PhoenixDark
Banned
I don't think many of Paul's votes would go anywhere. His fiercest supporters aren't republicans
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
US PoliGAF 2012 | The Romney VeepStakes: Waiting for Chris Christie to Sing
- Thread starter Invisible_Insane
- Start date
- Status
I don't think many of Paul's votes would go anywhere. His fiercest supporters aren't republicans
speculawyer
Member
Santorum wins support of evangelical leaders at Texas meeting
By Felicia Sonmez
Former senator Rick Santorum has emerged as the choice of more than 150 evangelical leaders who huddled at a Texas ranch Friday night to debate their preferred candidate in the GOP presidential race.
Meh . . . those evangelicals just marginalized themselves. All they have now is the threat to not show up at the polls.
By Felicia Sonmez
Former senator Rick Santorum has emerged as the choice of more than 150 evangelical leaders who huddled at a Texas ranch Friday night to debate their preferred candidate in the GOP presidential race.
Meh . . . those evangelicals just marginalized themselves. All they have now is the threat to not show up at the polls.
Ok, then, Santorum or Gingrich. The other candidate would absorb the rest of the votes. ROMNEY CAN'T WIN
I'm still in denial just bear with me ok
PhoenixDark
Banned
Meh, I get less scared of Romney every day. I still think he has a good chance of winning but it won't be because he's a good candidate - it'll be because the economy sucks and voters have given up on Obama. Things SEEM to be getting better so we'll see
Paul 5/11
Romney 2/11
Huntsman 1/11
I feel this is inaccurate for these reasons:
1. It did not allow me to invest heavily in STEM and infrastructure while also eliminating spending to near Paul levels on other things.
2. It did not allow me to input the most important issue with American politics - the interaction of business and the Federal government in Congress/Executive.
3. Romney doesn't consistently believe in anything, he should be 0/11 for everyone.
4. None of the healthcare cost suggestions actually address the issue - the obesity and diabetes epidemic due to the food industry (arguably a result of #2 - School lunches and nutrition guidelines brought to you by...). You can fund healthcare any way you want, but if everyone has metabolic syndrome it's going to be expensive.
I see myself as a mix of Paul and Kucinich.
Romney 2/11
Huntsman 1/11
I feel this is inaccurate for these reasons:
1. It did not allow me to invest heavily in STEM and infrastructure while also eliminating spending to near Paul levels on other things.
2. It did not allow me to input the most important issue with American politics - the interaction of business and the Federal government in Congress/Executive.
3. Romney doesn't consistently believe in anything, he should be 0/11 for everyone.
4. None of the healthcare cost suggestions actually address the issue - the obesity and diabetes epidemic due to the food industry (arguably a result of #2 - School lunches and nutrition guidelines brought to you by...). You can fund healthcare any way you want, but if everyone has metabolic syndrome it's going to be expensive.
I see myself as a mix of Paul and Kucinich.
Regarding social security and payroll taxes, it's important to point out that many of the reasons which cause people to flip out about social security, such as expected age, worker/retiree ratios, are slow-moving phenomena which have not radically changed from the predictions in the 1983 Greenspan commission. What has wildly changed from 1983 predictions is the percentage of total income earned which is over the cap vs under the cap. In a very direct way, social security shortfalls are a consequence of increasing earnings variance.
So, not only is the payroll tax the preferred solution in terms of avoiding poorly-justified benefit cuts, but it's also the solution most consistent with the earlier plans for stability, and addressing why they are falling short.
As a fairly lazy source on this, here is the first hit I got discussing it when I googled:
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Blogs...the-Social-Security-Wage-Cap-Issue.aspx#page1
So, not only is the payroll tax the preferred solution in terms of avoiding poorly-justified benefit cuts, but it's also the solution most consistent with the earlier plans for stability, and addressing why they are falling short.
As a fairly lazy source on this, here is the first hit I got discussing it when I googled:
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Blogs...the-Social-Security-Wage-Cap-Issue.aspx#page1
Romney could win if the economy goes to crap. Otherwise Obama will win the election in a landslide. So far the turnout at GOP stuff has been about the same as 2008, but now 20-25% are Paul supporters and Romney won't get the votes of Paul supporters.
Lucky Forward
Member
It was a bumper sticker a while back:
Psalm 109:8 bumper stickers -- a wrong-hearted prayer for President Obama?
Moderates, man. It's all about the moderates. Like the dipshit boomers in my state who are like "derp, Romney, economy, Michigan, economy, Governor in New England, moderate, herp derp." Do not underestimate these simpletons.
neutralgamer02
Member
FWIW, this is the chart (along with consumer confidence, which tracks it closely) I'm currently watching more than polling data.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/110824/Gallup-Daily-US-Economic-Outlook.aspx
I suspect the GOP is as well, since the explosion last year came from their debt shutdown fight. If the economy continues to track as it is, and that kind of repeat is avoided, I like Obama's chances. If the GOP is successful in causing another significant shock to the economy, it will be much harder.
Of course they'll cause more last minute drama when it comes to raising the debt ceiling. They're doing it for political gain more than anything else. They want to make Obama look like a loser. That's the best way to do it.
platypotamus
Member
I thought the same thing. I had Obama at a 40something percent match as my highest too, and that was with me trying to give answers the benefit of the doubt to avoid "none of the aboves" where possible (which was not many places).
The Librarian
Banned
What are you talking about? There isn't another DC increase until Jan 2013.
Angry Fork
Member
The Librarian
Banned
Okay. I know about that, but why does it matter? It can't be blocked. HRs can't threaten the increase other than symbolically showing their disapproval. They can't threaten it until January 2013. What you posted doesn't go against anything I meant to say. I do admit my wording was a little vague.
They're still going to make a dog and pony show out of it.
And as someone who believe that the original debt ceiling confrontation was 95% political theater with a forgone conclusion, I see it mostly as a repeat, but at least now, everyone knows nothing will come out of it, even stupid people.
Rocket Scientist
Member
Thanks to GhaleonEB and empty vessel for the great posts. I consider myself more educated on the subject now and I'm particularly surprised by the life expectancy thing. I didn't know it was skewed that much.
Is especially disappointing.
which party do you vote for in the Netherlands? I used to vote PvdA, but I'm probably switching to SP now.
Trigger Warning
Member
Those evangelical leaders would have been better served if they corralled around a single non-Romney candidate before Iowa.
I just became 18 at the end of December so I had no chance to vote yet. I'm still torn between D66 and SP. SP is nice because they will be harder on the banks and their general vision but I also like D66's focus on Europe.
Obama had mentioned consolidating trade and business agencies; I think he mentioned it in 2011's SOTUA. And aside from the implications for inane political squabbles, it would be a genuinely profitable effort. It only makes sense to consolidate the various aspects of U.S. commerce and trade policy. When our trade representatives negotiate agreements, they should not have to navigate tortuous bureaucratic obstacles when coordinating with promotion agencies. Lamentably, I find the prospects for reform low. Andrew Rudalevige has an informative primer on the difficulties of such reform efforts. Additionally, Congress would have to restructure its oversight committees. And I am not betting on this Congress.
That argument is intuitively appealing. But the evidence suggests its specious. A book published by the NBER examined the effects of lower labor participation rates of seniors in twelve industrialized countries. They concluded that "we find no evidence that increasing the labor force participation of older persons reduces the job opportunities of young persons. Indeed the evidence suggests that greater labor force participation of older persons is associated with greater youth employment and with reduced youth unemployment."
How about the argument that I don't want to work when I'm 70?
I don't think we should be looking at this question from an efficiency perspective only.
Social Security was never meant to be a retirement plan, though it has turned into that. You could, I don't know, save up to retire before 70 and then gravy if you made it to the adjusted age if they bump it up.
empty vessel
Member
Well, part of the argument is that we don't need elderly people to work, period.
empty vessel
Member
It hasn't turned into that. It remains the same insurance program it has always been. And it has worked marvelously. Elderly people no longer wallow in abject poverty as they did before the insurance program.
At the time it was implemented, the elderly were, on average, dead when their social security would have kicked it.
Well except when economy tanks and you get laid off before retirement and have to cash in your funds at greatly reduced amounts to help pay for a life saving surgery, and then can no longer find work because no one wants to hire a person in their early 60's at a living wage.
Kai Dracon
Writing a dinosaur space opera symphony
Which sure makes it look as if social security was just a bit of a calculated scam, in those lights.
Ironically it works better for its noble purpose now. As has been said, a "retirement" plan implies someone socking away funds so that they make continue to live the same middle class life they did while working. That tends to imply a lot of perks and some luxury.
... I've never met an senior depending on social security who is living the high life and wouldn't have traded their social security check for a better life where they had been able to sock away a significant retirement fund.
Well, I still don't want to be working in my 70s.
But if we are to play this weird originalistic game of guessing intent then you're also wrong.
FDR very much wanted to secure safe retirement to all Americans.
Social Security was, and still is, what was politically feasible, not a perfect rendition of some grand vision for America.
Now it's true, not all people see its purpose as such, but many do, and in any case, why would it fucking matter?
It is what it is, and I think we can all understand its impact on us, if you think you we can change it for the better (and honestly, that wouldn't be hard) try articulating your plan so it can be judged on its merits instead of reading the mind of dead politicians.
It's irrelevant to my point. I oppose raising the retirement age. And I could not agree more with your second point. I only addressed the premise that lowering the retirement age would increase employment opportunities for younger workers.
That's a normative argument. And I would agree. Although, I think seniors should have the choice to work without being penalized. Nevertheless, I addressed the empirical argument that lowering the retirement age expands employment opportunities for younger workers. It does not.
empty vessel
Member
And yet, it still managed to work. That's how good it was. Because you see, while the average person may have been dead, the rest weren't.
If this is just a sly point asserting that we should not be better off as a society today than we were 75 years ago, I have to strongly disagree.
Skiptastic
Member
Did we have substantial welfare programs before SS? Couldn't we just give the elderly welfare checks if they need it and none if they don't?
I'd just lift the cap and means test as the way to improve SS's fiscal sustainability. That's certainly gotta help and seems reasonable. Then again, I'd just get rid of those taxes on labor and have federal income taxes cover it. That way, it's paid for with a progressive tax pattern instead of the regressive version we have now that taxes something we want more of, labor.
But I'm sure there is a reason someone will tell me that won't work or is dumb. I'd like to hear it though!
The thing about means testing is that it creates a bureaucracy that both cost money and is annoying to the citizenry; and in the end it has the exact same macro-economical effect of a slightly higher revenue bar.
Life expectancy figures for the 30s were heavily skewed by the infant mortality rate and children dying before they'd ever start paying into the system. This website has a good write-up on life expectancy around the time Social Security was created: http://www.ssa.gov/history/lifeexpect.html
So saying it was created as a scam is bullshit.
state-of-the-art
Member
I took the quiz. Results:
1. Obama 4 of 11 issues.
2. Ron Paul 2 of 11
3. Rick Perry 1 of 11
1. Obama 4 of 11 issues.
2. Ron Paul 2 of 11
3. Rick Perry 1 of 11
Angry Fork
Member
I consider myself a very hardcore leftist, but apparently this opinion is a conservative leaning one. I basically want to choose whether I give to social security or not. I don't know if I'm going to live until I'm 65 and I don't want the government to assume that I will. I don't want them forcefully taking my money from me without my consent. I don't see social security the same way I do healthcare, education, clean energy, roads, etc., I'm in favor of all these kinds of taxes and am quite "socialist" here. Social Security feels very different though, it feels like a guy conning me at my door trying to sell me fire insurance.
As for my money going to other old people, I don't really care honestly. I'm trying to survive on my own while going to school., the last thing I can do is give money to people who had a chance to save up on their own their entire life. If they don't have a dime to their name by 65 that's their problem and I feel like it's wrong to leech off people like me who are struggling just as bad.
I don't want to abolish it at all, I realize it helped people who were homeless before this at a time where they didn't have the education/resources to get a job later on (and I wouldn't want old people to be forced to work to survive), but why not give the people the choice whether they want to contribute or not?
As for my money going to other old people, I don't really care honestly. I'm trying to survive on my own while going to school., the last thing I can do is give money to people who had a chance to save up on their own their entire life. If they don't have a dime to their name by 65 that's their problem and I feel like it's wrong to leech off people like me who are struggling just as bad.
I don't want to abolish it at all, I realize it helped people who were homeless before this at a time where they didn't have the education/resources to get a job later on (and I wouldn't want old people to be forced to work to survive), but why not give the people the choice whether they want to contribute or not?
ReBurn
Gold Member
Social Security will be fiscally sound as long as the government chooses to fund it. I'm not sure why politicians go through the gyrations that they go through over it. I mean, aside from trying to scare the elderly into voting for them.
Yep, that's a conservative view. It's the same (really shitty) reasoning they give for being against welfare, and health care, or possibly even unemployment. Most conservatives also suffer from the short sightedness of disliking a program that they don't directly gain from (yet), even though it's better for society as a whole.
Yes, because poor old people are lazy and don't deserve to be kept out of poverty after a lifetime of work.
Your post honestly depressed me. So many millions of people struggling to get by after a long hard life, and you want return them to abject poverty from just barely getting by, because you "don't really care honestly." I don't want to live in a society that has that view.
empty vessel
Member
You should consider that taxes don't actually fund the program. Which is to say that the tax structure, although purporting to tax you for this program, is really just taxing you to tax you. We could have a social security program without a regressive payroll tax.
(This isn't to say that no taxes are necessary; it's just to say that you shouldn't really think of any taxes imposed on you as going towards any particular government spending program. The tax structure should be devised entirely independently of particular programs and spending the government does.)
People like you who say "I don't know if I'm going to live until I'm 65" are the exact reason why Social Security exists.
This might have been a logical argument 60 or 70 years ago but many people on Social Security have paid into it their entire lives and factor it in to their retirement plan.
Some people can't afford to put away money for retirement, some just don't think far enough into the future, other people's retirement investments were annihilated by the recent stock bubble bursting, and some people lose all their money because they get sick and health care in this country is really god damn expensive even with insurance.
There's a lot of shit that can go wrong in a person's life. I find it strange that you acknowledge that people, especially young people, won't anticipate saving for retirement but don't make the connection that it's why mandated Social Security is a necessity. It is the most basic retirement plan that everyone starts with.
Admiral Bone to Pick
Banned
I think a lot of people overestimate Romney. So much of Republican appeal consists of building up the idea that Democrats/liberals are elitists and that Republicans speak more to the common American. With a robotic CEO like Romney as the nominee, that goes out the window. I just can't see him selling his persona to most voters.
I keep hearing from the righties that SS was just supposed to be a temporary thing that would be phased out in a couple years, or decades at the most. That sounds really strange to me because don't the people on social security get their checks due to younger workers paying into the system? How can you have such a system and then attempt to phase it out?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked