speculawyer
Member
This is kind of a fun test. Find out which candidate is best for you.
Mine went: 1. Huntsman 2. Obama 3. Paul.
To no surprise:
1) Obama
2) Ron Paul
3) Newt
This is kind of a fun test. Find out which candidate is best for you.
Mine went: 1. Huntsman 2. Obama 3. Paul.
A lot of those questions had a very incomplete slate of options. All answers on the Social Security question were bogus; I wanted to lift the cap on the payroll tax, but it wasn't an option. I wanted to expand Medicare through buy-in, but that wasn't an option. I wanted to let all of Bush's tax cuts expire, also not there. So several of my answers were the nebulous 'none of the above'.
Newt and Obama were tied....
If you ever want to see what evil looks like, read this blog post and some of the comments:
http://www.qando.net/?p=3767
I wish these people would come out and say directly what they're implying the whole time: if you're poor or unemployed, your life is not worth the resources it would take to keep you alive in an emergency.
Hayek comes off as a fucking asshole based on the quotes of his this author used.
No fucking way guy. How old were you when Clinton was President?
Republican stonewalling during the Clinton years was nowhere near as bad as it currently is with Obama. In spite of the ridiculous impeachment bullshit, Republicans and Democrats did actually work together in the 90's.
Today, any Republican that even hints at agreeing or working with Obama on any issue is ripped to shreds by conservative media and the base. They've taken it to such a level that they've constructed a completely alternate version of reality that everything is now filtered through to prevent themselves from ever having to acknowledge that Obama has accomplished anything worthwhile.
appoint judgesWhat would be the great fear of a second Obama term? What exactly is he going to do that scares conservatives?
I'm going to break this "comparison-athon" for a moment with two things.
Thing 1: White House signals opposition to SOPA in response to online petitions of SOPA over at We the People.
Thing 2: The public option is not quite dead. Maybe this might be the best effect of PPACA after all: A federal push of health care reform has encouraged, and will continue to encourage, states to take steps of their own. One silver-lining of a Republican president in 2013 is that if PPACA is repealed, Vermont will be allowed to go full-steam ahead with its single-payer.
vermont can go ahead with single-payer even if PPACA stays. pretty sure the bill allows states to come up with their own health plans as long as they meet certain federal benchmarks in terms of coverage and cost reduction. they would have to apply for a waiver.
the waivers would take effect in 2017 but i'm pretty sure there is a push in the legislature to get the waiver date moved up to 2014.
1) Obama (66%)
2) Huntsman (33%)
3) Paul (33%)
A lot of those questions had a very incomplete slate of options. All answers on the Social Security question were bogus; I wanted to lift the cap on the payroll tax, but it wasn't an option. I wanted to expand Medicare through buy-in, but that wasn't an option. I wanted to let all of Bush's tax cuts expire, also not there. So several of my answers were the nebulous 'none of the above'.
Too lazy to find out what I disagreed with Obama, but one of them was social security. Isn't it inevitable that the retirement age goes up?
A decently compelling argument for moving the retirement age in the other direction.All but like two of mine were none of the above. It means none of the candidates' positions represents my interests. Which isn't news, I guess.
Nope, not at all. That is strictly a political choice, i.e., whether we want to make our lives worse. I prefer to make my life better, so I would oppose any raising of the retirement age.
SOPA is being shelved until "consensus" is found.
http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/204167-sopa-shelved-until-consensus-is-found
Mine was
It's hardly political when people are living longer and thus have to get money longer, while at the same time not working longer to pay for it though. The alternative is that you raise what working people pay into the system which is not really helpful and makes their lives ''worse''. If people are getting older and living conditions are improving, people can and should be working longer.Nope, not at all. That is strictly a political choice, i.e., whether we want to make our lives worse. I prefer to make my life better, so I would oppose any raising of the retirement age.
It's hardly political when people are living longer and thus have to get money longer, while at the same time not working longer to pay for it though. The alternative is that you raise what working people pay into the system which is not really helpful and makes their lives ''worse''. If people are getting older and living conditions are improving, people can and should be working longer.
It's hardly political when people are living longer and thus have to get money longer, while at the same time not working longer to pay for it though.
The alternative is that you raise what working people pay into the system which is not really helpful.
If people are getting older and living conditions are improving, people can and should be working longer.
I didn't know that about the payroll cap thing (non-USA here). If doing what you said would greatly increase the feasibility of the program (which I'm assuming it would, makes sense obviously) then it should be done. I'm aware that social security goes mostly to poor people and my comment was only aimed at what would keep the program feasible. I wasn't arguing to force poor people to stay poor.The alternative is to remove the payroll cap on which the tax is applied, it tops out at just over 100k right now. Tax all income and the 'problem' with Social Security goes away.
Social Security goes almost entirely to poor people. You are arguing they should be forced to be even poorer, for longer. I don't see why that must be so.
Of course, so would I. As for the living longer, I don't really see that being not true. Life expectancy has been going up steadily the past century, I'm sure it still is thanks to various advances in scoiety? These programs were created at a time when the life expectancy was at a certain point. It has changed since then, and my assumption was that to keep the program feasible, it would have to change too. If it's not true then I don't understand why there is discussion about retirement age all over the developed world.First, people aren't really living longer. Second, whether to pay for it is a political choice. And an easy one, in my opinion. I would certainly rather allocate resources to that than, say, corn subsidies or the occupation of Afghanistan. Or many, many other things.
I agree with this. Obviously I want a better life. I'm simply talking about keeping the program feasible in an economic sense. Here in the Netherlands the retirement age has also been discussed endlessly and I would assume that it's not being discussed because there is no merit to the case. I'm not an economics major and I know you (and people in this thread) are more knowledgeable on the subject, which is why I asked the question in the first place obviously.Your premises are't really true, but even if they were, I would strongly disagree. We are supposed to be working less, not more. That's the point of productivity gains and technological advancement, i.e., what our ancestors worked for. We are supposed to reap the benefits of that, not make our lives worse.
It's hardly political when people are living longer and thus have to get money longer, while at the same time not working longer to pay for it though. The alternative is that you raise what working people pay into the system which is not really helpful and makes their lives ''worse''. If people are getting older and living conditions are improving, people can and should be working longer.
That is definitely a concern, you're right. I'm personally a fan of solidarity and shared wealth, so I would not be against a more ''socialistic'' future where the retirement age would not have to go up and part time work is more common and enough to actually have a decent life (since we're talking about a future where there simply are not enough full time jobs for everyone).The problem with raising the retirement age is that as population grows, and fewer and fewer new jobs are introduced, keeping people in the game will mean fewer young people and imigrants will be able to enter the job market.
ThinkProgress reported last week that Kansas House Speaker Mike ONeal (R) was forced to apologize to First Lady Michelle Obama after forwarding an email to fellow lawmakers that called her Mrs. YoMama and compared her to the Grinch.
Earlier that same week, the Lawrence Journal-World was sent another email that ONeal had forwarded to House Republicans that referred to President Obama and a Bible verse that says Let his days be few and calls for his children to be without a father and his wife to be widowed.
ONeal forwarded the prayer with his own message: At last I can honestly voice a Biblical prayer for our president! Look it up it is word for word! Let us all bow our heads and pray. Brothers and Sisters, can I get an AMEN? AMEN!!!!!!
Classy.Let his days be few; and let another take his office
May his children be fatherless and his wife a widow.
May his children be wandering beggars; may they be driven from their ruined homes.
May a creditor seize all he has; may strangers plunder the fruits of his labor.
May no one extend kindness to him or take pity on his fatherless children.
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/updates/4067The Family Research Councils Tony Perkins announced that evangelical conservatives who met in Texas recently endorsed Rick Santorum, CNNs Sam Feist reports.
Perkins said there was strong consensus in the room for Santorum, according to Dave Weigel. Perkins said Santorum got support from over two-thirds of the 150 conservative leaders present, according to Felicia Sonmez.
Its not news that theres not strong support among conservatives for Mitt Romney, Perkins said, according to Sonmez.
Of course, so would I. As for the living longer, I don't really see that being not true. Life expectancy has been going up steadily the past century, I'm sure it still is thanks to various advances in scoiety?
These programs were created at a time when the life expectancy was at a certain point. It has changed since then, and my assumption was that to keep the program feasible, it would have to change too. If it's not true then I don't understand why there is discussion about retirement age all over the developed world.
I'm simply talking about keeping the program feasible in an economic sense.
Here in the Netherlands the retirement age has also been discussed endlessly and I would assume that it's not being discussed because there is no merit to the case. I'm not an economics major and I know you (and people in this thread) are more knowledgeable on the subject, which is why I asked the question in the first place obviously.
We've been conditioned to believe that: more old people + living longer + less young people working = young people paying more to maintain a certain standard of living for retirees. What you two are saying is that this is false, so I'm surprised. Though I understand your points.
Religious people. Mock if old.
Nice to see the real Invisible_Insane again. Good luck in your job hunt.Also, I'm going to be abandoning the real pic January thing since I'm about to start job hunting again. hoorray
A decently compelling argument for moving the retirement age in the other direction.
I didn't know that about the payroll cap thing (non-USA here). If doing what you said would greatly increase the feasibility of the program (which I'm assuming it would, makes sense obviously) then it should be done. I'm aware that social security goes mostly to poor people and my comment was only aimed at what would keep the program feasible. I wasn't arguing to force poor people to stay poor.
Social Security withholding tax equal to 6.20% of the gross wage amount, up to but not exceeding the Social Security Wage Base ($97,500 for 2007; $102,000 for 2008; and $106,800 for 2009, 2010, and 2011).
I want to add granularity to this. (Edit: I see you addressed this in your next post. I'll leave it here anyways.)First, people aren't really living longer. Second, whether to pay for it is a political choice. And an easy one, in my opinion. I would certainly rather allocate resources to that than, say, corn subsidies or the occupation of Afghanistan. Or many, many other things.
So I know those guys don't read the bible, but you think statistically, once in a while they'll be able to quote something that wouldn't make them look like idiots when taken in context.
It's hardly political when people are living longer and thus have to get money longer, while at the same time not working longer to pay for it though. The alternative is that you raise what working people pay into the system which is not really helpful and makes their lives ''worse''. If people are getting older and living conditions are improving, people can and should be working longer.
I'm aware that social security goes mostly to poor people and my comment was only aimed at what would keep the program feasible.
I got Obama, then Ron Paul, then Jon Huntsman, but the questions were all framed so conservatively that I probably should have selected "none of the above" for more of the questions.
A new ARG poll has Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich both within striking distance in South Carolina. I'm not sure how reliable they are as a polling outfit, but that is a pretty big surge for Paul, who was only at 9% in their last poll.
Romney 29%
Gingrich 25%
Paul 20%
Perry 9%
Santorum 7%[