Support NeoGAF

[empty vessel]

So, a good few weeks after empty posted a link to this austerity video, I finally got around to watching it.

Does anyone else have video recommendations on the economy in a similar manner?

Here is an interview with Warren Mosler.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGuNpqYBkZk

 

[PhoenixDark]

So what's Poligaf's opinion on the Black Panther Party, were they ever a dangerous party or is that all propaganda I assume?

Overall they were a positive community force. Older black people will tell you that it was the Black Panthers who helped provide school lunches, transportation, neighborhood security, and other things. Were they perfect? No. They were involved in extortion in California and allegedly killed Betty Van Patter. Not to mention countless police encounters, many of which were instigated by the police but not all.

Ronald Reagan signed a gun law that outlawed the public display of guns, aimed at stopping Panthers from carrying weapons. Funny you never hear about that from conservatives.

 

[InsaneZero]

After a certain point I realized that it's rather counterproductive to discuss the hypocrisy of the conservative movement at large. The people that will willfully engage in that discussion aren't necessarily the people that actually need to listen to the conversation.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Speaking of Gingrich he's quite reasonable here on Crime and Prison reform.

http://www.gingrichproductions.com/2013/08/eric-holder-gets-one-right-on-crime/

If you added up every person incarcerated in the United States and considered them as a single town, where do you think it would rank among the most populous American cities? About the size of New Orleans, perhaps, number 52? Or Minneapolis, number 49? How about Washington, D.C., the 25th most populous? Surely not larger than Phoenix, number six?

In fact, if you lumped every American who is in prison — all 2.3 million — together into one city, it would rank just above Houston, Texas as the fourth largest in the United States. It would be larger than the populations of San Francisco, Boston, Denver, and Orlando combined.

Add in the 5.1 million Americans on probation or parole and, at 7.3 million people, Prison City is second only to New York, and larger than the next two — Los Angeles and Chicago — put together.

According to the Pew Center on the States, one in every 31 people in the U.S. is under correctional supervision, either in prison, on parole, or on probation.
The human cost is terrible. This is especially true in the African American community. At current rates, one in every three African American males born today is likely to end up in prison during his lifetime, according to the NAACP.

The fiscal cost, too, is becoming catastrophic. Prisons now cost taxpayers $60 billion per year. At 10 percent of the state’s budget, California now spends roughly as much on prisons as it does on higher education.

Beginning with Chuck Colson’s courageous founding of Prison Fellowship and Pat Nolan’s leadership since Chuck passed away, there has been a resurgence of serious conservative thought about prison reform. Right on Crime, a movement I am affiliated with, has led the way on this issue working closely with Prison Fellowship.
Conservative leaders at the state level have introduced major prison reforms in recent years, pioneering a less expensive and more humane system without compromising public safety and while maintaining the rule of law.

In Texas, Ohio, Georgia, and Pennsylvania, to name a few, conservative governors have taken steps to return non-violent offenders to community supervision rather than imprisonment, saving their states tens of millions of dollars. These innovative strategies have proven much more efficient at holding low-level offenders accountable, and they ensure states have the resources to keep behind bars those criminals who really need to be there.

Yesterday, Attorney General Eric Holder announced corrections reforms which follow the course these conservative governors have set toward more sensible sentencing laws. While it would have been better for Holder to ask Congress to make these changes rather than doing so by executive fiat, he has hit upon an important goal.
We lock up too many non-violent people, and the recidivism rate (the number of released prisoners who end up back in jail) is extremely high. As many as 60 percent are arrested again within three years. The corrections system is not correcting.

Seventy percent of prisoners rank in the lowest two levels of reading ability, according to the National Institute for Literacy. Many studies have shown that prisoners who obtain a G.E.D. while incarcerated are dramatically less likely to return to prison than those who do not. One of the greatest steps we could take toward rehabilitating prisoners and reduce the chances they return to prison is to use new learning technologies to give them better opportunities for work when they reenter society.

Every prisoner in America, unless they have a college degree, should spend a significant portion of their time working through free, personalized online learning systems like Khan Academy or Duolingo. At the same time, they should take digital courses focused on rehabilitation to help them learn to be decent members of society. Their privileges in prison and evaluations for parole should be tied to progress in such a program. Even a decade ago this would have been cost-prohibitive to implement for all prisoners, but today much of the material is available virtually for free.

Technology may also offer us better ways to hold people who aren’t dangerous accountable for breaking the law. For many non-violent offenders, electronically-monitored probation or parole could be much more productive than prison, allowing offenders to stay in the community, work, keep their families together, and avoid learning from the hardened criminals in prison, while still restricting them significantly. Some combination of GPS and video could monitor to make sure they go only where permitted, stay within a curfew, and avoid further criminal activity.

Finally, Van Jones (who will join me as a co-host of Crossfire on CNN this fall) has suggested an incentive system for wardens and prison personnel, to give them an interest in rehabilitating (rather than merely housing) the prisoners. Wardens, he proposes, should get a bonus for significant improvements in the rate of their prisoners who do not return.

When one in every 31 Americans is under correctional supervision, it’s clear that something is very wrong. The United States stands above all for freedom, and yet we have by far the highest rate of incarceration in the world. That’s why we should do everything we can, including sensible prison reform, to help more Americans learn to live in freedom. It is good to see Attorney General Holder take a step in this direction.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Finally, Van Jones (who will join me as a co-host of Crossfire on CNN this fall) has suggested an incentive system for wardens and prison personnel, to give them an interest in rehabilitating (rather than merely housing) the prisoners. Wardens, he proposes, should get a bonus for significant improvements in the rate of their prisoners who do not return.

Will they still get the bonus if the former prisoner...dies? Could generate some interesting murder/fraud cases.

 

[BSsBrolly]

Anyone have a place with news archives? I was asked for examples of Republicans refusing to compromise and was able to come up with a few but would love to rattle off dozens of examples.

That's a damn good idea for a website though. Would love something like that as I could throw it in certain people's faces. I had someone actually say its the Democrats, not Republicans that refuse to compromise...

 

[Avon Barksdale]

Anyone have a place with news archives?

Google?

 

[BSsBrolly]

Google?

I'm searching google but its hard to locate what I need. I'd love a place that archives specific things. For example: Something that keeps track of all the times Obama has attempted to compromise only to be rebuffed by Republicans. Or times Republicans have tried scare tactics, only for them to later be proven bs.

 

[empty vessel]

Will they still get the bonus if the former prisoner...dies? Could generate some interesting murder/fraud cases.

These kind of "market" solutions only generate fraud. It's basically Michelle Rhee in the prison context.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Will they still get the bonus if the former prisoner...dies? Could generate some interesting murder/fraud cases.

Hah.

That idea is similar to the hospital readmission rates being tied to higher Medicare reimbursements for hospitals. Realign the incentives around quality and thus the (presumable) goal, which is rehabilitation. Not sure funneling money to the warden is the best way to go, but I like the line of thinking, which is to shift focus to rehabilitation over incarceration.

 

[Wilsongt]

Looks like Megyn Kelly is trying to push a pro-gay agenda on Fox. Wait? Pro-gay?!

Conservative Group Wrings Hands Over Fox’s ‘New Pro-Gay Agenda’ Led by Megyn Kelly

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution‘s Jim Galloway points to a conservative group that is deeply worried about Fox News’ new “pro-gay agenda.”

Wait, what? Did you read that correctly? Yes, you did.

A new “study” from a group called America’s Survival laments the egregious “pro-homosexual advocacy” of Fox’s new primetime host Megyn Kelly. The group sees a devious shift in Fox’s treatment of the homosexuals via their removal of Sean Hannity from the 9 p.m. slot. From the press release:

“Pushing Sean Hannity out of the 9:00 p.m. slot, to make way for pro-homosexual advocate Megyn Kelly, is another sign of the channel’s left-ward drift and decline,” said ASI President Cliff Kincaid, a veteran journalist and media critic.

The report includes a lengthy section titled “Fox News Joins the Pro-Homosexual Media Bandwagon,” in which the group wrings hands over how Fox has “increasingly adopted a libertarian brand of ‘conservatism’ that eschews or downplays social issues, especially homosexuality, as too ‘divisive.’” The emergence of this “neutral (or shallow)” coverage of homosexuality has been exacerbated by the “pro-LGBT” advocacy of hosts like Kelly, Bill O’Reilly, and Shepard Smith.

Each “pro-gay” Fox host has their own special section in the report, in which ASI chronicles the many ways these on-air personalities defile conservative values and whatnot.

The authors suggest Shepard Smith is “the next Anderson Cooper” for being what they deem a “closeted homosexual.” In another section, Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace is lambasted for exploring the possible “homophobia” of certain Republican congressmen.

Even popular talk show The Five is decried as “five-for-five pro-homosexual.”

But much of the pearl-clutching is saved for Megyn Kelly. After all, she was the harlot who set O’Reilly up for his infamous “Bible thumpers” remark. ASI cites the below passage from her 2012 interview with an evangelical pastor as clear-cut evidence of her devilishly “pro-homosexual agenda”:

“This country has a long history of discrimination against certain groups. Eventually we wind up getting it right. Right? Against women, against blacks, the civil rights movement and so on. And in justifying that discrimination when it was in place, some folks turn to the Bible and turn to their religious beliefs and said we have to have slavery because it’s in the Bible. Women have to be second-class citizens because that’s in the Bible. Blacks and whites can’t get married because that’s in the Bible. That wound up in a case. A judge wrote that in an opinion, which the Supreme Court ultimately struck that down, saying, ‘That’s not right, judge — the Equal Protection clause says you can’t do that.’ Why is gay marriage any different?”[/quote]

So… in other words… the cold, hard truth counts as evidence of Kelly turning to some dark side and spitting upon conservatism?

One could take this passage as proof that, deep down, ASI isn’t interested in any semblance of truth or objectivity. They just want to have their increasingly archaic anti-gay views coddled by a news network, regardless of when things like the truth offends them.

Or maybe they just want Todd Starnes to host every single hour of Fox programming.

You know you're fucking crazy when you start targeting Fox News, your only bastion of ignorance left to you outside of the internet.

Also, I agree that Shep needs to come out of his closet. It's time, cutie.

 

[B-Dubs]

Looks like Megyn Kelly is trying to push a pro-gay agenda on Fox. Wait? Pro-gay?!

Conservative Group Wrings Hands Over Fox’s ‘New Pro-Gay Agenda’ Led by Megyn Kelly



You know you're fucking crazy when you start targeting Fox News, your only bastion of ignorance left to you outside of the internet.

Also, I agree that Shep needs to come out of his closet. It's time, cutie.

Megyn Kelly is pushing a pro-gay agenda? In what goddamn universe?

 

[RoninChaos]

I guess. I mean it just shows how marginalized this group has become, which is GREAT! Unfortunately, their way of thinking is still on front street. This picture is AMAZING though

A cockroach shooting a cockroach...

There's a dora the explorer toy there though... uh...

 

[Avon Barksdale]

Megyn Kelly is pushing a pro-gay agenda? In what goddamn universe?

Bizzaro Land at Weazel News.

 

[Samk]

There's a dora the explorer toy there though... uh...

Gross

 

[Diablos]

So uh I just read that the Clinton Foundation is having problems (infighting, debt, etc.) But they seem to stem from things back in 2011. Why is this news now? Is it hinting of a potential megaton that doesn't bode well for the family?

 

[PhoenixDark]

So uh I just read that the Clinton Foundation is having problems (infighting, debt, etc.) But they seem to stem from things back in 2011. Why is this news now? Is it hinting of a potential megaton that doesn't bode well for the family?

On a side note I've heard the Ready For Hillary radio at 5 times today at work.

I'm sure some funds have been mis-allocated or are paying the wrong people. The question is whether it's a case of bad management of blatant abuse, and who was involved. Bill Clinton's fingers won't be anywhere near it, that's for sure (whether he's guilty or not).

They're looking for anything to bury her with. If someone used $20 of donated money to buy McDonalds we'll hear about it.

 

[The Librarian]

A Democrat would only need Obama '08's or Kerry's level among whites to win Georgia in 2016.

Romney won Georgia by just 7.8 points--about the same margin that Obama won Wisconsin or Minnesota, and less than Obama's margin in traditional battlegrounds like New Mexico and Michigan. The margin of victory was just 300,000 votes. Georgia's Republican lean can't survive another net-1.1 million new non-white residents over the next decade unless the GOP significantly broadens its appeal. Even in the short term, the white share of the electorate could drop down to 58 or 59 percent by 2016—which could allow a Democrat to win with as little as 23 or 24 percent of the white vote. That’s the range where a Democrat might win without a GOP meltdown. John Kerry won 23 percent of the white vote in 2004, so did President Obama in 2008. Jim Martin’s 26 percent would yield a slight but clear victory.

Of course, there’s no guarantee that the next Democratic candidate retains Obama’s support or turnout among non-white voters. There’s no guarantee that the next Democratic presidential candidate can return to Obama ’08 levels among Georgia’s white voters, either. The point isn’t that Georgia will be competitive as soon as 2016, let alone 2020. The point is that the demographics have moved far enough that there are plausible scenarios where Georgia is competitive in just four years. Would anyone really be blown away if Hillary Clinton retains most of Obama’s support among non-white voters, and does as well among Southern whites as either Kerry or Obama ’08?

Winning an open seat in Georgia wouldn’t be as sweet for Democrats as beating Mitch McConnell. Blue Georgia doesn’t sound as nice as Blue Texas, either. That’s probably why we don’t hear as much about Georgia. But a Senate seat is a Senate seat and Georgia’s 16 electoral votes would make it the largest red-to-purple state since Florida lurched toward the Democrats in the 1990s. If Nunn runs well and the GOP nominates a problematic candidate, pay attention.​

 

[Frank the Great]

If the GOP needs to spend its resources to defend Georgia in 2016, the race for president is over. 16 electoral votes, god damn.

Spoiler

If Hillary runs the race is over anyway.

 

[Diablos]

Though it goes without saying -- a lot could happen between now and 2016.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

They're looking for anything to bury her with. If someone used $20 of donated money to buy McDonalds we'll hear about it.

The times?

 

[Black Mamba]

Jennifer Rubin obliterates the latest Heritage Poll showing people support a gov't shutdown to delay Obamacare.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2013/08/15/heritages-junk-poll/

Yes, you read that right.

So, only by asking a misleading question, misrepresenting the results and going to select ultra-conservative districts could Heritage Action come up with a majority to support its suicide mission. Republicans on the Hill should pay heed to the lengths Heritage Action would go to convince them. And those covering the Heritage Action poll should be honest in explaining what it does and does not tell us.

Why do you think this much jury-rigging is needed to push its agenda? Maybe Heritage Action’s poll, like Heritage Foundation’s widely discredited study on the economic impact of immigration reform, actually tells us how out of touch with reality Heritage has become.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Jennifer Rubin obliterates the latest Heritage Poll showing people support a gov't shutdown to delay Obamacare.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2013/08/15/heritages-junk-poll/

Yes, you read that right.

And the former ombudsman of the Post obliterates Rubin

Jennifer Rubin. Have Fred Hiatt, your editorial page editor—who I like, admire, and respect—fire opinion blogger Jennifer Rubin. Not because she’s conservative, but because she’s just plain bad. She doesn’t travel within a hundred miles of Post standards. She parrots and peddles every silly right-wing theory to come down the pike in transparent attempts to get Web hits. Her analysis of the conservative movement, which is a worthwhile and important beat that the Post should treat more seriously on its national pages, is shallow and predictable. Her columns, at best, are political pornography; they get a quick but sure rise out of the right, but you feel bad afterward.

And she is often wrong, and rarely acknowledges it. She was oh-so-wrong about Mitt Romney, week after week writing embarrassing flattery about his 2012 campaign, calling almost every move he made brilliant, and guaranteeing that he would trounce Barack Obama. When he lost, the next day she savaged him and his campaign with treachery, saying he was the worst candidate with the worst staff, ever. She was wrong about the Norway shootings being acts of al-Qaida. She was wrong about Chuck Hagel being an anti-Semite. And does she apologize? Nope.

Rubin was the No. 1 source of complaint mail about any single Post staffer while I was ombudsman, and I’m leaving out the organized email campaigns against her by leftie groups like Media Matters. Thinking conservatives didn’t like her, thinking moderates didn’t like her, government workers who knew her arguments to be unfair didn’t like her. Dump her like a dull tome on the Amazon Bargain Books page.

 

[Oblivion]

When conservatives say Social security is adding to the deficit/debt, how are they arriving at that conclusion, exactly?

 

[empty vessel]

Jennifer Rubin obliterates the latest Heritage Poll showing people support a gov't shutdown to delay Obamacare.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2013/08/15/heritages-junk-poll/

Yes, you read that right.

Lest we forget:

Businessman Joseph Coors contributed the first $250,000 to start The Heritage Foundation in 1973. Other significant contributors have included the conservative Olin, Scaife, DeVos and Bradley foundations.

In 2007, Heritage reported an operating revenue of $75.0 million. As of February 2011, Heritage reported 710,000 supporters. Heritage Foundation is also a part of the Koch Foundation Associate Program.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heritage_Foundation#Funding

Business interests at work.

When conservatives say Social security is adding to the deficit/debt, how are they arriving at that conclusion, exactly?

By moving their mouths and forming sounds through use of their vocal cords.

 

[TacticalFox88]

A Democrat would only need Obama '08's or Kerry's level among whites to win Georgia in 2016.

Romney won Georgia by just 7.8 points--about the same margin that Obama won Wisconsin or Minnesota, and less than Obama's margin in traditional battlegrounds like New Mexico and Michigan. The margin of victory was just 300,000 votes. Georgia's Republican lean can't survive another net-1.1 million new non-white residents over the next decade unless the GOP significantly broadens its appeal. Even in the short term, the white share of the electorate could drop down to 58 or 59 percent by 2016—which could allow a Democrat to win with as little as 23 or 24 percent of the white vote. That’s the range where a Democrat might win without a GOP meltdown. John Kerry won 23 percent of the white vote in 2004, so did President Obama in 2008. Jim Martin’s 26 percent would yield a slight but clear victory.

Of course, there’s no guarantee that the next Democratic candidate retains Obama’s support or turnout among non-white voters. There’s no guarantee that the next Democratic presidential candidate can return to Obama ’08 levels among Georgia’s white voters, either. The point isn’t that Georgia will be competitive as soon as 2016, let alone 2020. The point is that the demographics have moved far enough that there are plausible scenarios where Georgia is competitive in just four years. Would anyone really be blown away if Hillary Clinton retains most of Obama’s support among non-white voters, and does as well among Southern whites as either Kerry or Obama ’08?

Winning an open seat in Georgia wouldn’t be as sweet for Democrats as beating Mitch McConnell. Blue Georgia doesn’t sound as nice as Blue Texas, either. That’s probably why we don’t hear as much about Georgia. But a Senate seat is a Senate seat and Georgia’s 16 electoral votes would make it the largest red-to-purple state since Florida lurched toward the Democrats in the 1990s. If Nunn runs well and the GOP nominates a problematic candidate, pay attention.​

If that's not a confirmation that a Hillary run would be a roflstomp, IDK what will.

If Texas goes Purple, Republicans will NEVER win the White House. EVER.

 

[B-Dubs]

When conservatives say Social security is adding to the deficit/debt, how are they arriving at that conclusion, exactly?

"It costs money so it has to be." That's the argument as I understand it.

 

[Black Mamba]

When conservatives say Social security is adding to the deficit/debt, how are they arriving at that conclusion, exactly?

Social Security’s total expenditures have exceeded non-interest income of its combined trust funds since 2010, and the Trustees estimate that Social Security cost will exceed non-interest income throughout the 75-year projection period. The deficit of non-interest income relative to cost was about $49 billion in 2010, $45 billion in 2011, and $55 billion in 2012.

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/

Interest from the trust fund is gimmick accounting and should be ignored. Basically, SS taxes < SS outlays since 2010.

Of course, it's stupid to focus on a deficit of a tax vs spending program. There is only Gov't receipts and Gov't spending. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Link]

Jennifer Rubin obliterates the latest Heritage Poll showing people support a gov't shutdown to delay Obamacare.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2013/08/15/heritages-junk-poll/

Yes, you read that right.

Why do you think this much jury-rigging is needed to push its agenda?

Pretty much describes the entire Republican Party these days.

 

[Black Mamba]

HAI DAX HOW R U 2DAY!?

North Carolina House Majority Leader Paul &#8220;Skip&#8221; Stam had some choice words Monday for the state&#8217;s superintendent of public instruction &#8211;- words that he would most likely reconsider if the schools chief were a man.

Stam's comment came after the superintendent, June Atkinson, expressed her belief to reporters that private schools and public schools in the state should take the same standardized tests. He said she should focus on her mandate of helping public schools, according to North Carolina outlet The News & Observer.

&#8220;She should stick to her own knitting,&#8221; Stam said.

However, as ThinkProgress points out, Stam&#8217;s comment not only has &#8220;sexist implications&#8221; but also &#8220;ignores the fact that education is Atkinson&#8217;s proverbial &#8216;knitting.&#8217;&#8221;

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/14/paul-stam-sexism-knitting_n_3757569.html

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Sharia is coming!!!!!

Federal Court Strikes Down Oklahoma Sharia and International Law Ban

OKLAHOMA CITY &#8211; A federal court today struck down an Oklahoma state constitutional amendment that would have prohibited state courts from considering what is broadly described as Islamic "Sharia law" and "international law."

The American Civil Liberties Union and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) challenged the amendment on behalf of Muneer Awad, executive director of CAIR's Oklahoma chapter.

"We're very pleased with the result, which will help secure religious freedom and equality for all Oklahomans," said Daniel Mach, director of the ACLU's Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief. "Throughout the case, the state couldn't present even a shred of evidence to justify this discriminatory, unnecessary measure."

The proposed constitutional amendment also would have barred state courts from applying or considering "international law."

"The court got it right," said Chandra Bhatnagar, senior attorney with the ACLU's Human Rights Program. "The Supreme Court has held that international law is part of our law. Moreover, our Constitution requires ratified treaties to be treated as the supreme law of the land. Preventing courts from considering foreign or international law raises serious questions about the separation of powers and the independence of courts and judges."

"This law unfairly singled out one faith and one faith only," said Ryan Kiesel, executive director of the ACLU of Oklahoma. "This amendment was nothing more than a solution in search of a problem. We&#8217;re thrilled that it has been struck down."

The funniest part is the contact info of the Press release

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: 212-549-2666, media@aclu.org

 

[ClassyPenguin]

I have family in NC. One of these days I should take them on their offer of having free travel expenses in order to visit.

 

[The Librarian]

Can somebody tell me what Black Mamba posted? I'm too busy knitting.

 

[Trakdown]

Sharia is coming!!!!!



The funniest part is the contact info of the Press release

Oh no, now they'll only have every other law (including the first amendment) to protect them! AAAAAAAAAAAAAHHH!

 

[The Librarian]

Really, WaPo? Is the controversy of NC's voter ID law overblown?" Considering how many cases of voter fraud there has been in the state in the past 12 years, yes?

 

[Oblivion]

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/

Interest from the trust fund is gimmick accounting and should be ignored. Basically, SS taxes < SS outlays since 2010.

Of course, it's stupid to focus on a deficit of a tax vs spending program. There is only Gov't receipts and Gov't spending. Nothing more, nothing less.

Wait, so outlays ARE higher than taxes right now? I thought that wasn't supposed to happen til like 2037 or something?

 

[The Librarian]

Wait, so outlays ARE higher than taxes right now? I thought that wasn't supposed to happen til like 2037 or something?

That's the point at which Social Security will pay out more than it will take in, causing recipients to receive only three-fourths of benefits if something isn't done. The trust fund is helping SS at the moment.

 

[Black Mamba]

Wait, so outlays ARE higher than taxes right now? I thought that wasn't supposed to happen til like 2037 or something?

Around that time outlays > revenues + interest

Today, outlays > revenues BUT revenues + interest > outlays.


Remember, when the SS receipts exceeded outlays, the surplus was invested into gov't securities. That's where the interest comes from. That + the taxes is still higher than outlays.

Think of it like a savings account. The surpluses were put into a savings account with some interest. In 2037, that whole thing will be gone and it will just be tax revenues. But right now it's keeping us okay.

Of course, the "interest" is bogus to begin with. Who pays interest on gov't securities? The gov't. The gov't is literally paying itself. So in essence, we increasing deficit spending on non-SS stuff to prevent SS from being in an accounting deficit. Like I said, it's a gimmick.

Since 2010, we've been in a SS deficit and most likely will continue to be without a change in benefits or taxes. It's also proof why in 2037 we don't have to pay out less benefits. There's no mathematical justification for it because WE ARE ALREADY filling a void in SS that SS taxes fall short. This is why it's paramount to eliminate payroll taxes and increase income taxes. By doing so, the conversation regarding SS is no longer wrong. It becomes another part of gov't spending (which it really is) in the minds of everyone.

 

[The Librarian]

Nate Cohn and PPP had a bit of a Twitter spat:

Via Twitter, Cohn called on PPP to "explain how it got that whites = 71% of GA voters." After an initial reply from PPP's Tom Jensen noting that Republicans had also "bitched about the sample being too Democratic," Cohn pressed: "but what metrics point toward 71% white? I don't need the magic formula, just which ingredient pushes you near that figure?"

Jensen responded: “In the 2008 runoff, the last GA election without a major black candidate on ballot, everyone overestimated black turnout... And as a result significantly undershot Saxby Chambliss' margin of victory. If we weighted blacks any higher [than their percentage in 2008] on this poll...We'd be looking at a nearly split Obama/Romney electorate and a Democratic ID advantage."

Cohn and Jensen then went back and forth about the import of a 28 percent black composition of the 2010 election as reported by Georgia's secretary of state. Which led to this exchange:

Jensen: "There was a black Senate candidate in 2010. 2006 was 24% black."

Cohn: "The idea that you can run back the '06 electorate in '14 is a little ridiculous."

Jensen: "I think our poll reflects how Nunn stacks up to the GOPers at this point. If you think she should be up by 5-6 that's fine by us."

Cohn: "[A]re you saying you weighted to get the result you wanted?...because I'm reading this as 'our sample showed Nunn doing way too well among whites, so we reduced the number of blacks.'"

Jensen: "As I said the last time there was a big GA-Sen race everyone overshot black turnout and undershot Saxby...Maybe we're being over cautious but we try not to make the same mistakes twice. That's all I have to say."​

www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/15/c...947.html?1376606822&ncid=edlinkusaolp00000008

 

[Aaron Strife]

I feel like I trust PPP's pedigree, though if they're lowballing black turnout and still have Nunn tied or winning that's pretty good.

 

[B-Dubs]

I feel like I trust PPP's pedigree, though if they're lowballing black turnout and still have Nunn tied or winning that's pretty good.

Looking at the quotes Dax picked out I'm also trusting PPP in this instance. Their reasoning seems sound, they've been in this situation and done the opposite which turned out to be wrong. They could still very well be wrong this time, but I can't fault someone for being cautious. Better an overabundance of caution in this situation.

 

[Oblivion]

That's the point at which Social Security will pay out more than it will take in, causing recipients to receive only three-fourths of benefits if something isn't done. The trust fund is helping SS at the moment.

Oh, right. I was getting that confused.

Around that time outlays > revenues + interest

Today, outlays > revenues BUT revenues + interest > outlays.


Remember, when the SS receipts exceeded outlays, the surplus was invested into gov't securities. That's where the interest comes from. That + the taxes is still higher than outlays.

Think of it like a savings account. The surpluses were put into a savings account with some interest. In 2037, that whole thing will be gone and it will just be tax revenues. But right now it's keeping us okay.

Of course, the "interest" is bogus to begin with. Who pays interest on gov't securities? The gov't. The gov't is literally paying itself. So in essence, we increasing deficit spending on non-SS stuff to prevent SS from being in an accounting deficit. Like I said, it's a gimmick.

Since 2010, we've been in a SS deficit and most likely will continue to be without a change in benefits or taxes. It's also proof why in 2037 we don't have to pay out less benefits. There's no mathematical justification for it because WE ARE ALREADY filling a void in SS that SS taxes fall short. This is why it's paramount to eliminate payroll taxes and increase income taxes. By doing so, the conversation regarding SS is no longer wrong. It becomes another part of gov't spending (which it really is) in the minds of everyone.

Okay cool, that's what I figured was going on as far as accounting goes.

But you're in favor of eliminating the payroll tax? Wouldn't that be kinda difficult politically?

edit: by that I mean, by having a separate funding mechanism for SS, isn't that how Dems were able to keep it safe from Republicans so far. I forget how exactly he said it, but FDR said something along the lines of such a mechanism making it hard for anyone to fuck with SS because it would look like an earned benefit.

 

[empty vessel]

But you're in favor of eliminating the payroll tax? Wouldn't that be kinda difficult politically?

edit: by that I mean, by having a separate funding mechanism for SS, isn't that how Dems were able to keep it safe from Republicans so far. I forget how exactly he said it, but FDR said something along the lines of such a mechanism making it hard for anyone to fuck with SS because it would look like an earned benefit.

It also is a regressive tax that makes it harder for working people to live (and is a drag on the economy). While making social security appear to be an earned benefit via past tax payments might marginally increase the difficulty of repealing it, what I think is primarily responsible for making it difficult to repeal is the simple fact that its a program that benefits people.

 

[Black Mamba]

It also is a regressive tax that makes it harder for working people to live (and is a drag on the economy). While making social security appear to be an earned benefit via past tax payments might marginally increase the difficulty of repealing it, what I think is primarily responsible for making it difficult to repeal is the simple fact that its a program that benefits people.

This.

All that payroll taxes do is set up a regressive tax that allows employers to shift their burden onto the workforce. You pay all the SS tax in tax and lowered wages while an increase in income taxes leads to increased wages. It's a psychological game that helps employers to shift tax burdens onto workers.

We would be much better off eliminating it and increasing tax rates on incomes and capital gains (and change the overall progressiveness for the better as a result).

SS won't go away. If there is one thing I'm certain of it's that our gov't will always provide for the elderly. Maybe it was necessary during early phases of implementation to convince people to be for it, but now that it's here it won't ever go away. Separate funding isn't necessary and it's all a game anyway. As I said, there is only gov't receipts and outlays. How they get those receipts doesn't matter in terms of how they spend.

 

[Strike]

I got this posted about 10 times on my Facebook feed today:

http://www.examiner.com/article/rep...allow-forced-home-inspections-by-gov-t-agents

Citing the Heath and Human Services website, a report posted Wednesday at the Freedom Outpost says that under Obamacare, government agents can engage in "home health visits" for those in certain “high-risk” categories.

Those categories include:

• Families where mom is not yet 21;
• Families where someone is a tobacco user;
• Families where children have low student achievement, developmental delays, or disabilities, and
• Families with individuals who are serving or formerly served in the armed forces, including such families that have members of the armed forces who have had multiple deployments outside the United States.

According to HHS, the visits fall under what is called the "Maternal, Infant and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program" allegedly designed to “help parents and children,” and could impact millions of Americans.

Constitutional attorney and author Kent Masterson Brown said that despite what HHS says, the program is not “voluntary."

"The eligible entity receiving the grant for performing the home visits is to identify the individuals to be visited and intervene so as to meet the improvement benchmarks," he said. "A homeschooling family, for instance, may be subject to 'intervention' in 'school readiness' and 'social-emotional developmental indicators.' A farm family may be subject to 'intervention' in order to 'prevent child injuries.' The sky is the limit."

Joshua Cook said that while the administration would claim the program only applies to those on Medicaid, the new law, by its own definition, has no such limitation.

"Intervention," he added, quoting Brown, "may be with any family for any reason. It may also result in the child or children being required to go to certain schools or taking certain medications and vaccines and even having more limited – or no – interaction with parents. The federal government will now set the standards for raising children and will enforce them by home visits.”

According to Cook, the program will require collection of a massive amount of private information including all sources of income and the amount gathered from each source.

One of the areas of emphasis mentioned by HHS is the "development of comprehensive early childhood systems that span the prenatal-through-age-eight continuum."

Last session, Cook added, South Carolina State Rep. Bill Chumley introduced a measure that would make the forced home visitations illegal in his state. The measure passed in the House but died in the Senate.

In 2011, he noted, HHS said $224 million would be allocated to support these home visiting programs.

 

[Oblivion]

Was this posted?

...GOP insiders tell [Bedard] that they are considering other choices, even a heavyweight panel of radio bigs Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Mark Levin.

They told [Bedard] that they are eager to bring in questioners who understand Republican policies and beliefs and who have the ability to get candidates to differentiate their positions on core conservative values.

The move comes as several conservatives are pressuring the party to have Limbaugh, Hannity and Levin ask the debate questions. "It makes a lot of sense. We'd get a huge viewership, they'd make a lot of news and maybe have some fun too," said one of the advocates of the radio trio hosting debates.

At this point, they might as well just host the whole thing in Dick Cheney's underground bunker and broadcast it on frequencies that only Republicans can hear.

It also is a regressive tax that makes it harder for working people to live (and is a drag on the economy). While making social security appear to be an earned benefit via past tax payments might marginally increase the difficulty of repealing it, what I think is primarily responsible for making it difficult to repeal is the simple fact that its a program that benefits people.

This.

All that payroll taxes do is set up a regressive tax that allows employers to shift their burden onto the workforce. You pay all the SS tax in tax and lowered wages while an increase in income taxes leads to increased wages. It's a psychological game that helps employers to shift tax burdens onto workers.

We would be much better off eliminating it and increasing tax rates on incomes and capital gains (and change the overall progressiveness for the better as a result).

SS won't go away. If there is one thing I'm certain of it's that our gov't will always provide for the elderly. Maybe it was necessary during early phases of implementation to convince people to be for it, but now that it's here it won't ever go away. Separate funding isn't necessary and it's all a game anyway. As I said, there is only gov't receipts and outlays. How they get those receipts doesn't matter in terms of how they spend.

Oh I totally agree the payroll tax is regressive and such. Was just thinking from the political point of view.

It also is a regressive tax that makes it harder for working people to live (and is a drag on the economy). While making social security appear to be an earned benefit via past tax payments might marginally increase the difficulty of repealing it, what I think is primarily responsible for making it difficult to repeal is the simple fact that its a program that benefits people.

I got this posted about 10 times on my Facebook feed today:

http://www.examiner.com/article/rep...allow-forced-home-inspections-by-gov-t-agents

Oh god, my douchebag uber-libertarian co-worker was forwarding that to everyone in the office today.

 

[ClassyPenguin]

Examiner is a pay per post site, I hate it when people link it and think it's a legitimate source.

 

[Rhomega Beta]

Sharia is coming!!!!!

The funniest part is the contact info of the Press release

Don't forget the ACLU is one of those librul organizations that are going to destroy America!

 

[Gotchaye]

Letting the big radio personalities ask questions of the primary candidates is counterproductive. They're not going to stick to questions that produce inoffensive answers; they'll be even worse, from the party establishment's perspective, than CNN anchors. Candidates won't even be able to dodge questions by attacking the moderators.

That said, this would make for very good debates. They'd make clear exactly what the candidates are willing to speak up for or against.

 

[Avon Barksdale]

Please make Donald Trump one of the moderators. :jnc