IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New And what is irrational about that?
Alex

"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."

-- Isaac Asimov
New It's a dangerous false dichotomy.
I'm perhaps jaded beyond an ability to be fair to the majority of my fellow Americans. But for most of my adult life I have viewed them as contemptible, ill informed, xenophobic cretins. The Republican Party is not the problem. The problem is the people who support them. Not all, but I'd wager a large majority of Republican candidates are saying the outrageous things they're saying because they have about the same impression of the majority of people in their party - and they need their support to get their noses in the public trough. Once elected, the recent Teabagger anomaly notwithstanding, their policies are largely indistinguishable from their Democratic counterparts.

Embracing the idea that, "Yes, the people I support politically are terrible, but I'm not voting for them. I'm voting against people I think are worse" creates a situation in which it really doesn't matter how fascist the Democratic Party becomes because the non-cretins will support them in any case. There's no room for improvement if all anyone ever does is vote against someone.
New Voting for Hillary doesn't mean you have to vote for Charlotte
(Chelsea's daughter.)

Embracing the idea that, "Yes, the people I support politically are terrible, but I'm not voting for them. I'm voting against people I think are worse" creates a situation in which it really doesn't matter how fascist the Democratic Party becomes because the non-cretins will support them in any case.


I don't think the people running on the Democratic side are "terrible".

I recognize that without a majority of people who share my political views, any legislature is going to pass legislation that I don't fully support.

I don't have to think that Republicans Teabaggers are worse. There is ample evidence. Compare what Pelosi was able to do in 4 years with a Democratic majority with what Boehner was able to "do" in about 4.5 years with his majority. It seems to me that that's proof for my thesis that if you want a more progressive government, you need to elect more Democrats. Even if conservative blue-dog coal-lover Democrats got elected in that Democratic wave, they were votes for Nancy and for the ACA and lots of other good policies.

The policy improvements you (and I, in many cases) seek won't come by making the sane party weaker.

Greenwaldian arguments (2:46) like the one you're presenting may have had some appeal once, but (contra Glenn) anyone who was above the age of majority since 2000 should be able to see the flaws in them now.

Look at what's happened in Hungary under Orbán especially since 2010. People giving up on politics and letting the demagogues take over is what is dangerous.

Just as the problem with the US economy isn't due to poor people having too much money, the problem with US politics isn't due to Democrats having too much power.

My $0.02.

Cheers,
Scott.
New Re: Voting for Hillary
so the best candidate the progressives could dig up was a lawyer who specialized in keeping unions out of walmart? hokay
you can kill people for America at age 18 but need to be 21 to buy a beer
New She's done a few other things in the last 20+ years.
NY Times:

Fellow board members and company executives, who have not spoken publicly about her role at Wal-Mart, say Mrs. Clinton used her position to champion personal causes, like the need for more women in management and a comprehensive environmental program, despite being Wal-Mart’s only female director, the youngest and arguably the least experienced in business.

[...]

And several months ago [in 2007], Mrs. Clinton helped broker a secret meeting between a top Wal-Mart executive and former Democratic operative, Leslie Dach, and leaders of the retailer’s longtime adversary at the United Food and Commercial Workers union, according to several people briefed on the matter, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to do so publicly.

The goal of the meeting was to tamp down the rancor between the company and the union, which has set up a group, WakeUpWalMart.com, that has harshly criticized the chain and leaked embarrassing internal documents to the news media, though an accord has not yet been reached.

Mrs. Clinton declined to be interviewed for this article. In a statement, her spokesman said, “Wal-Mart is now one of the country’s largest employers, and Mrs. Clinton still believes it is important to try to influence the decisions they make because they can affect so many people.”

[...]

“Did Hillary like all of Wal-Mart practices? No,” said Garry Mauro, a longtime friend and supporter of the Clintons who sat on the Wal-Mart Environmental Advisory Board with Mrs. Clinton in the late 1980s and worked with her on George McGovern’s 1972 presidential campaign.

“But,” Mr. Mauro added, “was Wal-Mart a better company, with better practices, because Hillary was on the board? Yes.”


FWIW.

Cheers,
Scott.
New is this the same person who when being advized they were going to mumble NY for a meet n greet
stated "why we going there? They don't have no fucking money!"
you can kill people for America at age 18 but need to be 21 to buy a beer
New OTOH
Those blue-dogs were directly responsible for the bad aftertaste of the ACA. They were pretty much elected for one purpose only as Obama's main campaign focus had been healthcare. Instead, they turned that into one of the most despicable performances I've seen on that side of the aisle on a core piece of legislation.
New True. But it's in place now, and it can (and will if we vote) be improved over time.
New Re: Compare what Pelosi was able to do in 4 years ...
And look at what she had to do because of the new star of the democratic party who got the White House? Take away the Public Option in the so-called "signature" piece of legislation of that very president. That is only among the most blatant anti-Democratic Party actions the Reagan Republican in the White House has committed over the past 7 years. Honestly, up until the natural consequence of "voting for the lesser evil" was realized in 2008, how would you have answered this question, "A future U.S. President will support and sign legislation that mandates every single American pay a private corporation a profit on pain of IRS fine. To which political party will that President belong?" How about this one? "A future U.S. President will assume the authority himself, and subject that authority to no other, the decision making power of whom shall be assassinated without regard to national origin and will order the CIA and/or the Pentagon to conduct those murders? To which political party will that President belong?"

Concerning your youtube link of Greenwald, well, he got one thing right, didn't he? This budget *bargain* the President just made does, in fact, cut Social Security benefits. The Left is almost non-existent in this country (it never has enjoyed a strong presence). But what passed for Leftist here used to be the Democratic Party. But, as Greenwald says, they, too, figured out that they could take big money from the oligarchs and the people of the Left would still support them their elections (Lenin might have called these people useful idiots). That's how we got democrats who cut social programs, codify private mandatory corporate profits and increase substantially funding for the MIC.

But, hey, that's all right. Because REPUBLICANS!
New Public-Option argument #12341
We've been through that multiple times, so I won't address it again.

Concerning your youtube link of Greenwald, well, he got one thing right, didn't he? This budget *bargain* the President just made does, in fact, cut Social Security benefits.


Maybe you can point to the language in the bill that cuts SS benefits.

I see something in Title VIII that talks about some changes taking place starting 2022, and a brief mention on p. 78 of some tax on "wages (so defined)" (it's not clear to me what wages they're talking about) increasing from 1.80% to 2.37% between 1/1/2016 and 12/31/2018. And these numbers (p.54-55):

(B) in subclause (VI), by striking ‘‘$1,309,000,000’’’’ and inserting ‘‘$1,546,000,000’’;
(C) in subclause (VII), by striking ‘‘$1,309,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$1,462,000,000’’;
(D) in subclause (VIII), by striking ‘‘$1,309,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$1,410,000,000’’; and
(E) in subclause (X), by striking ‘‘$1,309,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$1,302,000,000’’;


Those don't look like cuts to me, except for a $7M decrease in the last one.

Cheers,
Scott.
New Maybe this will help.
Section 831 of the House’s new budget bill would make radical changes to the way Social Security provides spousal and retirement benefits.​

​Let me list all the benefit cuts and other problems arising from this truly draconian bill.

In six months, benefits now being received by spouses, divorced spouses or children on the work record of a spouse, ex-spouse or parent who has suspended his or her benefits will be eliminated until the worker restarts his/her retirement benefit. I’ve never heard of a change in Social Security law that eliminates benefits for people already collecting, but this is what’s in this bill. This will cost millions of households tens of thousands of dollars. Worse, it will induce those who have suspended their benefits in order to collect higher benefits at 70 to restart their benefits at permanently lower levels in order to maintain their family’s immediate living standards. ...

Some view this as a loophole, but Social Security is so complex that it’s hard to say what is a loophole and what’s not. We’ve been paying 12.4 percent of our income to Social Security since our first job in exchange for a variety of benefits, including spousal and divorce(e) spousal benefits, in retirement age. Now, with a couple of sentences, our government is reneging on what for many households can amount up to $50,000 in lifetime benefits.

But the loss in lifetime benefits can be far greater.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/houses-proposed-budget-bill-will-devastating-effects-millions-social-security-benefits/

Let me guess. Yes, Obama did this, but REPUBLICANS! would have been much worse, right?
Expand Edited by mmoffitt Oct. 30, 2015, 09:08:26 AM EDT
New It seems to be scare-mongering to me.
Here's Section 831:

Sorry about the formatting:

SEC. 831. CLOSURE OF UNINTENDED LOOPHOLES. 22

(a) P RESUMED F ILING OF A PPLICATION BY I NDIVID - 23
UALS E LIGIBLE FOR O LD - AGE I NSURANCE B ENEFITS AND 24
FOR W IFE ’ S OR H USBAND ’ S I NSURANCE B ENEFITS .—
(1) I N GENERAL .—Section 202(r) of the Social 1
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 402(r)) is amended by 2
striking paragraphs (1) and (2) and inserting the 3
following: 4
‘‘(1) If an individual is eligible for a wife’s or 5
husband’s insurance benefit (except in the case of 6
eligibility pursuant to clause (ii) of subsection 7
(b)(1)(B) or subsection (c)(1)(B), as appropriate), in 8
any month for which the individual is entitled to an 9
old-age insurance benefit, such individual shall be 10
deemed to have filed an application for wife’s or hus- 11
band’s insurance benefits for such month. 12
‘‘(2) If an individual is eligible (but for section 13
202(k)(4)) for an old-age insurance benefit in any 14
month for which the individual is entitled to a wife’s 15
or husband’s insurance benefit (except in the case of 16
entitlement pursuant to clause (ii) of subsection 17
(b)(1)(B) or subsection (c)(1)(B), as appropriate), 18
such individual shall be deemed to have filed an ap- 19
plication for old-age insurance benefits— 20
‘‘(A) for such month, or 21
‘‘(B) if such individual is also entitled to a 22
disability insurance benefit for such month, in 23
the first subsequent month for which such indi-
vidual is not entitled to a disability insurance 1
benefit.’’. 2
(2) C ONFORMING AMENDMENT .—Section 202 3
of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 402) is amend- 4
ed— 5
(A) in subsection (b)(1), by striking sub- 6
paragraph (B) and inserting the following: 7
‘‘(B)(i) has attained age 62, or 8
‘‘(ii) in the case of a wife, has in her care (indi- 9
vidually or jointly with such individual) at the time 10
of filing such application a child entitled to a child’s 11
insurance benefit on the basis of the wages and self- 12
employment income of such individual,’’; and 13
(B) in subsection (c)(1), by striking sub- 14
paragraph (B) and inserting the following: 15
‘‘(B)(i) has attained age 62, or 16
‘‘(ii) in the case of a husband, has in his care 17
(individually or jointly with such individual) at the 18
time of filing such application a child entitled to a 19
child’s insurance benefit on the basis of the wages 20
and self-employment income of such individual,’’. 21
(3) E FFECTIVE DATE .—The amendments made 22
by this subsection shall apply with respect to individ- 23
uals who attain age 62 in any calendar year after 24
2015.

(b) V OLUNTARY S USPENSION OF B ENEFITS .— 1
(1) I N GENERAL .—Section 202 of the Social 2
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 402) is amended by adding 3
at the end the following: 4
‘‘(z) V OLUNTARY S USPENSION .—(1)(A) Except as 5
otherwise provided in this subsection, any individual who 6
has attained retirement age (as defined in section 216(l)) 7
and is entitled to old-age insurance benefits may request 8
that payment of such benefits be suspended— 9
‘‘(i) beginning with the month following 10
the month in which such request is received by 11
the Commissioner, and 12
‘‘(ii) ending with the earlier of the month 13
following the month in which a request by the 14
individual for a resumption of such benefits is 15
so received or the month following the month in 16
which the individual attains the age of 70. 17
‘‘(2) An individual may not suspend such benefits 18
under this subsection, and any suspension of such benefits 19
under this subsection shall end, effective with respect to 20
any month in which the individual becomes subject to— 21
‘‘(A) mandatory suspension of such benefits 22
under section 202(x); 23
‘‘(B) termination of such benefits under section 24
202(n);
‘‘(C) a penalty under section 1129A imposing 1
nonpayment of such benefits; or 2
‘‘(D) any other withholding, in whole or in part, 3
of such benefits under any other provision of law 4
that authorizes recovery of a debt by withholding 5
such benefits. 6
‘‘(3) In the case of an individual who requests that 7
such benefits be suspended under this subsection, for any 8
month during the period in which the suspension is in ef- 9
fect— 10
‘‘(A) no retroactive benefits (as defined in sub- 11
section (j)(4)(B)(iii)) shall be payable to such indi- 12
vidual; 13
‘‘(B) no monthly benefit shall be payable to any 14
other individual on the basis of such individual’s 15
wages and self-employment income; and 16
‘‘(C) no monthly benefit shall be payable to 17
such individual on the basis of another individual’s 18
wages and self-employment income.’’. 19
(2) C ONFORMING AMENDMENT .—Section 20
202(w)(2)(B)(ii) of the Social Security Act (42 21
U.S.C. 402(w)(2)(B)(ii)) is amended by inserting 22
‘‘under section 202(z)’’ after ‘‘request’’. 23
(3) E FFECTIVE DATE .—The amendments made 24
by this subsection shall apply with respect to bene-
fits payable for months beginning at least 180 days 1
after the date of the enactment of this Act.


Section (a) is about filing for benefit and applies starting 2016. It's not for people who aren't collecting benefits yet.

Section (b) is about voluntary suspension of benefits. What tiny fraction of people does that apply to?

It's mind-boggling to this reader.

Now maybe he's right that the language changes the calculations that people have to make about when they and their spouse retire and that's effectively a huge cut for some of that (seemingly tiny) fraction. Maybe. I'm not buying his scare-mongering on that yet, based on his (what seems to me) misinterpretation of a voluntary suspension as being equivalent as a mandatory suspension.

More on the "deeming" stuff is here:

When Congress passed the Senior Citizens Freedom to Work Act in 2000, it introduced a new concept called “voluntary suspension” of benefits, allowing those who had already started Social Security benefits to stop their payments and earn delayed retirement credits. In the process, however, the new voluntary suspension rules unleashed several additional Social Security claiming strategies, including various “claim now, claim more later” tactics involved File-and-Suspend and Restricted Applications for spousal benefits.

And under this week’s budget legislation, Congress has decided to close these perceived “loopholes” in the Social Security rules. By extending the rules for deemed application, it will no longer be possible to file a restricted application for just spousal benefits. And with an extension of the “suspension” rules that stipulate suspending an individual’s benefits will also suspend any benefits to other people based on the same earnings record, Congress has killed off the various “File and Suspend” strategies to allow spousal and dependent benefits to be paid while still earning delayed retirement credits.


Loophole? Dunno. Important? Dunno. Obama and the Democrats savaging Social Security with draconian cuts? I don't think so. It sounds like it's an adjustment for something that was only introduced in 2000.

We'll see.

Thanks.

Cheers,
Scott.
New The fact that these "adjustments" are on the table at all demonstrates Right-Shift in the DP.
New It's simple game theory.
The goal is the best or least bad possible outcome for you.
Alex

"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."

-- Isaac Asimov
New That's never been the case for me with political decisions.
I have the great fortune of my household income being nowhere near median. But I support Leftist policies because I know them to be better for the whole.
     Why Scott and Rand support Democrats no matter what. - (mmoffitt) - (20)
         And what is irrational about that? -NT - (a6l6e6x) - (14)
             It's a dangerous false dichotomy. - (mmoffitt) - (13)
                 Voting for Hillary doesn't mean you have to vote for Charlotte - (Another Scott) - (10)
                     Re: Voting for Hillary - (boxley) - (2)
                         She's done a few other things in the last 20+ years. - (Another Scott) - (1)
                             is this the same person who when being advized they were going to mumble NY for a meet n greet - (boxley)
                     OTOH - (scoenye) - (1)
                         True. But it's in place now, and it can (and will if we vote) be improved over time. -NT - (Another Scott)
                     Re: Compare what Pelosi was able to do in 4 years ... - (mmoffitt) - (4)
                         Public-Option argument #12341 - (Another Scott) - (3)
                             Maybe this will help. - (mmoffitt) - (2)
                                 It seems to be scare-mongering to me. - (Another Scott) - (1)
                                     The fact that these "adjustments" are on the table at all demonstrates Right-Shift in the DP. -NT - (mmoffitt)
                 It's simple game theory. - (a6l6e6x) - (1)
                     That's never been the case for me with political decisions. - (mmoffitt)
         Re: Why Scott and Rand support Democrats no matter what. - (rcareaga) - (4)
             The Democratic Party has done plenty to make me fear it. - (mmoffitt) - (2)
                 In defense of Obama - (gcareaga) - (1)
                     Agree in SPADES with Jerry. - (mmoffitt)
             One thing is very clear. - (Andrew Grygus)

My name's Friday. I carry a badge.
67 ms