it still shouldn't have been included in your later agreement that it has anything to do with the debt.

Social Security does not contribute to the deficit or the debt. Period. Saying it does is ridiculous. Which is too bad, because everytime an obviously biased person like slips dishonesty into an ss discussion it decreases the chances we reasonably address any real issues that exist with it.
 
2013-12-29 07:11:48 PM  

Smackledorfer: HeadLever: glmorrs1: My mom's boyfriend thinks welfare is bankrupting the country and that it's all being wasted on welfare queens, and no matter how many times I show him articles and studies that say the opposite, he just dismisses them and says he knows he's right because he's "seen it with [his] own eyes."

Welfare - if he means medicare and medicaid and SS - is one of the largest financial issues we have going forward as a country.  They need addressed or we will continue to go deeper and deeper into debt.  Being bankrupt and waste on welfare queens are defiantly partisan hyperbole, but there is some merit to part of his argument.

Stop dishonestly discussing ss as welfare.


How should it be more accurately categorized? I am honestly asking.
 
2013-12-29 07:12:04 PM  

HeadLever: teenage mutant ninja rapist: The word liberal gets tossed around so easily this day that it has lost all meaning.

most people dont even know what a liberal even is anymore, but they sure know to hate them.

The same could be said about conservatives.  According to Fark,we are all anti-government racist, homophobic, gun loving hicks that only hate the President because of his skin color.

/Strawmen are much easier toargue with than real issues.


And here we see the rare strawman of a strawman being projected.
 
2013-12-29 07:13:41 PM  

clambam: TV's Vinnie: Blue states in the year 2050:
[1.bp.blogspot.com image 850x680]

Red States in the Year 2050:
[www.centives.net image 800x526]

Satisfying as such images may be, they don't take into account the red state propensity to accept more more from the federal government than they pay in taxes. The one statement you will never hear is a red state governor saying "Sorry, we can';t accept these extra funds from the Federal government. We'll just hobble along using the taxes collected in our state." As a Massachusettsian, I calculate that my Federal taxes could be cut by 25% with no change in services if we didn't have to prop up those Welfare queen states  like Mississippi, South Carolina and Alaska. When are you welfare cheats gonna start pulling your own weight?


Except when it's Obamacare money.
 
2013-12-29 07:15:18 PM  

Kit Fister: Smackledorfer: HeadLever: glmorrs1: My mom's boyfriend thinks welfare is bankrupting the country and that it's all being wasted on welfare queens, and no matter how many times I show him articles and studies that say the opposite, he just dismisses them and says he knows he's right because he's "seen it with [his] own eyes."

Welfare - if he means medicare and medicaid and SS - is one of the largest financial issues we have going forward as a country.  They need addressed or we will continue to go deeper and deeper into debt.  Being bankrupt and waste on welfare queens are defiantly partisan hyperbole, but there is some merit to part of his argument.

Stop dishonestly discussing ss as welfare.

How should it be more accurately categorized? I am honestly asking.


No you aren't.  You've seen the annual SS statement you get.  You've seen your check stubs.  You know that you pay into that program throughout your working life and how much you can collect out depends on how much and how many years you put in.  Stop lying.
 
2013-12-29 07:15:50 PM  

Smackledorfer: HeadLever: Smackledorfer: Stop dishonestly discussing ss as welfare.
 
I was responding to an anecdote and had to make an assumption.  I fully qualified said assumption.

In other words, it is not your place to refute said assumption, but that belongs to  glmorrs1alone.

Horseshiat.

You are consistent in your dishonest characterizing of ss.It isn't limited to this thread. Further, even if this other person was stupid enough to consider ss welfare, then it still shouldn't have been included in your later agreement that it has anything to do with the debt.

Social Security does not contribute to the deficit or the debt. Period. Saying it does is ridiculous. Which is too bad, because everytime an obviously biased person like slips dishonesty into an ss discussion it decreases the chances we reasonably address any real issues that exist with it.


I would honestly like to see a fair report of SS's actual impact and funding, my googling comes up with nothing.

It's probably also worth noting that I have taken a lot of what you guys have said to heart and am at least going to bias more democrat in the future because, yeah, I am starting to get the realities of just what good government does even if I don't agree with all of it.
 
2013-12-29 07:17:04 PM  

Smackledorfer: You are consistent in your dishonest characterizing of ss.It isn't limited to this thread.


please elaborate  And please leave the strawmen at home.

Social Security does not contribute to the deficit or the debt.

Then why is the SS trust fund part of the National Debt?  It is about 60% of the total intragovernmental debt according to the GAO.
 
2013-12-29 07:19:20 PM  

Don't Troll Me Bro!: And here we see the rare strawman of a strawman being projected.


And to be called out by someone that has your handle is priceless.

lol
 
2013-12-29 07:19:45 PM  

Don't Troll Me Bro!: Kit Fister: Smackledorfer: HeadLever: glmorrs1: My mom's boyfriend thinks welfare is bankrupting the country and that it's all being wasted on welfare queens, and no matter how many times I show him articles and studies that say the opposite, he just dismisses them and says he knows he's right because he's "seen it with [his] own eyes."

Welfare - if he means medicare and medicaid and SS - is one of the largest financial issues we have going forward as a country.  They need addressed or we will continue to go deeper and deeper into debt.  Being bankrupt and waste on welfare queens are defiantly partisan hyperbole, but there is some merit to part of his argument.

Stop dishonestly discussing ss as welfare.

How should it be more accurately categorized? I am honestly asking.

No you aren't.  You've seen the annual SS statement you get.  You've seen your check stubs.  You know that you pay into that program throughout your working life and how much you can collect out depends on how much and how many years you put in.  Stop lying.


I know about the SS withdrawals, but doesn't it accurately classify as a welfare program as, as I understand it, while your benefit is based on contributions, the money you pay in is used to pay out the benefits of others who currently withdraw and your own benefits will be paid by a future working stiff. As such, I'm not sure how you would accurately describe it as if we turned off the contributions today, current collectors would, theoretically, feel it as the program ran out of money.

I suppose it's more like a government run collective insurance policy or annuity, then?

And, nope, not lying, just ignorant. :)
 
2013-12-29 07:20:56 PM  

Kit Fister: How should it be more accurately categorized? I am honestly asking.


SS is more accurately characterized as an entitlement.
 
2013-12-29 07:33:38 PM  

HeadLever: Don't Troll Me Bro!: And here we see the rare strawman of a strawman being projected.

And to be called out by someone that has your handle is priceless.

lol


I'm pretty sure you won't find anyone around here that thinks I'm a troll.  Most people that have had interactions with me would probably say I contribute worthwhile stuff at least as often as the average farker.  But hey, if saying "no, you're a towel" allows you to deal with the cognitive dissonance of building a strawman to accuse others of building a strawman, then more power to ya. 

HeadLever: Then why is the SS trust fund part of the National Debt?


Because the government owes back the money people paid into the program?  That's called "debt."  You know how you look at your checking account balance and it's an account receivable to you?  To the bank that's debt, much like how the money they owe back to people for paying into ss is also debt.

Kit Fister: I suppose it's more like a government run collective insurance policy or annuity, then?

And, nope, not lying, just ignorant. :)


I'd say annuity is a reasonable way to look at it.  You pay it in a bit at a time, then you take it out later on, again in increments.  In the meantime the money you paid in isn't just sitting there, it's being used by the managers of the program to keep the whole thing going.
 
2013-12-29 07:36:44 PM  

HeadLever: Smackledorfer: You are consistent in your dishonest characterizing of ss.It isn't limited to this thread.

please elaborate  And please leave the strawmen at home.

Social Security does not contribute to the deficit or the debt.

Then why is the SS trust fund part of the National Debt?  It is about 60% of the total intragovernmental debt according to the GAO.


Oh, the intragovernmental debt canard again.


Stop being dishonest about this. Social Security does NOT contribute to the debt. Or perhaps you are being honest and simply have no idea what you are talking about. Start with googling what a trust fund is.

And your 'entitlement' follow up? Diaf.
 
2013-12-29 07:38:21 PM  

HeadLever: Kit Fister: How should it be more accurately categorized? I am honestly asking.

SS is more accurately characterized as an entitlement.


Entitlement? But an entitlement would be more accurately described as a benefit obtained strictly by existence or some other binary condition.

SS returns are directly affected by input amount and duration. You don't simply get to pay in what you can afford and then take out some arbitrary value, as I understand it.

So, again, shouldn't this be more akin to a government, or more precisely, a public-funded retirement annuity into which you pay now to guarantee funds later, like a special type of savings account without the market volatility risk of something like a 401k?

If anything, if we were being fair about it, and wanted it to be strictly an entitlement, then ideally we should expand the program to include all income levels with the option for those above a certain income to take a tax credit over a payout on retirement or something.

This also, I think, would necessitate a rise in average wages since that increases input and liquid assets being moved around.

But now we're into the concept of tax balances, how best to grow jobs and combat corporate greed, and to favor the individual.

Incidentally, I have come to realize just how evil it is for corporations to destroy unions on one hand while doing everything in their power to destroy personal bargaining rights and employee protections on the other. After all, if the individuals don't have the right to collectively fight for corporate honesty and fair treatment, and the job market and hiring process is kept to where the idea of fair negotiation for wages is problematic at best, then you've god it coming and going.

And don't get me started on the abuse of short term and contract workers to circumvent the long term costs of employment.
 
2013-12-29 07:50:27 PM  

Don't Troll Me Bro!: HeadLever: Don't Troll Me Bro!: And here we see the rare strawman of a strawman being projected.

And to be called out by someone that has your handle is priceless.

lol

I'm pretty sure you won't find anyone around here that thinks I'm a troll.  Most people that have had interactions with me would probably say I contribute worthwhile stuff at least as often as the average farker.  But hey, if saying "no, you're a towel" allows you to deal with the cognitive dissonance of building a strawman to accuse others of building a strawman, then more power to ya.

HeadLever: Then why is the SS trust fund part of the National Debt?

Because the government owes back the money people paid into the program?  That's called "debt."  You know how you look at your checking account balance and it's an account receivable to you?  To the bank that's debt, much like how the money they owe back to people for paying into ss is also debt.

Kit Fister: I suppose it's more like a government run collective insurance policy or annuity, then?

And, nope, not lying, just ignorant. :)

I'd say annuity is a reasonable way to look at it.  You pay it in a bit at a time, then you take it out later on, again in increments.  In the meantime the money you paid in isn't just sitting there, it's being used by the managers of the program to keep the whole thing going.


Canard?  So the intragovernmental debt is not part of the overall debt?

An annuity is probably as close as you can get on the private side, but it is still quite a bit different.   Here is about the best explanation that I have found without doing it myself all over again.

Overall, the past increase in the SS Trust Fund has decreased past deficits (and reduced our total debt), but redeeming those bonds will increase our deficit and public debt (plus interest).
 
2013-12-29 07:52:59 PM  

Alphax: TV's Vinnie: Blue states in the year 2050:
[1.bp.blogspot.com image 850x680]

Red States in the Year 2050:
[www.centives.net image 800x526]

The latter is Wichita, KS, right?



That's nothing like Kansas.  Too many mountains.
 
2013-12-29 07:55:02 PM  
^Crap, not sure what happened there.  That was for<a target="_blank" data-cke-saved-href="<a href=" href="<a href=" http:="" www.fark.com="" users="" smackledorfer"="">Smackledorfer ^

Don't Troll Me Bro!: Because the government owes back the money people paid into the program?  That's called "debt."  You know how you look at your checking account balance and it's an account receivable to you?  To the bank that's debt, much like how the money they owe back to people for paying into ss is also debt.


It is a bit more complicated than that.  Government also spent that money that was paid in and replaced this money with intragovernmental IOUS.  There is not pot of money in the SS trust fund.  Just a bunch of government debt.
 
2013-12-29 07:56:31 PM  
I should rephrase: change it so that payout is a set amount for everyone, everyone who is a citizen is entitled to it, and the funds are collected purely as a tax, without any link between input and outflow of cash.

So, government says on retirement they pay you $30k a year or whatever, no matter your employment status or history, and funds are taken as a tax subject to all other tax breaks, levels, rebates, deductions, and rules such that the costs are unevenly split.

Abolishing the whole SS program is one way to do it: let the private citizen invest in his or her retirement in the best way they see fit.

But that is problematic as you then see a wide gap of people: those who save diligently, and those who couldn't save money if their life depended on it.

So, then the question becomes: which is the better option: collecting and setting aside money in an annuity to stem the flow of those who didn't save because they were too poor, never paid in taxes because they were too poor, and now collect welfare in their twilight years because they can neither work nor have funds to cover their end of life costs and whatnot.

While I don't like having to pay for someone else, I can appreciate the humanity of a program that at least ensures that people who qualify aren't broke and don't end up starving on the streets.

I've come also to appreciate the view of single payer, and think I get the problem with how it's presented: often it's compared to a mechanic's shop and basic maintenance, with doctors simply charging a market rate and competing to offer a service. Problem is, where anyone can learn to change their own oil or a flat tire, and service more severe is not going to affect both public health and the overall basic ability of the person to be self sustaining (I know, I know, but they need a car to get to work! Well in this day and age, with busses, bikes, taxis, and so on, you can find a way to get around, it just takes more work) where loss of health both endangers others and potentially costs a great deal of resources to mitigate and treat. Presented as a public service like fire and police, it makes a hell of a lot more sense.

So, yeah, private market all the things only works if you have a balanced labor/employer playing field where there are no outs or cheats inbuilt to subjugate the employee while making the people higher up more money, and you assume that altruism is the guiding force of all business.

/fark you I've got mine is not a viable strategy in a circumstance where you can't do everything yourself.
 
2013-12-29 07:59:24 PM  

HeadLever: Canard? So the intragovernmental debt is not part of the overall debt?

An annuity is probably as close as you can get on the private side, but it is still quite a bit different. Here is about the best explanation that I have found without doing it myself all over again.

Overall, the past increase in the SS Trust Fund has decreased past deficits (and reduced our total debt), but redeeming those bonds will increase our deficit and public debt (plus interest).


Canard?  I don't know where you got that from.  I never used that word, or insinuated it.

I was mainly using the annuity analogy because I was trying to help Kit understand a little better, and he/she brought up annuities, which (as you also stated) have some fundamental similarities to the basic concept of the ss program.
 
2013-12-29 08:00:50 PM  
Ah, didn't see your next post about the mixup.
 
2013-12-29 08:01:59 PM  

Don't Troll Me Bro!: Canard?  I don't know where you got that from.  I never used that word, or insinuated it.


Yeah, I am apparently having some issues here.  That was for Smackledorfer.
 
2013-12-29 08:06:10 PM  

HeadLever: ^Crap, not sure what happened there.  That was for<a target="_blank" data-cke-saved-href="<a href=" href="<a href=" http:="" www.fark.com="" users="" smackledorfer"="">Smackledorfer ^

Don't Troll Me Bro!: Because the government owes back the money people paid into the program?  That's called "debt."  You know how you look at your checking account balance and it's an account receivable to you?  To the bank that's debt, much like how the money they owe back to people for paying into ss is also debt.

It is a bit more complicated than that.  Government also spent that money that was paid in and replaced this money with intragovernmental IOUS.  There is not pot of money in the SS trust fund.  Just a bunch of government debt.


Yeah, because the government has to shiat the money out somewhere to keep operating. I argue frequently from a libertarian mindset, but you can't sit there and tell me that if the government shut down tomorrow like a corp could, that we would not be affected.

I don't often admit I'm wrong, but I have come to appreciate what the govt does do for us:

-guarantee currency so that a buck is a buck and what you make is viable across the country
-guarantees safety and provides for regulation of food supplies so that we don't all starve or get sick
-ensures that businesses can't just wholesale ship in cheap labor from a third world hell hole because it's cheaper (which we got anyway through outsourcing)
-ensures that society has a set of basic ground rules to play by (things like guaranteeing property rights and ensuring contracts and making sure people drive safely...I may be all about self defense and gun ownership in the off chance that I need to use it, but Fark me, I have neither the desire nor the willingness to deal with having to work a job, grow my own food *and* provide for 24/7 watch over my territory to prevent looting and violence...)

We might never get to the level of Somalia, but if you look at a few nations that are derided as hellholes by our standards and then compare their general government operation to what Republicans want to have, well, I guess of I want to remain safe and comfortable, I better get in early on the international drug trade and warlord business.
 
2013-12-29 08:11:42 PM  

Kit Fister: I should rephrase: change it so that payout is a set amount for everyone, everyone who is a citizen is entitled to it, and the funds are collected purely as a tax, without any link between input and outflow of cash.

So, government says on retirement they pay you $30k a year or whatever, no matter your employment status or history, and funds are taken as a tax subject to all other tax breaks, levels, rebates, deductions, and rules such that the costs are unevenly split.

Abolishing the whole SS program is one way to do it: let the private citizen invest in his or her retirement in the best way they see fit.

But that is problematic as you then see a wide gap of people: those who save diligently, and those who couldn't save money if their life depended on it.

So, then the question becomes: which is the better option: collecting and setting aside money in an annuity to stem the flow of those who didn't save because they were too poor, never paid in taxes because they were too poor, and now collect welfare in their twilight years because they can neither work nor have funds to cover their end of life costs and whatnot.


Social Security taxes come out of payroll taxes, everyone pays them.  One way to help the system would be to remove the wage cap.  Currently only the first $117K of income is subject to social security tax.  Eliminate that cap so that all income is taxed, and place an additional SS cap on capital gains.  That would create a huge influx of money into the program and resolve any solvency issues for the future.
 
2013-12-29 08:17:37 PM  

HeadLever: Don't Troll Me Bro!: Canard?  I don't know where you got that from.  I never used that word, or insinuated it.

Yeah, I am apparently having some issues here.  That was for Smackledorfer.


Your points are unfounded conclusions from your poor understanding of the truth.

I suppose that may not technically be a canard. Withdrawn I suppose, technically correct is the best kind of it afterall.

In the past you yourself have agreed locking the ss trust away in a box would be a stupid idea. What is laughable is that your solution was to decrease the trust to near zero so that it could not be borrowed from. An absurd fix that brings its own problems (like real shortfalls instead of the imagined ones folks keep pretending it has, and a likely result of a future recession necessitating an actual bailout or a reduction in payouts at the worst time possible) and solves nothing (congress will simply continue deficit spending at the same rate and borrow from elsewhere).

You sound like a typical republican politician, "I don't like program x so I will disparage it, mischaracterize it, break it slowly, yell 'haha look I was right' and then repeat until [well I have no idea what the end goal they have is. They might even believe their policies are fixing the world somehow]".
 
2013-12-29 08:19:38 PM  
To add to that, the government can either raise taxes to increase its cash flow, or it can borrow money in the form of bonds and so on.

Since a government is generally a stable entity which is unlikely to cease to exist (without major turmoil), it's a lot different than just walking into the nearest payday loan place and getting an advance on tax season.

So yeah, SS becomes part of the debt, because we have an obligation to pay out what people are guaranteed, just like meeting interest payments and bond payments and whatever, whether our economy had a great year and we have lots of tax money coming in or we had a shiat year with a depression and little coming in.

Sure, I guess we can tell the people who got screwed in the downturn to take a pay cut of they can even find a job, or to just suck it up and "oh well I guess you're farked" of they weren't able to save for it, but, do YOU wanna be that guy who has to tell some poor family they can't eat tonight because we can't help, and the shelters and private programs are tapped out?

Sure, I have the option to go total bootstrapped being on a farm and pretty independent already, but unless rat and alleycat are viable game, I don't see many opportunities for the broke to hunt or harvest in New York or LA.

I hate people. I think everyone should be responsible for their own actions and should be held to a standard of behavior without it affecting others. But I can no longer accept the idea that the people who got farked over through no fault of their own should be left to die, even if they made some mistakes.

And you know what? I'd rather have the few who manage to cheat the system make it through than look some family or kid in the eye and say "nope, you're farked because your daddy got farked by off shoring and now no one will hire him because he doesn't meet some ridiculous requirements. Sucks to be you."

If you're that much of a bastard, then I can't help you. In my darkest moments of loathing, only those who truly fark up are deserving of their fates, and even then we have to give them a chance to unfark themselves before we write them off.

/you got one chance at a do over. You fark up a second time, you're on your own.
 
2013-12-29 08:21:36 PM  

Kit Fister: To add to that, the government can either raise taxes to increase its cash flow, or it can borrow money in the form of bonds and so on.

Since a government is generally a stable entity which is unlikely to cease to exist (without major turmoil), it's a lot different than just walking into the nearest payday loan place and getting an advance on tax season.

So yeah, SS becomes part of the debt, because we have an obligation to pay out what people are guaranteed, just like meeting interest payments and bond payments and whatever, whether our economy had a great year and we have lots of tax money coming in or we had a shiat year with a depression and little coming in.

Sure, I guess we can tell the people who got screwed in the downturn to take a pay cut of they can even find a job, or to just suck it up and "oh well I guess you're farked" of they weren't able to save for it, but, do YOU wanna be that guy who has to tell some poor family they can't eat tonight because we can't help, and the shelters and private programs are tapped out?

Sure, I have the option to go total bootstrapped being on a farm and pretty independent already, but unless rat and alleycat are viable game, I don't see many opportunities for the broke to hunt or harvest in New York or LA.

I hate people. I think everyone should be responsible for their own actions and should be held to a standard of behavior without it affecting others. But I can no longer accept the idea that the people who got farked over through no fault of their own should be left to die, even if they made some mistakes.

And you know what? I'd rather have the few who manage to cheat the system make it through than look some family or kid in the eye and say "nope, you're farked because your daddy got farked by off shoring and now no one will hire him because he doesn't meet some ridiculous requirements. Sucks to be you."

If you're that much of a bastard, then I can't help you. In my darkest moments of loathing, only those who truly fark up are deserving of their fates, and even then we have to give them a chance to unfark themselves before we write them off.

/you got one chance at a do over. You fark up a second time, you're on your own.


I have misjudged you.
 
2013-12-29 08:25:58 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: Kit Fister: I should rephrase: change it so that payout is a set amount for everyone, everyone who is a citizen is entitled to it, and the funds are collected purely as a tax, without any link between input and outflow of cash.

So, government says on retirement they pay you $30k a year or whatever, no matter your employment status or history, and funds are taken as a tax subject to all other tax breaks, levels, rebates, deductions, and rules such that the costs are unevenly split.

Abolishing the whole SS program is one way to do it: let the private citizen invest in his or her retirement in the best way they see fit.

But that is problematic as you then see a wide gap of people: those who save diligently, and those who couldn't save money if their life depended on it.

So, then the question becomes: which is the better option: collecting and setting aside money in an annuity to stem the flow of those who didn't save because they were too poor, never paid in taxes because they were too poor, and now collect welfare in their twilight years because they can neither work nor have funds to cover their end of life costs and whatnot.

Social Security taxes come out of payroll taxes, everyone pays them.  One way to help the system would be to remove the wage cap.  Currently only the first $117K of income is subject to social security tax.  Eliminate that cap so that all income is taxed, and place an additional SS cap on capital gains.  That would create a huge influx of money into the program and resolve any solvency issues for the future.


Right, that's what I was saying. I guess I understood that to mean that they don't tax incomes above a certain level, but now I get it. Yes, though, removing the cap would help.

Just like a tax scheme that fairly taxes everyone by taxing everyone at a percentage rate, on *all* income, rather than variable rates with exemptions on certain types of income.

Paying in 5% of your income, let's say, would be fair, so that the dude making $30k pays his $1500 while the dude making $10mm pays his $500k.

I think that's fair. You pay taxes by a fair percentage. Also, taxing luxury items and so on, but I digress and my poor libertarian heart is about to explode from horror at my logical brain.
 
2013-12-29 08:35:25 PM  
Also, I should qualify that...a tax scale that favors the poor is also a decent idea because you can't expect to have them better themselves while their busy blowing their cash on taxes, since $30k stretches less And less every year.

I personally have some ideas that would take the government to leverage that would also force the increase in jobs and pay, but no one likes to hear the idea of the government going full activist by stipulating in all contracts for goods and services with outside vendors that the products be at least some percentage American made and that services be provided by American citizens and not offshored. This also goes hand in hand with reworking the immigration laws to favor the poor schlubb immigrating for a better life for his family getting citizenship than providing more access and higher quotas on visas to import labor from other countries.

/I also have some ideas for civil service, making education and training in fields we need free in exchange for a period of providing service back in the form of civil projects and care and so on.
//use the free market against companies by making the market unfriendly to those who screw over citizens.
 
2013-12-29 08:38:53 PM  
One is grounded in principles of lean and limited government and on traditional values; the other is built on a belief in the essential role of government and on tenets of cultural liberalism basic understanding of reality and civics.

FTFY.

/I suppose bigotry and hatred are traditional values in America...we're not  proud of them, but they are technically  traditional.
 
2013-12-29 08:40:48 PM  
Finally, and this might shock some folks, since both the constitution and the US Code call for a militia of all citizens, independent right or not, how about we enact a civil defense program which requires safety training and participation?

Hey, you say you have all those guns for defending yourself, well, why not learn some useful skills while being made available to help in extraordinary circumstances, and gain the benefit of mandatory training and so on?

We stop funding the national guard, the gun owners get to keep their guns, and we offer those who don't want to deal with guns the option to defer in favor of other participation like search and rescue or disaster cleanup etc.
 
2013-12-29 08:42:33 PM  

PsiChick: One is grounded in principles of lean and limited government and on traditional values; the other is built on a belief in the essential role of government and on tenets of cultural liberalism basic understanding of reality and civics.

FTFY.

/I suppose bigotry and hatred are traditional values in America...we're not  proud of them, but they are technically  traditional.


I'm bigoted against bleeding heart psychologists who invent new and interesting ways to deflect blame and responsibility onto some kind of illness or behavioral quirk over just demanding that if you knew better, you take responsibility for it and learn to change the behavior, does that count?
 
2013-12-29 08:47:34 PM  
I like how they considered NJ non-single party. It amuses me.
 
2013-12-29 08:58:46 PM  

Kit Fister: PsiChick: One is grounded in principles of lean and limited government and on traditional values; the other is built on a belief in the essential role of government and on tenets of cultural liberalism basic understanding of reality and civics.

FTFY.

/I suppose bigotry and hatred are traditional values in America...we're not  proud of them, but they are technically  traditional.

I'm bigoted against bleeding heart psychologists who invent new and interesting ways to deflect blame and responsibility onto some kind of illness or behavioral quirk over just demanding that if you knew better, you take responsibility for it and learn to change the behavior, does that count?


...Well, if you want to be  completely ignorant about how psychology works, I suppose that's entirely up to you...

/Seriously, that is not how psychology works, nor is it what I was referring to.
 
2013-12-29 09:13:06 PM  

Smackledorfer: Your points are unfounded conclusions from your poor understanding of the truth.


please elaborate

 In the past you yourself have agreed locking the ss trust away in a box would be a stupid idea. What is laughable is that your solution was to decrease the trust to near zero so that it could not be borrowed from.

No I have not.  My idea would be to reduce the SS trust fund to about 1 year worth of funds.  You could still borrow from the fund, but my idea would have it more of a pay-as- you-go type system where it would not rack up as much interest as it does now.  Quit making my point into a strawman.

You sound like a typical republican politician,


and you sound like the typical democratic politician where you need to create a strawman in order to try to make a sentient point - which has nothing to do with reality.
 
2013-12-29 09:16:11 PM  
beforeitsnews.com
 
2013-12-29 09:21:06 PM  

Lee451: [beforeitsnews.com image 640x593]


Hey look, a strawman!

Seriously. How many liberals are out there supporting NAMBLA? And you're really trying to act like it has no conservative members?
 
2013-12-29 09:25:13 PM  

Lee451:


Yes because an organization operating under the color of civil rights to justify criminal behavior is liberal.

Even the most hippie whatever dude radical liberal understands and agrees a child is not able to consent and shouldn't be the object of sexual attention.

There is a huge difference between rights for consenting adults and attempting to justify behavior that damages a person who cannot consent or understand.

If you seriously believe that somehow liberals agree with pedophilia because gay marriage, then you are one ignorant fark.

/I know and consent does not equal he's an adult and says its OK.
 
2013-12-29 09:26:53 PM  

grumpfuff: Lee451: [beforeitsnews.com image 640x593]

Hey look, a strawman!

Seriously. How many liberals are out there supporting NAMBLA? And you're really trying to act like it has no conservative members?


The Conservative party is supported by the church. The church has this far hidden or covered up or tacitly condoned pedophilia and abuse. Ergo, the conservatives must rightly believe that pedophilia is right since god says through the church that it's OK right?

/no, it doesn't make sense to me eother
 
2013-12-29 09:28:30 PM  

PsiChick: Kit Fister: PsiChick: One is grounded in principles of lean and limited government and on traditional values; the other is built on a belief in the essential role of government and on tenets of cultural liberalism basic understanding of reality and civics.

FTFY.

/I suppose bigotry and hatred are traditional values in America...we're not  proud of them, but they are technically  traditional.

I'm bigoted against bleeding heart psychologists who invent new and interesting ways to deflect blame and responsibility onto some kind of illness or behavioral quirk over just demanding that if you knew better, you take responsibility for it and learn to change the behavior, does that count?

...Well, if you want to be  completely ignorant about how psychology works, I suppose that's entirely up to you...

/Seriously, that is not how psychology works, nor is it what I was referring to.


I know, I was just having a dig at you, since I'm still in awe of you arguing a teenager wasn't responsible for his criminal acts just because he was a teenager and thus wasn't fully capable of grasping right and wrong or some such.

Seriously, I'll never let you love that one down.
 
2013-12-29 09:29:06 PM  
Kit Fister:

You are seriously, clinically, mentally ill.
/Good riddance.
 
2013-12-29 09:31:10 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Kit Fister:

You are seriously, clinically, mentally ill.
/Good riddance.


What? And what prompted that?
 
2013-12-29 09:36:57 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Kit Fister:

You are seriously, clinically, mentally ill.
/Good riddance.


Wow, I get called mentally ill because of my thoughts on taxes, really? Of all the things I've said that's what gets your goat?

Whatever. If that's all ya got, then good riddence indeed
 
2013-12-29 09:37:05 PM  

Kit Fister: PsiChick: Kit Fister: PsiChick: One is grounded in principles of lean and limited government and on traditional values; the other is built on a belief in the essential role of government and on tenets of cultural liberalism basic understanding of reality and civics.

FTFY.

/I suppose bigotry and hatred are traditional values in America...we're not  proud of them, but they are technically  traditional.

I'm bigoted against bleeding heart psychologists who invent new and interesting ways to deflect blame and responsibility onto some kind of illness or behavioral quirk over just demanding that if you knew better, you take responsibility for it and learn to change the behavior, does that count?

...Well, if you want to be  completely ignorant about how psychology works, I suppose that's entirely up to you...

/Seriously, that is not how psychology works, nor is it what I was referring to.

I know, I was just having a dig at you, since I'm still in awe of you arguing a teenager wasn't responsible for his criminal acts just because he was a teenager and thus wasn't fully capable of grasping right and wrong or some such.

Seriously, I'll never let you love that one down.


Ah. Well, I  am actually supported by biology on that one--teens  do essentially have brain damage. :p But fair enough. It's Fark. Where else can you rib at people?
 
2013-12-29 09:40:00 PM  

Kit Fister: Lee451:

Yes because an organization operating under the color of civil rights to justify criminal behavior is liberal.

Even the most hippie whatever dude radical liberal understands and agrees a child is not able to consent and shouldn't be the object of sexual attention.

There is a huge difference between rights for consenting adults and attempting to justify behavior that damages a person who cannot consent or understand.

If you seriously believe that somehow liberals agree with pedophilia because gay marriage, then you are one ignorant fark.

/I know and consent does not equal he's an adult and says its OK.


Because NAMBLA was founded in San Francisco by homosexuals? I am willing to bet they were not the type to vote conservative.
 
2013-12-29 09:49:01 PM  

Lee451: Kit Fister: Lee451:

Yes because an organization operating under the color of civil rights to justify criminal behavior is liberal.

Even the most hippie whatever dude radical liberal understands and agrees a child is not able to consent and shouldn't be the object of sexual attention.

There is a huge difference between rights for consenting adults and attempting to justify behavior that damages a person who cannot consent or understand.

If you seriously believe that somehow liberals agree with pedophilia because gay marriage, then you are one ignorant fark.

/I know and consent does not equal he's an adult and says its OK.

Because NAMBLA was founded in San Francisco by homosexuals? I am willing to bet they were not the type to vote conservative.


Damn and I'm the clinically mentally ill one here?
 
2013-12-29 09:59:51 PM  

Lee451: Kit Fister: Lee451:

Yes because an organization operating under the color of civil rights to justify criminal behavior is liberal.

Even the most hippie whatever dude radical liberal understands and agrees a child is not able to consent and shouldn't be the object of sexual attention.

There is a huge difference between rights for consenting adults and attempting to justify behavior that damages a person who cannot consent or understand.

If you seriously believe that somehow liberals agree with pedophilia because gay marriage, then you are one ignorant fark.

/I know and consent does not equal he's an adult and says its OK.

Because NAMBLA was founded in San Francisco by homosexuals? I am willing to bet they were not the type to vote conservative.


It was founded by one gay guy. You are aware that one gay guy does not speak for all gays, right?
 
2013-12-29 10:00:05 PM  

HeadLever: Smackledorfer: Your points are unfounded conclusions from your poor understanding of the truth.

please elaborate

 In the past you yourself have agreed locking the ss trust away in a box would be a stupid idea. What is laughable is that your solution was to decrease the trust to near zero so that it could not be borrowed from.

No I have not.  My idea would be to reduce the SS trust fund to about 1 year worth of funds.  You could still borrow from the fund, but my idea would have it more of a pay-as- you-go type system where it would not rack up as much interest as it does now.  Quit making my point into a strawman.

You sound like a typical republican politician,

and you sound like the typical democratic politician where you need to create a strawman in order to try to make a sentient point - which has nothing to do with reality.


It isn't a strawman. That was your solution in a past thread.

No I didn't save a link, becauseI didn't consider tgat you would deny it. You certainly defended it then.

/shrug
 
2013-12-29 10:01:56 PM  

Lee451: Kit Fister: Lee451:

Yes because an organization operating under the color of civil rights to justify criminal behavior is liberal.

Even the most hippie whatever dude radical liberal understands and agrees a child is not able to consent and shouldn't be the object of sexual attention.

There is a huge difference between rights for consenting adults and attempting to justify behavior that damages a person who cannot consent or understand.

If you seriously believe that somehow liberals agree with pedophilia because gay marriage, then you are one ignorant fark.

/I know and consent does not equal he's an adult and says its OK.

Because NAMBLA was founded in San Francisco by homosexuals? I am willing to bet they were not the type to vote conservative.


No, but the Catholic Church has diddled more boys than NAMBLA has ever dreamed of and they're a pretty conservative group.
 
2013-12-29 10:08:26 PM  

Smackledorfer: It isn't a strawman. That was your solution in a past thread.


No it was not.  You are misrepresenting my argument as a strawman (and a dumb one at that).  I'll let you two fight it out if you want, just know that it has nothing to do with me.

No I didn't save a link,

Of course you didn't as it would show off your strawman's underwear.
 
2013-12-29 10:13:08 PM  
ITT: yet another Conservative equates all homosexuals with child molesters, and all Liberals with both.
 
2013-12-29 10:22:09 PM  

HeadLever: Smackledorfer: It isn't a strawman. That was your solution in a past thread.

No it was not.  You are misrepresenting my argument as a strawman (and a dumb one at that).  I'll let you two fight it out if you want, just know that it has nothing to do with me.

No I didn't save a link,

Of course you didn't as it would show off your strawman's underwear.


Ok, I'll let you reinvent yourself.

Social Security, what to do?
 
2013-12-29 10:23:34 PM  

Pants full of macaroni!!: ITT: yet another Conservative equates all homosexuals with child molesters, and all Liberals with both.


Straight people invented incest and pedophilia. It is in the bible iirc.
 
2013-12-29 10:30:28 PM  

Smackledorfer: Social Security, what to do?


I have already given you the outline:

HeadLever: My idea would be to reduce the SS trust fund to about 1 year worth of funds.  You could still borrow from the fund, but my idea would have it more of a pay-as- you-go type system where it would not rack up as much interest as it does now.  Quit making my point into a strawman.

That proposal would drop the SS trust fund balance from a current 2.2T to about $700 Billion.  This move would reduce the yearly interest payments due to these non-marketable bond from about $100B/year to about $35B.  After that, you would adjust the SS withholding rates every normal year in order to keep about 1 years worth of bonds in the SS trust fund.  During bad years, you could draw off the trust fund by reducing withholding or increasing benefits (or a combo of both).  Once the bad years are over, you can adjust the withholding rates upward to restock the trust fund.

This way you keep the benefits and withholding tied into the present instead of kicking the can down the road.
 
2013-12-29 10:45:18 PM  

Mrtraveler01: No, but the Catholic Church has diddled more boys than NAMBLA has ever dreamed of and they're a pretty conservative group.


In all fairness, if you take sex out of the equation, the Catholic church is pretty farking liberal. More liberal than most people I know.

Simple example, official Catholic dogma is that evolution/old earth is true.
 
2013-12-29 10:47:40 PM  

HeadLever: Smackledorfer: Social Security, what to do?

I have already given you the outline:

HeadLever: My idea would be to reduce the SS trust fund to about 1 year worth of funds.  You could still borrow from the fund, but my idea would have it more of a pay-as- you-go type system where it would not rack up as much interest as it does now.  Quit making my point into a strawman.

That proposal would drop the SS trust fund balance from a current 2.2T to about $700 Billion.  This move would reduce the yearly interest payments due to these non-marketable bond from about $100B/year to about $35B.  After that, you would adjust the SS withholding rates every normal year in order to keep about 1 years worth of bonds in the SS trust fund.  During bad years, you could draw off the trust fund by reducing withholding or increasing benefits (or a combo of both).  Once the bad years are over, you can adjust the withholding rates upward to restock the trust fund.

This way you keep the benefits and withholding tied into the present instead of kicking the can down the road.


It wouldn't reduce any payments because it wouldn't reduce spending. Borrowing could and would occur elsewhere.

So nothing solved on that end.

But I love the recomendation that the folks who play debt ceiling and government shutdown games keep a maintenence over things.

Oh well, at least you want a year's surplus now so we MIGHT not see constant brinksmanship.
 
2013-12-29 10:51:36 PM  

HeadLever: Smackledorfer: Social Security, what to do?

I have already given you the outline:

HeadLever: My idea would be to reduce the SS trust fund to about 1 year worth of funds.  You could still borrow from the fund, but my idea would have it more of a pay-as- you-go type system where it would not rack up as much interest as it does now.  Quit making my point into a strawman.

That proposal would drop the SS trust fund balance from a current 2.2T to about $700 Billion.  This move would reduce the yearly interest payments due to these non-marketable bond from about $100B/year to about $35B.  After that, you would adjust the SS withholding rates every normal year in order to keep about 1 years worth of bonds in the SS trust fund.  During bad years, you could draw off the trust fund by reducing withholding or increasing benefits (or a combo of both).  Once the bad years are over, you can adjust the withholding rates upward to restock the trust fund.

This way you keep the benefits and withholding tied into the present instead of kicking the can down the road.


A better plan would be to set aside money for a certain number of years in the future (let's say 2 to give it a cushion) that by law can't be touched for any other purpose.  Feed additional money in per year at a rate equal to current payouts plus inflation, plus an additional percentage based on projected future needs.

That way the fund can earn positive interest and can be added to gradually over time as needed to prevent any sudden huge shortfalls.
 
2013-12-29 10:57:27 PM  

HeadLever: glmorrs1: My mom's boyfriend thinks welfare is bankrupting the country and that it's all being wasted on welfare queens, and no matter how many times I show him articles and studies that say the opposite, he just dismisses them and says he knows he's right because he's "seen it with [his] own eyes."

Welfare - if he means medicare and medicaid and SS - is one of the largest financial issues we have going forward as a country.  They need addressed or we will continue to go deeper and deeper into debt.  Being bankrupt and waste on welfare queens are defiantly partisan hyperbole, but there is some merit to part of his argument.


Bullshiat. Straight up bullshiat. Our bloated military is to blame. If we stopped making multi-million dollar tanks and jets that we don't need and are just going to put into open air storage in the desert then we'd have the money to fund SS, Medicaid, and Medicare.
 
2013-12-29 10:59:08 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: A better plan would be to set aside money for a certain number of years in the future (let's say 2 to give it a cushion) that by law can't be touched for any other purpose.  Feed additional money in per year at a rate equal to current payouts plus inflation, plus an additional percentage based on projected future needs.

That way the fund can earn positive interest and can be added to gradually over time as needed to prevent any sudden huge shortfalls.


O.o
The Trust Fund already earns interest.
Additional comment: A cash balance of a year or two is money not earning interest.
 
2013-12-29 11:04:42 PM  

Smackledorfer: It wouldn't reduce any payments because it wouldn't reduce spending.


This issue is separate from the issue of payments.  That is solely set by the amount each beneficiary receives, what age each beneficiary is eligible for benefits and what age they live to.  All of these variables are independent of the amount of money that is in the SS trust fund.

In the end it really does not matter if we reduce spending so long as we can increase taxes at the same time.  My point is to do it in a fashion where we are better adapt at equalizing taxes and spending.  The current system is terrible in this regard.
 
2013-12-29 11:08:11 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: TuteTibiImperes: A better plan would be to set aside money for a certain number of years in the future (let's say 2 to give it a cushion) that by law can't be touched for any other purpose.  Feed additional money in per year at a rate equal to current payouts plus inflation, plus an additional percentage based on projected future needs.

That way the fund can earn positive interest and can be added to gradually over time as needed to prevent any sudden huge shortfalls.

O.o
The Trust Fund already earns interest.
Additional comment: A cash balance of a year or two is money not earning interest.


Ah, carry on then.

I'd just adjust it such that the money paid into the program per year must equal at minimum the maximum projected payout from the program in the following year.  Removing the wage cap so that all earnings are taxed would be an easy way to greatly increase the revenue of the program without impacting the vast majority of people at all.
 
2013-12-29 11:08:40 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: A better plan would be to set aside money for a certain number of years in the future (let's say 2 to give it a cushion) that by law can't be touched for any other purpose.


That is pretty much the same system I am describing.  The non-marketable bonds that currently make up the SS trust fund cannot be used for any other purpose.  They currently get an interest rate of a bit over 4%, IIRC.  Your 2 year buffer would set the SS trust fund amout to be about 1.4 Trillion.
 
2013-12-29 11:15:28 PM  

glmorrs1: Our bloated military is to blame.


What we spend on this 'bloated military' is about 75% of what we spend on Social Security and about 80% of what we spend on Medicade/medicare.  We could completely do away with the 'bloated military' spending and even ignoring any negative feedback, we would still have a deficit.

Also, projected spending increases in our 'bloated military' are expected to nil compared to GDP.  Medicare and SS, on the other hand are expected to increase greatly compared go GDP.

That is not to say that part of the solution is not to do something about DoD spending.  However, it is not the sole cause.  Nor is it a substantial driver of projected future deficits.
 
2013-12-29 11:18:34 PM  

TV's Vinnie: Blue states in the year 2050:
[1.bp.blogspot.com image 850x680]

Red States in the Year 2050:
[www.centives.net image 800x526]


So, you're saying blue states will be ripe for the plucking while the red states will have bred uncountable hordes of eager invaders, steeped in militarism and personal sacrifice.

All goes according to plan.
 
2013-12-29 11:29:20 PM  

glmorrs1: Bullshiat. Straight up bullshiat. Our bloated military is to blame. If we stopped making multi-million dollar tanks and jets that we don't need and are just going to put into open air storage in the desert then we'd have the money to fund SS, Medicaid, and Medicare.


Government spending only creates jobs when it's spent on those tanks and jets.
 
2013-12-29 11:35:35 PM  

Lee Jackson Beauregard: Government spending only creates jobs when it's spent on those tanks and jets.


That has to be one of the dumbest strawmen that I have seen on here for quite some time.  Did you sprain something coming up with that 'witty' talking point?
 
2013-12-29 11:54:32 PM  

HeadLever: Smackledorfer: It wouldn't reduce any payments because it wouldn't reduce spending.

This issue is separate from the issue of payments.  That is solely set by the amount each beneficiary receives, what age each beneficiary is eligible for benefits and what age they live to.  All of these variables are independent of the amount of money that is in the SS trust fund.

In the end it really does not matter if we reduce spending so long as we can increase taxes at the same time.  My point is to do it in a fashion where we are better adapt at equalizing taxes and spending.  The current system is terrible in this regard.


Poor wording on my part:

It wouldn't reduce any of the government's payments back to the trust because it wouldn't reduce government deficit spending.

That is absolutely not separate from your chief complaint that it is somehow pushing our debt.

All your proposal does is make ss even more politically charged and affected by brinksmanship.

We shouldn't be trying to twist ss around with every bump and dip in the economy. Look at the largest complaint about it: omg it'll be broke in thirty years!


You want to make it 'omg it'll be broke in a year'. If you think the system will auto-adjust you overestimate our legislature; they are already both the driving force of complaints about, and largest impediment to finding a solution to, our social security problems.
 
2013-12-30 12:02:31 AM  
The Fark Politics tab: my daily source for intelligent discussion on tax policy and buttsex.
 
2013-12-30 01:40:45 AM  

TV's Vinnie: Blue states in the year 2050:
[1.bp.blogspot.com image 850x680]

Red States in the Year 2050:
[www.centives.net image 800x526]


blue:
theeconomiccollapseblog.com

red:
www.belch.com
 
2013-12-30 04:13:50 AM  

HeadLever: Lee Jackson Beauregard: Government spending only creates jobs when it's spent on those tanks and jets.

That has to be one of the dumbest strawmen that I have seen on here for quite some time.  Did you sprain something coming up with that 'witty' talking point?


Um... I'm going to have to say that, while I've only noticed you today (quite prominently, in several threads), I agree with your detractors. You are disingenuous intentionally and play it off as nothing, you hold extreme views and try to play the 'can't we all just got along while you stop persecuting me' with poor results, and while you seem knowledgeable (honestly) I think that YOU think you're far more clever than you appear or (more horrifying to you) actually are.

Your constant use of the word 'strawman' is either projection or intentional trolling. Stop trying to pretty up your ugly views, because you have no evidence and change the subject when others do.
 
2013-12-30 04:32:32 AM  

TV's Vinnie: Blue states in the year 2050:
[1.bp.blogspot.com image 850x680]

Red States in the Year 2050:
[www.centives.net image 800x526]


fark that noise. I'll take the magic and the hot lady elves over the Orwellian dystopia.
 
2013-12-30 05:35:21 AM  
We'll just see which states enact Sharia law first.
 
x23
2013-12-30 08:18:40 AM  

Pants full of macaroni!!: ITT: yet another Conservative equates all homosexuals with child molesters, and all Liberals with both.


the best part is how extremely on-topic the post was. it was super relevant.
 
x23
2013-12-30 08:28:30 AM  

MithrandirBooga: On one hand, term limits can be good because they prevent a cult-of-personality from perpetual rule and creating such an effective self-perpetuating machine that nobody can ever get them out of power, and corruption abounds.

On the other hand, term limits can be bad, because during a lame duck session the bureaucrat now has no incentive to serve the public beyond their public legacy, and is free to focus on crafting legislation and policies that will benefit him/her once out of office.



yeah. there are definitely pros/cons to term limits.

i think might make it make more sense to combine term limits with public-financed elections (federal / state / local / everything). but then you'd also need to do something about after-office bribing. be it with a promised pretend-job or whatever. i don't know how to fix that. maybe something similar to a non-compete clause that exists in the private sector.

or maybe... no term limits at all for any office BUT no consecutive terms either. i imagine that also would introduce other different problems though. essentially every term would be lame-duck... but if you ever want another term again you should probably accomplish something memorable enough you get a chance again in 2 / 4 / 6 years.
 
2013-12-30 09:46:12 AM  
Conservatives want to make the world a better place for themselves. Liberals want to make the world a better place for everybody. Liberals might not always be competent in trying to achieve their goal. You'd better pray that Conservatives never are.
 
2013-12-30 10:37:16 AM  

HeadLever: What we spend on this 'bloated military' is about 75% of what we spend on Social Security and about 80% of what we spend on Medicade/medicare.  We could completely do away with the 'bloated military' spending and even ignoring any negative feedback, we would still have a deficit.

Also, projected spending increases in our 'bloated military' are expected to nil compared to GDP.  Medicare and SS, on the other hand are expected to increase greatly compared go GDP.

That is not to say that part of the solution is not to do something about DoD spending.  However, it is not the sole cause.  Nor is it a substantial driver of projected future deficits.


You know, let's ignore the fact social security, Medicare, and Medicard are actually paid with payroll taxes (FICA), are compartmentalized sections of the budget that aren't actually -- when left alone -- in  any danger whatsoever, and as such is one of the biggest goddamn bullshiat GOP talking points in American history.

Let alone when you figure in the GOP could not possibly give a damn about the payroll tax (in fact, the party platform is generally raising payroll taxes), and intentionally obfuscate the issue by ignoring any distinction between taxes, to what funds those taxes go, and thereby confuse lower- and middle-class voters of thinking of their  payroll taxes rather than their  income taxes (which they generally don't actually pay, after figuring in deductions, credits, and refunds) when it comes to soaring rhetoric about lowering "taxes".

Which leaves the defense budget. Amazing how that works, isn't it. But nope, two Southern states -- one of which so socially and politically backwards that it's just since the black guy was put in the White House they've begun to figure out that entire 'Southern Strategy' thing, and the other a fire sale morass of corruption thanks to the fossil fuel industry -- have Democratic Senators (let's just not bring up the party of the Governor, state reps, or Representatives), therefore Ted Cruz is automatically President and Obama is a fluffer for gay scheisse porn.

Oh, and for the love of God let's not bring up Texas.
 
2013-12-30 11:29:04 AM  

TV's Vinnie: Blue states in the year 2050:
[1.bp.blogspot.com image 850x680]

Red States in the Year 2050:
[www.centives.net image 800x526]


Not even close.  Let me give it a try...

Blue:
4.bp.blogspot.com
People living in squalor in the streets.


Red:
s3.amazonaws.com
Jobs created!
 
2013-12-30 11:32:53 AM  

Smackledorfer: It wouldn't reduce any of the government's payments back to the trust because it wouldn't reduce government deficit spending.


Incorrect.  Reducing the principal in the SS trust fund reduces the amount of interest obligation generated by these bonds.  While this is not a huge cost in the grand scheme of things, it is an increase of debt associated with this program.

That is absolutely not separate from your chief complaint that it is somehow pushing our debt.

My chief complaint is not so much about the debt, but the inability to update the program to meet current financial needs.  The debt generated by SS is mainly just the interest that the trust fund generates which is about 100B/year.  This is not an insignificant amount, but it is not that large compared to other issues.

All your proposal does is make ss even more politically charged and affected by brinksmanship.

As opposed to now when they are afraid to even talk about it?  If you want to continue to kick the can down the road because you are afraid to actually debate the issues, you are a part of the problem, my friend.

We shouldn't be trying to twist ss around with every bump and dip in the economy.

That is why you still maintain a balance in the trust fund.  That gives you the ability to smooth out those bumps and dips as you have a reserve which to draw from and add to.
 
2013-12-30 11:34:22 AM  

Smackledorfer: You want to make it 'omg it'll be broke in a year'


?  Where did I say that?  Please quit with the strawmen.  Having one year of benefits as a reserve in the SS trust fund has nothing to do with it being broke in a year.
 
2013-12-30 11:41:03 AM  

inclemency: Your constant use of the word 'strawman' is either projection or intentional trolling.


A strawman is an easily-refuted argument fabricated and passed off as another true argument in order to easily dismiss another's argument or standing.

When Smakledorfer says, "you want to make it 'omg it'll be broke in a year', he is trying to turn my proposal into something that is is not.  Since it is his argument has no basis in what I really said, (do you really think that I want to have SS broke in a year) all I need to do is to ask him where I said that.

Since he cannot point to anything that I said that will lend itself to this argument, the tag of strawman is justified.
 
2013-12-30 11:49:20 AM  

that bosnian sniper: You know, let's ignore the fact social security, Medicare, and Medicard are actually paid with payroll taxes (FICA), are compartmentalized sections of the budget that aren't actually -- when left alone -- in  any danger whatsoever, and as such is one of the biggest goddamn bullshiat GOP talking points in American history.


Actually, if left alone, SS is in big danger of having the trust fund wiped out and having its benefits reduced substantially.  Medicare cost are expected to climb from 3.0% of GDP now to about 4.9% of GDP in 20 years, but let's ignore these substantial costs for the sake of your argument.


Let alone when you figure in the GOP could not possibly give a damn about the payroll tax (in fact, the party platform is generallyraising payroll taxes), and intentionally obfuscate the issue by ignoring any distinction between taxes, to what funds those taxes go, and thereby confuse lower- and middle-class voters of thinking of their  payroll taxes rather than their  income taxes (which they generally don't actually pay, after figuring in deductions, credits, and refunds) when it comes to soaring rhetoric about lowering "taxes".

except for when they do

Which leaves the defense budget. Amazing how that works, isn't it. But nope, two Southern states -- one of which so socially and politically backwards that it's just since the black guy was put in the White House they've begun to figure out that entire 'Southern Strategy' thing, and the other a fire sale morass of corruption thanks to the fossil fuel industry -- have Democratic Senators (let's just not bring up the party of the Governor, state reps, or Representatives), therefore Ted Cruz is automatically President and Obama is a fluffer for gay scheisse porn.

BacksSlowlyIntoBushes.jpg
 
2013-12-30 12:08:23 PM  

HeadLever: Actually, if left alone, SS is in big danger of having the trust fund wiped out and having its benefits reduced substantially.  Medicare cost are expected to climb from 3.0% of GDP now to about 4.9% of GDP in 20 years, but let's ignore these substantial costs for the sake of your argument.


if by "wiped out" you mean "hit the point at which interest payments on the trust fund alone aren't sufficient to cover cost", sure. Which is, if I remember correctly, 2058 for Social Security and 2026 for Medicare. Largely based upon actuarial tables and population growth estimates that  don't account for what will be the Great Baby Boomer Die-Off of the next thirty years, mind you, at which point SS and Medicare will almost certainly normalize.

What you  don't hear about from the right is this shiat's happened before -- in the late '70s and early '80s, when the Depression generation was hitting retirement age, and the Boomers hadn't fully entered the workforce...and when they did, SS/Medicare normalized until the Boomers started hitting retirement age. All to buttress an offensive against either policy then, as well.

except for when they do

Oh yes, Paul Ryan is  concerned...about a payroll tax  cut. Not exactly helping your position, here.

BacksSlowlyIntoBushes.jpg

That's  probably a good idea.
 
2013-12-30 12:23:41 PM  

that bosnian sniper: if by "wiped out" you mean "hit the point at which interest payments on the trust fund alone aren't sufficient to cover cost", sure.


No, the trust fund itself will be wiped out.  Current projections have that happening about 2038.

See for yourself:
mercatus.org

I am starting to think that you are related to Bagdad Bob.
 
2013-12-30 12:25:24 PM  

that bosnian sniper: Largely based upon actuarial tables and population growth estimates that  don't account for what will be the Great Baby Boomer Die-Off of the next thirty years, mind you, at which point SS and Medicare will almost certainly normalize.


You mean like this?
www.taxnetwealth.com

The projections certainly do account for a normalization of these costs.
 
2013-12-30 12:28:11 PM  

that bosnian sniper: n the late '70s and early '80s, when the Depression generation was hitting retirement age, and the Boomers hadn't fully entered the workforce..


lolwat?

How old would the boomers be in the late 70s and 80s?  Or did Boomers hang out in their mom's basement until 30 or 40 like you?
 
2013-12-30 12:50:26 PM  

HeadLever: I am starting to think that you are related to Bagdad Bob.


http://www.ssa.gov/oact/tr/2013/2013_Long-Range_Demographic_Assumpti on s.pdf

Well...shiat. I didn't know Ray Kurtzweil was an SSA trustee. I, for one, welcome our 122-year-old Baby Boomer overlords.

Who are defined by the Census Bureau as having been born between 1946-1964. Most of which, in 1980, would have just been getting out of high school and/or college, and therefore not fully in the workforce.
 
2013-12-30 12:53:58 PM  

that bosnian sniper: Oh yes, Paul Ryan is  concerned...about a payroll tax  cut.

That bosnian sniper:GOP could not possibly give a damn about the payroll tax


lol, backpedal much?
 
2013-12-30 01:00:30 PM  

that bosnian sniper: Who are defined by the Census Bureau as having been born between 1946-1964. Most of which, in 1980, would have just been getting out of high school and/or college, and therefore not fully in the workforce.


If we take the median of that timeframe and assume an average from that, your average boomer would be 25 in 1980.  "Most" would be well into the workforce in 1980, especially when you consider that only about 1/3 have a college degree.
 
2013-12-30 01:02:24 PM  

HeadLever: that bosnian sniper: Oh yes, Paul Ryan is  concerned...about a payroll tax  cut.

That bosnian sniper:GOP could not possibly give a damn about the payroll tax

lol, backpedal much?


I didn't know Paul Ryan was the entire GOP, and I can't help but notice you ignored this entire part of my post, with emphasis,

that bosnian sniper: ...(in fact, the party platform is generally raising payroll taxes), and intentionally obfuscate the issue by ignoring any distinction between taxes, to what funds those taxes go, and thereby confuse lower- and middle-class voters of thinking of their  payroll taxes rather than their  income taxes (which they generally don't actually pay, after figuring in deductions, credits, and refunds) when it comes to soaring rhetoric about lowering "taxes".
 
2013-12-30 01:04:00 PM  

HeadLever: If we take the median of that timeframe and assume an average from that, your average boomer would be 25 in 1980.  "Most" would be well into the workforce in 1980, especially when you consider that only about 1/3 have a college degree.


...and this crap started in the '70s. Concern over the long-term solvency of social security started in '73, if I remember right -- at which point the  oldest of the Boomers would have been twenty-six. Forget medians.
 
2013-12-30 01:12:40 PM  

that bosnian sniper: I didn't know Paul Ryan was the entire GOP,


lol, so he speaks for the entire GOP only when it is political convenient for you?  The rest of the time, he is an outlier...

Keep those goalpost moving sir.

...and this crap started in the '70s. Concern over the long-term solvency of social security started in '73

Here you are kind of correct.  The issue was brought to the front by Carter back around 77 or so and the changes to the law were enacted in 83 under Reagan to shore up the financials of the program.
 
2013-12-30 01:44:03 PM  
HeadLever: ...so he speaks for the entire GOP only when it is political convenient for you...

Okay, let's assume he is, and I'll go with your interpretation of things.  Purely for the sake of argument.

The guy who  really, truly cares for the middle class and small business, wants lower taxes all around because business and economic growth, and jobs.  Except for the regressive tax that actually puts the heaviest burden on the middle class and small business.That, he wants raised, and for the middle class and small business.To shore up systems that are in jeopardy on paper, because somebody thought, "hey, what if the Baby Boomers just stop dying?".

But, don't pay attention to the actual difference between payroll taxes and income taxes. Because 47% and socialism, or whatever, because all taxes are really income taxes, right?
 
2013-12-30 01:53:17 PM  

that bosnian sniper: The guy who  really, truly cares for the middle class and small business, wants lower taxes all around because business and economic growth, and jobs.  Except for the regressive tax that actually puts the heaviest burden on the middle class and small business.That, he wants raised, and for the middle class and small business.To shore up systems that are in jeopardy on paper, because somebody thought, "hey, what if the Baby Boomers just stop dying?".


not sure what you are getting at here.  Payroll taxes always have to balance the tax impacts to the working with the benefits of the program.  You don't get one without the other.  I am pretty sure that if he could make money appear out of thin air to pay for all of these programs, he would do it.

Or are you really dumb enough that he thinks that we should just tax folks because he is 'mean'?

Payroll taxes are used to fund off-budget items, while income taxes are used to fund on-budget items. Each have their own set of issues and each need to be funded appropriately.
 
2013-12-30 02:34:08 PM  

HeadLever: not sure what you are getting at here.  Payroll taxes always have to balance the tax impacts to the working with the benefits of the program.  You don't get one without the other.  I am pretty sure that if he could make money appear out of thin air to pay for all of these programs, he would do it.


Yes, it farking does. It helps when the damn FICA cap is actually increased proportional to per capita income and rate of inflation, or at least benefit caps. Seriously, if we'd stuck with Ronnie "fark the middle class" Reagan's turd of a regressive policy, social security would still be  indefinitely fiscally-solvent. That's  counting how we cook the books assuming for magically-decigenerian Boomers, and fertility/immigration rates continuing to fall.

Or are you really dumb enough that he thinks that we should just tax folks because he is 'mean'?

No, I think he's a asshat who intentionally plays rhetorical legerdemain to achieve a political agenda, which is neither a new game nor a particularly opaque or creative one, being that it's been in the GOP playbook since Reagan. Hike  payroll taxes, rile up the rubes about "taxes", then leverage that dissatisfaction to cut  income taxes. Because the average middle class citizen doesn't know the difference between  payroll taxes and  income taxes, they eat it up thinking their taxes will go down (but really, they're going  up).

Payroll taxes are used to fund off-budget items, while income taxes are used to fund on-budget items. Each have their own set of issues and each need to be funded appropriately.

So,  why on Earth did you bring up social security and Medicare then when the person to whom you were speaking was discussing "on-budget" items?

i.imgur.com

 
2013-12-30 02:56:56 PM  

that bosnian sniper: So,  why on Earth did you bring up social security and Medicare then when the person to whom you were speaking was discussing "on-budget" items?



Sorry, but you don't know what you are talking about.  Glmorris1 was not only discussing 'on-budget' items.  Case in point:

glmorrs1: Bullshiat. Straight up bullshiat. Our bloated military is to blame. If we stopped making multi-million dollar tanks and jets that we don't need and are just going to put into open air storage in the desert then we'd have the money to fund SS, Medicaid, and Medicare.


If you can't even take the time to understand basis of our argument, you may want to hold off in making assertions to the contrary.  As the saying goes, "It is sometimes best to keep quite and thought a fool rather then speak up and remove all doubt.".
 
2013-12-30 03:40:25 PM  

HeadLever: If you can't even take the time to understand basis of our argument, you may want to hold off in making assertions to the contrary.  As the saying goes, "It is sometimes best to keep quite and thought a fool rather then speak up and remove all doubt.".


Yeah, it's not like the federal government has ever used general funds to supplement Social Security, Medicare, and Medicard during payroll tax holidays.
 
2013-12-30 04:57:18 PM  

that bosnian sniper: Yeah, it's not like the federal government has ever used general funds to supplement Social Security, Medicare, and Medicard during payroll tax holidays.


Ok, that just proves that you don't know how these trust funds work.  Let me see if I can help.

When SS is in a surplus, the excess money is used to buy special non-marketable securities which is placed in the trust fund.  The actual tax revenue is transferred to the general fund and spent as a part of normal operations.  That is why there is no 'pot of money' sitting in the SS trust fund; instead it is a stack of government debt.  This process is also the basis for the dumb comment that the SS trust fund is being robbed.

When SS is in a deficit, this process is reversed.  These non-marketable securities are redeemed with money (via tax revenue or additional public debt) from the general fund, which is then used to pay the balance of the SS deficit.

So far so good?

If you can understand this basic process, then you can see that there is an inherent legal relationship between the general fund and these off-budget programs.
 
2013-12-30 09:09:10 PM  

HeadLever: Smackledorfer: You want to make it 'omg it'll be broke in a year'

?  Where did I say that?  Please quit with the strawmen.  Having one year of benefits as a reserve in the SS trust fund has nothing to do with it being broke in a year.


What do you think the "zomg it'll be broke in 30 years" argument is based on?
Why do you think that won't revert to 'zomg it'll be broke in a year' under your changes? I mean, other than the fanciful belief that it will be put into place with an algorithmic monthly (at least, I would think) recalculating of payments and withholding to preserve that 1 year surplus mark you want.

If a recession hit and old people retired in combination with fewer employed young people paying in, your 1 year trust is going to quickly look like a six month empty trust. The immediate response of the deficit hawks, likely including yourself, is going to be to point at it and declare the whole thing a failure and immediately call for reduction in benefits.  I know you may deny this, but you would have a lot more ground to stand on if you weren't already pretending it both drives the national debt and should be referred to as an entitlement. Then you would still be wrong, but at least I might be able to take your intent at face value.
 
2013-12-30 09:14:02 PM  

HeadLever: Ok, that just proves that you don't know how these trust funds work


HeadLever: There is not pot of money in the SS trust fund.  Just a bunch of government debt.

I think you should direct the latter statement to your former.

There IS money in the SS trust fund. A separate area of government is selling bonds to it, but the money is there as surely as a bond, savings account, or trust I put up as a private citizen cannot be called "a bunch of debt".

As I have been repeating this entire thread, whether or not that trust is set up does not affect whether or not congress will deficit spend in the same places they do now, and borrow accordingly. Unless you can look us in the eye, with a straight face, and say that the federal government would really borrow less if they didn't have the SS fund.
 
2013-12-30 10:32:23 PM  

Smackledorfer: What do you think the "zomg it'll be broke in 30 years" argument is based on?


are you really dumb enough to subscribe to that?  In about 19 years, the SS trust fund will be sucked dry if nothing is done, but it will be far from 'zomg, its broke!!!'  It will just mean that the benefits will have to be reduced to whatever tax revenue the payroll tax provides.

The 'broke' rhetoric is nothing but hyperbole invented by those that want to make political points.  You won't hear me spouting this crap.
 
2013-12-30 10:35:32 PM  

Smackledorfer: There IS money in the SS trust fund.


No, there are a stack of non-marketable treasury bonds.  While you may consider this 'money' is it really a liability to the federal government as it is debt.

I am not sure how you keep missing this point, other than it must be hard for you to admit you are wrong.
 
2013-12-30 10:47:19 PM  

Smackledorfer: A separate area of government is selling bonds to it, but the money is there as surely as a bond, savings account, or trust I put up as a private citizen cannot be called "a bunch of debt".


freakoutnation.com

Debt held by government accounts represents balances in the federal government's accounts-primarily trust funds-that accumulate surpluses.Federal budget accounts that are so designated by law. These accounts usually have a designated, or "earmarked," source of revenue. These revenues are authorized to be spent for the programs and activities supported by the trust funds. Examples are the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. are accounting mechanisms used to link dedicated collections with the expenditures of those receipts. Trust funds for Social Security, Medicare, Military Retirement and Health Care, and Civil Service Retirement and Disability account for the vast majority of the total debt held by government accounts.

Read those bolded parts really slow.  Maybe they will finally sink in

Yeah, who am I kidding
 
Displayed 196 of 196 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report