-
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
hukasmokincaterpillar
Member
To be fair, that's more or less a reflection of the narrow choices these candidates represent.
A27_StarWolf
Banned
1.) Jon Huntsman
2.) Barack Obama
3.) Newt Gingrich
Newt and Obama were tied....
2.) Barack Obama
3.) Newt Gingrich
Newt and Obama were tied....
That's....pretty disturbing.
jamesinclair
Banned
Remarkably right wing test. How about throwing in some real candidates? A Bernie Sanders for example?
1) Obama 42.4%
2) Ron Paul 32.8%
3) New 29% *shudder*
Hunstman is a whisker behind newt.
1) Obama 42.4%
2) Ron Paul 32.8%
3) New 29% *shudder*
Hunstman is a whisker behind newt.
Mortrialus
Banned
Honestly, the thing that stuck out to me most immediately is the quote stating that Heyek, one of the fore bearers of Austrian Economics, effectively stated that government insurance/healcare is bad because medicine isn't objective or definable. I keep telling you guys Austrian Economics is anti-science but you never listen.
Rocket Scientist
Member
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? Seems silly to be against that when we're living longer and longer. I was weirded out by the Newt number, but then I realized there were sliders on the left and that I only agreed with him on 2 questions.
I graduated high school in 1997.
Exactly. Also like I said before, If Obama wins a second term, the right is going to lose its mind in a very bad way. They're literally saying that if Obama wins another term America is going to be destroyed. I never heard shit like that when Clinton was going for re-election in 1996. If someone can find stuff like that, post it here, because I'd love to see it.
elrechazado
Banned
appoint judges
Frank the Great
Banned
1. obama (7/11)
2. hunstman (3/11)
3. romney (2/11)
makes sense. there weren't nearly enough answers. for instance on the SS question there was nothing to eliminate the payroll cap, and for the income tax questions you couldn't say that you wanted the bush cuts to expire for everyone. i guess it makes sense to limit it to what the candidates would actually do, though.
2. hunstman (3/11)
3. romney (2/11)
makes sense. there weren't nearly enough answers. for instance on the SS question there was nothing to eliminate the payroll cap, and for the income tax questions you couldn't say that you wanted the bush cuts to expire for everyone. i guess it makes sense to limit it to what the candidates would actually do, though.
1. Obama
2. Huntsman
3. Ron Paul
Not surprising in the least since I find huntsman a real republican candidate and I agree with paul on a few things. Obama obviously the runaway winner. The answers were terrible though. It was really only trying to figure out what republican candidates should you support.
2. Huntsman
3. Ron Paul
Not surprising in the least since I find huntsman a real republican candidate and I agree with paul on a few things. Obama obviously the runaway winner. The answers were terrible though. It was really only trying to figure out what republican candidates should you support.
The Librarian
Banned
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.
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.
Byakuya769
Member
That was a really horribly designed quiz.
Frank the Great
Banned
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.
The Librarian
Banned
I know. My whole point is that the state will be able to get it up and running, fully operational, sooner, in 2014, rather than 2017.
empty vessel
Member
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.
Invisible_Insane
Member
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.
Also, I'm going to be abandoning the real pic January thing since I'm about to start job hunting again. hoorray
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.
The Librarian
Banned
SOPA is being shelved until "consensus" is found.
http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/204167-sopa-shelved-until-consensus-is-found
http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/204167-sopa-shelved-until-consensus-is-found
elrechazado
Banned
But won't someone please think of big media?
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
Mine was
Mitt 7/11
Huntsman 3/11
Newt 2/11
Obama was tied with Newt. Nothingin agreement with Perry. Seems pretty accurate to me. Confirms that I am backing the right guy.
Rocket Scientist
Member
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.
Jason's Ultimatum
Member
1. Obama
2. Huntsman
3. Rick Perry
Rick Perry!? NOOOOOOOOO.
2. Huntsman
3. Rick Perry
Rick Perry!? NOOOOOOOOO.
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.
empty vessel
Member
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.
That isn't necessary at all. There is no reason that the program has to be "self-funded," and in fact it would be better (less regressive) if it weren't. Again, free choices here.
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.
Jason's Ultimatum
Member
What are your guys thoughts on illegal immigrants receiving welfare? I'm not familar with the current system.
EDIT-For the record, I am aware they receive benefits due to U.S. born child.
EDIT-For the record, I am aware they receive benefits due to U.S. born child.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
It's a meh test though.
Jason's Ultimatum
Member
Yeah, a few of the questions I answered none of the above.
Rocket Scientist
Member
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.
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 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.
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.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Some of those questions sucked. I liked for healthcare being "Keep Obamacare" as one, and "Repeal Obamacare" as the other 4. And no "legalize gay marriage" option for gay marriage, as if that's such an outlandish position to have.
Still, Obama's my #1. My #2 was Bachmann :lol
Still, Obama's my #1. My #2 was Bachmann :lol
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.
Rocket Scientist
Member
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).
Mortrialus
Banned
Bulbo Urethral Baggins
Banned
Classy.
PhoenixDark
Banned
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/updates/4067
Nate Silver thinks this will impact SC, but right now the state is heavily dominated by Romney v Gingrich. I think we'll see another split vote result, with Gingrich edging out unless Santorum just explodes in the polls.
empty vessel
Member
Life expectancy going up is mostly attributable to people surviving past infancy more frequently. Life expectancy once a person reaches age 65 has gone up by about 6 years since the US social security program started, and a disproportionate amount of that increase is from wealthier people (i.e., it is skewed upwards based on a smaller subset of the population who significantly beat the average). For black males, life expectancy once the age of 65 has been reached has increased just three years since the program started. Regardless, our society has been working and creating collective wealth for the past seventy-five years that the program has been in operation. The point of doing all that work and building all that wealth is to make our lives easier. So the argument that raising the retirement age merely maintains the status quo as it existed in 1935 is inadequate. Society had orders of magnitude less wealth in 1935 than it does today. So we can afford to change the status quo. The only question is whether we want to. Do I want to consciously make a decision with the intention of making my life worse in the future? It is a no-brainer for me. NO.
The reason is because there is a class of politically powerful persons--people who benefit from depressing wages and labor bargaining power--that wants to make your life worse (because it is to their benefit to make your life worse). Those seeking to reduce social security benefits are not doing so in order to "save the program" or keep it feasible, it is to depress wages by weakening labor bargaining power (i.e., making people more dependent upon a job).
That isn't a problem in the US. The US has ample resources to maintain benefits where they are.
I'm not trying to harp on you or anything, just explain why I think the presumption that benefits have to be reduced should be challenged. That said, I didn't realize you were in the Netherlands, and I have no real idea what your country's situation is in this respect. My comments are primarily about the US social security system. Having said that, I believe the assault on social spending is a global phenomenon that has the same roots. It is a capital assault (employers and investors) against labor (people who work for a living). Europe, in particular, is currently under heavy assault because there is the most there to destroy. Here, they are just trying to take away or reduce further what meager programs we currently have that bolster labor bargaining power.
I'm saying something a little bit more radical than GhaleonEB (although he may or may not disagree with me). His comments are about fixing the American social security system as a self-contained program (which I do support as a last resort--basically maintaining the status quo). But my comments are a bit broader in that I am saying we are not even constrained by the programs as they currently exist (or the taxes that pretend to, but don't, fund them). There is no doubt that, as a society, the US can afford whatever retirement insurance plan we want (i.e., the country has more than ample resources to direct to this project). So the only question we have to answer in my mind is what kind of retirement insurance plan we want. And, I have to say, I sure as hell don't want one that forces me to wait past age 65 before collecting benefits.
See also: http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=749
http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=14880
Also, check out the article Invisible Insane posted above: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/01/02/unconventional_wisdom?page=0,7
Isn't he like the second Republican congressperson to use that verse with Obama? Or I might just be thinking of a conservative chain email.
Bulbo Urethral Baggins
Banned
Nice to see the real Invisible_Insane again. Good luck in your job hunt.
I understand. There's a lot of political pressure to gut Social Security here in the US, so I'm a bit twitchy when the subject comes up. Didn't mean to snipe at you.
Here's some background on the payroll tax cap.
If that cap were lifted and applied to all income, it would enable the fund to continue to pay rising benefits and still be solvent. We have a political problem in the US, not a funding one with regard to Social Security.
I want to add granularity to this. (Edit: I see you addressed this in your next post. I'll leave it here anyways.)
People are living a bit longer - but the gains are not evenly distributed.
Over the past quarter century, life expectancy at age 65 has increased by one year for lower-income men, compared to five years for upper-income men (see Figure F). Men in the lower half of the earnings distribution have not even caught up to where upper-income men were in 1982. In the case of women, life expectancy has grown slowly overall, with lower-income women actually seeing declines and upper-income women seeing only modest improvements. The general pattern appears to hold with older women as well, as Cristia (2009) found a substantial and statistically significant increase in mortality differentials by lifetime earnings for women aged 50-64, and a smaller and not significant increase among women aged 65-75.
It speaks to how uneven access to healthcare in the US impacts the poor and working classes, which is why it would be particularly unfair and even cruel to raise the retirement age for them.
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.
Sadly, this is not the time.
For is you keep reading that chapter, you'll see why the days of that person should be numbered -
It was "Because that he remembered not to show mercy, but persecuted the poor and needy man" (109:16), and also because "as he loved cursing, so let it come unto him: as he delighted not in blessing, so let it be far from him. As he clothed himself with cursing like as with his garment, so let it come into his bowels like water, and like oil into his bones".
God sure loves some irony.
But the point is really driven home at the end of the chapter -
Let them curse, but bless thou:
when they arise, let them be ashamed; but let thy servant rejoice.
Let mine adversaries be clothed with shame;
and let them cover themselves with their own confusion, as with a mantle.
I will greatly praise the LORD with my mouth;
yea, I will praise him among the multitude.
For he shall stand at the right hand of the poor,
to save him from those that condemn his soul.
Word.
p.s.
Man, there is like no decent translation of the Bible to English.
FleckSplat
Member
On that USA Today quiz:
1. Obama
2. Huntsman
3. Romney (distant)
An expected result.
1. Obama
2. Huntsman
3. Romney (distant)
An expected result.
Many, many people that WANT to work longer are forced into retirement earlier than they plan anyway. Businesses do not want 70 year olds. An economy can only support so many walmart greeters. Full retirement benefits right now are already up to 67 years old.
Then there's people who physically can't do their job anymore due to age. Construction workers, laborers, etc.
No. Social security is available to everyone AFAIK.
This conversation is timely, as this week my wife and I met with our financial planner for our (first) annual review of our savings balance, strategy and trajectory. We're in good shape, and it just reminded me of how very fortunate we are in this country. I'm tracking to retire well before the official retirement age. I am very fortunate.
I wish Paul would drop out. He has zero chance and his votes would end up going to Gingrich or Santorum and they could finally beat Mitt. God dammit.
Perry can bail the fuck out any time now, too. Dipshit. I think he's just in it to troll the voter spread at this point
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked