Knicks · OT: Politics Thread (page 23)

WaltLongmire wrote:
1) Certain American people are terribly ignorant & have marginal critical thinking skills.

2) The Trump Big Lie campaign worked bigly.

3) Fake News has an impact on what people think.

4) America...we have a problem.

yes
yes
yes
yes

djsunyc wrote:

WaltLongmire wrote:
1) Certain American people are terribly ignorant & have marginal critical thinking skills.

2) The Trump Big Lie campaign worked bigly.

3) Fake News has an impact on what people think.

4) America...we have a problem.

yes
yes
yes
yes

And the system is designed so that their votes carry more weight than yours...They also have leveraged influence in the Senate compared to the big state voter...So they are more likely to be able to impact laws more than you can...

holfresh wrote:

djsunyc wrote:

WaltLongmire wrote:
1) Certain American people are terribly ignorant & have marginal critical thinking skills.

2) The Trump Big Lie campaign worked bigly.

3) Fake News has an impact on what people think.

4) America...we have a problem.

yes
yes
yes
yes

And the system is designed so that their votes carry more weight than yours...They also have leveraged influence in the Senate compared to the big state voter...So they are more likely to impact laws than you...

You mean "They"... the Rogue once?

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/gop-...

We'll have a story coming shortly on what I just mentioned a short time ago: that Republicans are now planning to pass major cuts to Social Security this year. Specifically, this bill is being introduced by Rep. Sam Johnson, Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee's Social Security Subcommittee, the committee with jurisdiction over Social Security.

Until then let me cover the broad details of the plan.

Unlike the Bush-era plan to partially phase out Social Security and replace it with private investment accounts, this plan takes a different approach. Through a variety of mechanisms, this plan simply cuts benefits and introduces means testing. To look at specific cuts, changes in eligibility and so forth look at pages 2 and 3 on this official Social Security Administration scoring document analyzing the plan. The benefit cuts appear to hit everyone but are weighted toward more affluent recipients.

The big picture is that the current Social Security Trust Fund is predicted to be exhausted in the mid-late 2030s. So roughly in 20 years. People often refer to this as 'bankruptcy'. But that's not really accurate. At that point Social Security would only be able to pay 79% of benefits recipients will be entitled to in those years.

By 2090, that percentage falls to 74%. So it's fairly stable after that drop-off in the 2030s.

Now there are a number of ways to cover that shortfall - the most obvious is to remove or alter the so-called 'cap' on Social Security taxes. Once you get over $118,500 of income per year you stop paying Social Security taxes. So your Social Security tax rate is much higher if you make $50,000 a year than if you make $500,000 a year. Change that and most of the problem disappears. You could also combine ditching the 'cap' with much milder cuts than the one envisioned here. You could also rejigger the cap in ways that allowed you to increase benefits.

Here's a snippet from a 2015 TPM article which notes how the entire shortfall problem could be solved even without getting rid of the cap entirely ...

One of the co-sponsors of that bill was Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH), now ranking member of Senate Finance's Social Security subcommittee. Brown spoke in favor of the CAP report last week and told TPM that he would soon introduce legislation of his own. The CAP report said that because of growing income inequality, the percentage of the collective national income taxed for Social Security had fallen from 90 percent to 83 percent. Raising the cap in 2015 to again tax 90 percent of the nation's applicable income would close Social Security's $11.1 trillion shortfall over the next 75 years by more than one-fourth, according to CAP.
The plan with this new GOP bill is to proactively solve this problem entirely with cuts and really big cuts. Out over 75 years, the GOP proposal has the Trust Fund growing substantially out into the infinite horizon. In other words, a lot of the cuts are more than are necessary to pay for all benefits even if you leave the 'cap' in place.

I will say that this new bill is different and I think not as bad (extremely low bar) as the partial phase out of Social Security which President Bush tried to push in 2005. Because you have the same essential mechanisms in place. This is a huge benefit cut. Benefits could later be raised again if there was the political will to do so. The means testing component probably does more to endanger the future of the program in political terms.

More soon.

djsunyc wrote:GOP plans social security cuts

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/gop-...

We'll have a story coming shortly on what I just mentioned a short time ago: that Republicans are now planning to pass major cuts to Social Security this year. Specifically, this bill is being introduced by Rep. Sam Johnson, Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee's Social Security Subcommittee, the committee with jurisdiction over Social Security.

Until then let me cover the broad details of the plan.

Unlike the Bush-era plan to partially phase out Social Security and replace it with private investment accounts, this plan takes a different approach. Through a variety of mechanisms, this plan simply cuts benefits and introduces means testing. To look at specific cuts, changes in eligibility and so forth look at pages 2 and 3 on this official Social Security Administration scoring document analyzing the plan. The benefit cuts appear to hit everyone but are weighted toward more affluent recipients.

The big picture is that the current Social Security Trust Fund is predicted to be exhausted in the mid-late 2030s. So roughly in 20 years. People often refer to this as 'bankruptcy'. But that's not really accurate. At that point Social Security would only be able to pay 79% of benefits recipients will be entitled to in those years.

By 2090, that percentage falls to 74%. So it's fairly stable after that drop-off in the 2030s.

Now there are a number of ways to cover that shortfall - the most obvious is to remove or alter the so-called 'cap' on Social Security taxes. Once you get over $118,500 of income per year you stop paying Social Security taxes. So your Social Security tax rate is much higher if you make $50,000 a year than if you make $500,000 a year. Change that and most of the problem disappears. You could also combine ditching the 'cap' with much milder cuts than the one envisioned here. You could also rejigger the cap in ways that allowed you to increase benefits.

Here's a snippet from a 2015 TPM article which notes how the entire shortfall problem could be solved even without getting rid of the cap entirely ...

One of the co-sponsors of that bill was Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH), now ranking member of Senate Finance's Social Security subcommittee. Brown spoke in favor of the CAP report last week and told TPM that he would soon introduce legislation of his own. The CAP report said that because of growing income inequality, the percentage of the collective national income taxed for Social Security had fallen from 90 percent to 83 percent. Raising the cap in 2015 to again tax 90 percent of the nation's applicable income would close Social Security's $11.1 trillion shortfall over the next 75 years by more than one-fourth, according to CAP.
The plan with this new GOP bill is to proactively solve this problem entirely with cuts and really big cuts. Out over 75 years, the GOP proposal has the Trust Fund growing substantially out into the infinite horizon. In other words, a lot of the cuts are more than are necessary to pay for all benefits even if you leave the 'cap' in place.

I will say that this new bill is different and I think not as bad (extremely low bar) as the partial phase out of Social Security which President Bush tried to push in 2005. Because you have the same essential mechanisms in place. This is a huge benefit cut. Benefits could later be raised again if there was the political will to do so. The means testing component probably does more to endanger the future of the program in political terms.

More soon.

I guess they have to pay for tax cuts and increased military spending they promised...

holfresh wrote:

djsunyc wrote:GOP plans social security cuts

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/gop-...

We'll have a story coming shortly on what I just mentioned a short time ago: that Republicans are now planning to pass major cuts to Social Security this year. Specifically, this bill is being introduced by Rep. Sam Johnson, Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee's Social Security Subcommittee, the committee with jurisdiction over Social Security.

Until then let me cover the broad details of the plan.

Unlike the Bush-era plan to partially phase out Social Security and replace it with private investment accounts, this plan takes a different approach. Through a variety of mechanisms, this plan simply cuts benefits and introduces means testing. To look at specific cuts, changes in eligibility and so forth look at pages 2 and 3 on this official Social Security Administration scoring document analyzing the plan. The benefit cuts appear to hit everyone but are weighted toward more affluent recipients.

The big picture is that the current Social Security Trust Fund is predicted to be exhausted in the mid-late 2030s. So roughly in 20 years. People often refer to this as 'bankruptcy'. But that's not really accurate. At that point Social Security would only be able to pay 79% of benefits recipients will be entitled to in those years.

By 2090, that percentage falls to 74%. So it's fairly stable after that drop-off in the 2030s.

Now there are a number of ways to cover that shortfall - the most obvious is to remove or alter the so-called 'cap' on Social Security taxes. Once you get over $118,500 of income per year you stop paying Social Security taxes. So your Social Security tax rate is much higher if you make $50,000 a year than if you make $500,000 a year. Change that and most of the problem disappears. You could also combine ditching the 'cap' with much milder cuts than the one envisioned here. You could also rejigger the cap in ways that allowed you to increase benefits.

Here's a snippet from a 2015 TPM article which notes how the entire shortfall problem could be solved even without getting rid of the cap entirely ...

One of the co-sponsors of that bill was Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH), now ranking member of Senate Finance's Social Security subcommittee. Brown spoke in favor of the CAP report last week and told TPM that he would soon introduce legislation of his own. The CAP report said that because of growing income inequality, the percentage of the collective national income taxed for Social Security had fallen from 90 percent to 83 percent. Raising the cap in 2015 to again tax 90 percent of the nation's applicable income would close Social Security's $11.1 trillion shortfall over the next 75 years by more than one-fourth, according to CAP.
The plan with this new GOP bill is to proactively solve this problem entirely with cuts and really big cuts. Out over 75 years, the GOP proposal has the Trust Fund growing substantially out into the infinite horizon. In other words, a lot of the cuts are more than are necessary to pay for all benefits even if you leave the 'cap' in place.

I will say that this new bill is different and I think not as bad (extremely low bar) as the partial phase out of Social Security which President Bush tried to push in 2005. Because you have the same essential mechanisms in place. This is a huge benefit cut. Benefits could later be raised again if there was the political will to do so. The means testing component probably does more to endanger the future of the program in political terms.

More soon.

I guess they have to pay for tax cuts and increased military spending they promised...

Yeah but NOTHING can pay for the Tax Cuts and Military Spending. Just look at how much Bush's Tax Cuts and Military adventures cost us!!! These guys NEVER learn. They keep doing the same crap over and over even tho it's been proven not to work and proven to only increase the debt. Sure the rich get more wealthy and things look good for a short time, but it's a Sugar High. All of the stuff Trump is doing have that same Sugar High quick boost but no long term value.

Trump Is Setting Himself up for a Coup by Packing Cabinet With Ex-Generals, Military Expert Warns

Donald Trump is populating his Cabinet with retired generals, which one international affairs expert says violates democratic norms and puts him at risk of being toppled in a military coup.

Steve Saideman, a political scientist at Ottawa’s Carleton University and an author who has extensively studied civil-military relations in democratic societies, said he’s concerned that Trump seems to be ending civilian control of the U.S. military — which he says is a necessary condition of democratic governance.

“Civilian control of the military is both means and end,” Saideman wrote on the blog Political Violence @ A Glance. “It is not just about concentrations of power, but of subservience of the folks with the guns to the people elected to run the country. This is not about the founders of the U.S. or about what makes the U.S. special, but what is essential for modern democracy.”

He’s concerned that Trump had appointed retired Gen. James Mattis as his Secretary of Defense, who would require a congressional waiver to serve just three years after his retirement, in addition to naming two other retired generals, Michael Flynn and John Kelly, as his National Security Advisor and Secretary of Homeland Security.

“The limit on officers serving immediately after retirement is not an accident but a good policy that should not be tossed away simply because Trump admires generals (sort of),” wrote Saideman, a former fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and desk officer on the U.S. Joint Staff’s Directorate of Strategic Plans and Policy. “In a time where authoritarian politics (threats towards journalists and protesters, etc.) are (increasingly) popular, we should put the U.S. military, active and retired, further away from the controls of the U.S. government, not closer.”

He disagrees with those who argue that self-imposed checks by the U.S. military would prevent current or former officers from seizing power or disobeying civilian orders — because he believes Trump’s presidency presents a unique and serious threat to national security.

“Trump’s inherent flaws, including his appeals to white supremacy, his inability to concentrate for the length of an intel briefing, and – most importantly – his lack of respect for and adherence to the various norms that make the institutions operate, make civilian control of the military more, not less, important,” Saideman argued.

He worries that Trump could be such an awful and conflicted president that the military camarilla he established around himself will see no choice but to take over the executive branch.

“Coups happen for a variety of reasons, but most often those engaged in a coup claim that the government is corrupt and/or incompetent,” Saideman warned. “Here is where I could insert a picture of Trump. Trump’s recent call with Taiwan’s President – perhaps to facilitate his own business interests – is an abuse of power that could be used to justify a coup.”

Event absent the threat of a military coup, Saideman said civilian control of the military is necessary to preserve American democratic institutions.

“Simply put, when many of the norms and institutions are under attack, we need to be more, not less, careful about the role of the military in our society,” he wrote. “It is, of course, not so much about coups, but about controlling the military so that it does what civilians want.”

Travis Gettys is an editor for Raw Story.

The Lincoln Memorial has been the site for many of the United States’ most historic rallies, from the civil rights and anti-Vietnam protests of the 1960s to the Million Man March in 1995. However, for the thousands of women planning to march on Washington following Donald Trump’s inauguration, the landmark won’t be available for rallying.

The National Park Service, on behalf of the Presidential Inauguration Committee, months ago reserved access to the landmark by filing a “massive omnibus blocking permit.” Permits for inaugural events have traditionally reserved most of the National Mall, Pennsylvania Avenue, the Washington Monument, and of course, the Lincoln Memorial, for days and weeks before, during, and after the inauguration, which will take place on Jan. 20, 2017.

Mike Litterst, a spokesman for the National Park Service, said the public will not be barred from these spaces, since they will be open for inaugural events. He also noted that the Presidential Inauguration Committee’s permits were filed a year in advance, 10 months before the organizers of the Women’s March on Washington filed a permit for the Lincoln Memorial — and permits are generally issued on a “first come, first serve” basis.

The Women’s March on Washington was organized for Jan. 21, the day following the inauguration and was set to be held at the Lincoln Memorial. According to a Facebook event, over 136,000 people are due to attend. Litterst said the National Park Service is currently working with the march’s organizers to find an alternative space for people to gather. He said the regulations being used for the 2017 inauguration do not differ from the rules used for the past two inauguration ceremonies since the current rules came into effect in 2008, before Barack Obama’s first inauguration the following year.

“The process and the procedures that we’re using for 2017 are the same rules that we’ve used for the past two inauguration ceremonies,” he said.

http://time.com/4595399/women-march-wash...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/...

About a year ago, 18-year-old college student Lauren Batchelder stood up at a political forum in New Hampshire and told Donald Trump that she didn’t think he was “a friend to women.”

The next morning, Trump fired back on Twitter — calling Batchelder an “arrogant young woman” and accusing her of being a “plant” from a rival campaign. Her phone began ringing with callers leaving threatening messages that were often sexual in nature. Her Facebook and email inboxes filled with similar messages. As her addresses circulated on social media and her photo flashed on the news, she fled home to hide.

holfresh wrote:Kelly Ann Conway on CNN says Trump can meet his Celebrity Apprentice obligations in his spare time as President..

Comedians, though, will have a wonderful 4 years, and Alec Baldwin won't have to worry about creating material for his Trump role.

Conway is a joke, but remember, there aren't many great responses you can give when your boss is doing what Trump does.

Just remember, though, she worked for, and stood by, a GOP candidate (Senate, I think) who said that women who were raped don't get pregnant because the body has some kind of system that recognizes a rape and does its own birth control.

reub wrote:You guys have to stop acting like such whining babies. You lost the election fair and square so just give the guy a chance.

Javascript is not enabled or there was problem with the URL: https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/807385364533039104

Click here to view the Tweet

The CIA has concluded in a secret assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump win the presidency, rather than just to undermine confidence in the U.S. electoral system, according to officials briefed on the matter.

Intelligence agencies have identified individuals with connections to the Russian government who provided WikiLeaks with thousands of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee and others, including Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, according to U.S. officials. Those officials described the individuals as actors known to the intelligence community and part of a wider Russian operation to boost Trump and hurt Clinton’s chances.

“It is the assessment of the intelligence community that Russia’s goal here was to favor one candidate over the other, to help Trump get elected,” said a senior U.S. official briefed on an intelligence presentation made to U.S. senators. “That’s the consensus view.”

djsunyc wrote:let's keep all politics in one place :)

so...

rachel maddow just revealed that indiana will be paying $700K/year to carrier to keep the jobs in the US. it is tax payer money that the governer (pence) can approve. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.

reub wrote:You guys have to stop acting like such whining babies. You lost the election fair and square so just give the guy a chance.

have you read this thread? if you see the content, and you see what you perceive as "whining", then why enter the thread?

obviously it's an emotional time for many of us.

this election was influenced BY A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT. but ok, let's just stop whining.

djsunyc wrote:

reub wrote:You guys have to stop acting like such whining babies. You lost the election fair and square so just give the guy a chance.

have you read this thread? if you see the content, and you see what you perceive as "whining", then why enter the thread?

obviously it's an emotional time for many of us.

this election was influenced BY A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT. but ok, let's just stop whining.

McConnell claimed the intel might not be true...pushed for keeping it quiet before the election. Guess whose wife got a nice job, too.

Sounds like some of the GOP WERE in favor of releasing the info...not sure on this.

So yes...the election was hacked, and WikiLeaks was a conduit for Russian leaks.

Cannot say how upset I am about this, more so because of the FBI leaks right before the election.

djsunyc wrote:so the exxon guy leading the SOS search makes even more sense thanks to his ties to putin/russia.

djsunyc wrote:the democrats need to stop being pu$$ies and make this a major issue.

You can make a case that Obama should have stepped up in September and called McConnell's bluff that he was going to cry partisan politics...I think Obama could have won that battle...but we will never know.