-
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.
PoliGAF 2013 |OT2| Worth 77% of OT1
- Thread starter The Librarian
- Start date
- Status
I think a mod has to do that.
The Librarian
Banned
It's given to you by an administrator or at the request of a moderator to an administrator. Mods can't give you tags.
Avon Barksdale
Member
Okay, thanks.
The DoD doesn't process veteran benefits and VA has been exempted from the sequester. Sometime when I'm not posting from my phone I'll explain to poligaf how VA claims processin got so backed up. *teaser: it includes an attempt to privatize some of the workload.
TacticalFox88
Banned
Dax who is that in your avatar?
o.o
o.o
The Librarian
Banned
Same woman it's always been.
Boo on Brewer.
I want the citizens of Arizona to SUFFER.
You're awful.
How many liberals do you think exist in Arizona?
At least 40 percent of voters. Many don't vote. And even if they're not liberal, they don't deserve to suffer.
Yeah? Well, I take it back then.
That's Dax. Although as she mentioned, the picture changes every now and then.
What? I could have sworn she mentioned it's some actress chick or something.
Creepy.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ls-prices-now-it-wants-to-cap-their-spending/
Interesting article on Maryland's healthcare pricing system. They already set prices (lowest in nation because of it), but now want to cap spending.
Perhaps hospitals should stop buying all of this new, expensive, fancy equipment that is barely better than the old stuff? Or stop constantly expanding? Just a thought. Hopefully spending controls will curb that idiocy
Interesting article on Maryland's healthcare pricing system. They already set prices (lowest in nation because of it), but now want to cap spending.
Perhaps hospitals should stop buying all of this new, expensive, fancy equipment that is barely better than the old stuff? Or stop constantly expanding? Just a thought. Hopefully spending controls will curb that idiocy
Eligibility creep* and the introduction of regressive high marginal tax rates** that increase with creep and facilitate further creep (no matter how asinine it may be).
*SNAP has functioned in a more reality-based manner than TANF, so it's not inevitable that creep happen as destructively or quickly as the latter, but it is a real risk that shouldn't be dismissed.
**Since we're talking about loss of a guaranteed minimum income in a period of certain declining health, it's probably safe to say this is a very high marginal tax rate.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
I'm still not sure that I completely understand your point, so please correct me if I get something wrong. It seems that you wouldn't want a ceiling on eligibility for SS payments because (1) such ceilings tend to exclude increasing numbers of individuals, and (2) it effectively imposes a regressive tax in that the percentage of total income lost by a person just above the ceiling is higher than the percentage of total income lost by a person significantly above the ceiling.
I think that (1) is a valid concern, but I think a simple solution would be increasing the ceiling in accordance with CPI to try to prevent "ineligibility creep" (you said "eligibility creep," but I think that's a different concept (Note: PDF) from what the TANF article you linked discusses. On the other hand, I frankly couldn't care less about (2), at least if the ceiling is at an appropriately high income.* However, I'd be open to a gradual phase-out of SS benefits so that the effect isn't so dramatic for those at the level at which 100% of benefits are lost.
empty vessel said:
That may be what retirement insurance is, but Social Security isn't designed to benefit those who have contributed to society through their labor; it's (broadly) designed to benefit those who have contributed to Social Security through their taxes. More narrowly, it's designed to provide a minimum income in old age for those who have contributed to SS during their lives. (I know SS has other benefits, but I'm concerned only with its retirement benefits component.) There's no reason that those who have income significantly higher than that minimum should still be getting SS payments.
Now, if the government actually had put that money away in an account set aside for each individual paying into SS, then I wouldn't be making this argument, but that's not what happened. Instead, the government pays current beneficiaries from current revenues; it's a redistribution from those who are currently working to those who no longer are. Why burden those who are presently paying into SS more than necessary?**
*One obvious problem with this suggestion is that an "appropriately high income rate" will vary by region. I don't think that's a fatal flaw, though.
**I admit that I don't know whether the benefits to be gained by setting an income ceiling for receipt of SS benefits would exceed the costs of implementing such a ceiling, or whether they'd be worth implementing even if there were no implementation costs, but I assume that they would be. If anyone has information showing the contrary, I'd be happy to look at it.
I'm having a very hard time seeing why that would be preferable to simply raising taxes on high-earners. To the extent that your reason for supporting benefit cuts is that they're politically easier than tax increases, aren't you then basically granting that chipping away at Social Security until it becomes just another program for the poor is a real worry and that liberals should oppose exactly the sort of change you're advocating? But I can't think of any other reason why you'd be for this.
Sure there is. This way people who pay in more can see that they get more out than people who pay in less, which helps lessen resentment. Plus, because of the delayed nature of the payout, it creates a stronger constituency for Social Security - if rich people were only getting small amounts back from Social Security, they'd be much more willing to support cuts for everyone.
Edit: Oh, you're talking about no payments at all, not just reducing everyone's SS benefit to some minimum payment. Even worse. That's a great way to make the people who no longer get benefits hate Social Security - we even fund it with a special tax that we rub their noses in on every paycheck. You're proposing teaching people to think of payroll taxes as "money we're taking from you that will never benefit you in any way". Right now, something like 80% of Americans are willing to support higher taxes if it means preserving Social Security. What do you think is going to happen to that number if you start excluding people from benefits? Perhaps compare support for SS to support for various means-tested programs.
I have no idea why you'd make this distinction.
I don't want an income ceiling for social security benefits because people get what they pay for* under the current system--to each according to her
My point was that changing the nature of social security to exclude a small number of (economically and politically powerful) people created additional risks to the system that aren't worth bearing. You asked for further explanation of those risks, which is what my last (poor it seems) post was about.
You do have the gist of what I was trying to say though with the (
The CPI scenario is simple and reactive to market information, but by only proposing that you appear to be treating ineligibility creep as something that is the product of stickiness in personal incomes or unintended political paralysis when pure ideology or chicanery can also be to blame. You're welcome to not GAF / be flexible about the incentivizing aspect or how it can undermine public support, but I think that's ill-advised.
Luther Gulick wrote the following of a conversation he had with FDR about payroll taxes and it still seems relevant:
*Unless they happen to have been members of the CPUSA.
empty vessel
Member
You are confusing the operational mechanics of the program for its underlying principles. The program operates mechanically as a wealth transfer from current workers to retired workers. But individual benefits are earned only through labor. One's entitlement to it is pegged to wages earned through labor. If you never earned a paycheck for labor in your life, you are not entitled to any benefits. Similarly, those who earn more through their labor over the course of their career are entitled to higher benefits, precisely because they earned more (which is a proxy for social contribution).
Your proposal would fundamentally change the program into a simple welfare program, and that's not what nationalized retirement insurance is.
We don't have to burden those presently paying into SS at all. The operational mechanics of how a program's benefits are administered should not be confused with whether or how one becomes entitled to the benefit. They are separate issues. For example, I favor eliminating the payroll tax entirely. That wouldn't change how people become entitled to benefits, however.
I'm a little surprised you posted this without pointing out the fundamentally backwards nature of requiring people to work in order to receive social support, which is a thread that runs through many American social programs. Doing this negates the two major benefits of social support programs -- it doesn't lessen the lash of hunger, and it doesn't provide effective care for people who are fundamentally unable to work. Without those two elements, it's barely a social program at all!
Social Security is not a welfare program, but it should be a welfare program, or it should be replaced by one.
speculawyer
Member
I can't help but think that the VA claims processing is slow intentionally. Like any insurance agency, you don't get rich by paying claims. I know it is not a private insurance agency but they do have a limited budget. So you deny claims, be slow in processing them, require additional information, etc.
speculawyer
Member
On SS, it seems obvious that it would be good to save money by not paying people who don't need it. But that is just a first blush view.
If you start doing that then you'll build up a class of people who want to cancel it because they get nothing from it. And those are wealthy people to have influence and can donate to campaigns. So if you cut them off, it could backfire and endanger the whole program.
A better solution is probably to just tax very wealthy people more . . . they get their social security check but they pay a bunch of it back because they have a high income.
If you start doing that then you'll build up a class of people who want to cancel it because they get nothing from it. And those are wealthy people to have influence and can donate to campaigns. So if you cut them off, it could backfire and endanger the whole program.
A better solution is probably to just tax very wealthy people more . . . they get their social security check but they pay a bunch of it back because they have a high income.
empty vessel
Member
Ideally, sure, but that'd be a different program, i.e., it wouldn't be a national retirement insurance program. And as long as welfare programs are fundamentally opposed by a politically powerful segment of the population, I'd just assume keep it as an earned benefits program rather than transform it into something else that is even more vulnerable to neoliberal attack than it already is. In fact, one can have whatever welfare programs one wants to have while continuing to have a national retirement insurance program. We don't have to pick one or the other.
In other words, if we have something like a basic income guarantee that exists notwithstanding work (which I would support), there is no reason that that must (or even should) supplant a national retirement insurance program.
Moreover, it creates bureaucracy, paperwork and requires an enforcement mechanisms, it's just easier to have slightly higher revenue and pay everyone, the economic effects are pretty much the same.
PhoenixDark
Banned
It's been quite an eventful few weeks. To be perfectly honest none of these scandals strike me as meaningful, outside of the AP stuff and the administration's continued harassment of journalists/prosecution of leaks. I've noticed a few liberal commentators/sites (Mother Jones for instance) outright dismissing this stuff, which you can chalk up as "my side is doing it so who cares." This is an ugly precedent that will only get worse in coming administrations.
The only other story that gave me pause was the umbrella thing. I just thought it looked stupid, especially the troll face Obama gave as he checked for rain. But while I think most Americans saw nothing wrong with it ("they hold doors for him, why can't they hold an umbrella?"), I was introduced to some rather sinister views on it during my paid vacation. Over the last few years I've noticed various stories insinuating Obama hates the troops, but it seems to have hit a fever pitch since Benghazi. I overheard some truly ugly stuff at a graduation party last weekend, including from a former Navy Seal.
The general gist was that the Obama administration (specifically Joe Biden) exposed Navy Seal Team 6 by acknowledging they raided/killed Bin Laden, and that this has put them in danger. Nearly every far right wing site is banging the drum about the Seals being exposed on purpose, and killed in Afghanistan (in that huge chopper attack from 2011 that killed multiple SEALs). Unsurprisingly, Fox is giving this stuff the green light
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_XcqKBWRBc
Then there's the story that Obama personally sent a Muslim cleric to the funeral to damn the slain SEALs to hell
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h19hcDRvKj8
This goes beyond fringe politics to me, and borders on incitement. The far right has gone insane over these scandals, especially the Benghazi stuff, and mainstream elected officials have given them credibility. There are US senators accusing Obama of treason in a round about way, and an endless pile of stories about him deliberately endangering the lives of troops. Listening to my SEAL friend spew far right nonsense, essentially accuse the president of treason, and demand "justice" for his slain buddies honestly scared me. I feel like two things are happening now. On one hand the republican party has decided they want to ride the scandal wave into 2014/2016. This has essentially given the far right a green light, to the point they honestly believe Obama will be impeached any day now. When that doesn't happen, when he avoids "justice" again, and when the reality that he'll be president for awhile longer truly sinks in, I fear that something truly crazy is going to happen.
The only other story that gave me pause was the umbrella thing. I just thought it looked stupid, especially the troll face Obama gave as he checked for rain. But while I think most Americans saw nothing wrong with it ("they hold doors for him, why can't they hold an umbrella?"), I was introduced to some rather sinister views on it during my paid vacation. Over the last few years I've noticed various stories insinuating Obama hates the troops, but it seems to have hit a fever pitch since Benghazi. I overheard some truly ugly stuff at a graduation party last weekend, including from a former Navy Seal.
The general gist was that the Obama administration (specifically Joe Biden) exposed Navy Seal Team 6 by acknowledging they raided/killed Bin Laden, and that this has put them in danger. Nearly every far right wing site is banging the drum about the Seals being exposed on purpose, and killed in Afghanistan (in that huge chopper attack from 2011 that killed multiple SEALs). Unsurprisingly, Fox is giving this stuff the green light
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_XcqKBWRBc
Then there's the story that Obama personally sent a Muslim cleric to the funeral to damn the slain SEALs to hell
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h19hcDRvKj8
This goes beyond fringe politics to me, and borders on incitement. The far right has gone insane over these scandals, especially the Benghazi stuff, and mainstream elected officials have given them credibility. There are US senators accusing Obama of treason in a round about way, and an endless pile of stories about him deliberately endangering the lives of troops. Listening to my SEAL friend spew far right nonsense, essentially accuse the president of treason, and demand "justice" for his slain buddies honestly scared me. I feel like two things are happening now. On one hand the republican party has decided they want to ride the scandal wave into 2014/2016. This has essentially given the far right a green light, to the point they honestly believe Obama will be impeached any day now. When that doesn't happen, when he avoids "justice" again, and when the reality that he'll be president for awhile longer truly sinks in, I fear that something truly crazy is going to happen.
speculawyer
Member
Yeah, there really is a lot of crazy out there. And that is sad because it poisons the debate. You can't have a serious discussion about these matter because if you admit that perhaps they overstepped the bounds a little bit on something, that gets made into a huge deal and part of a massive Obama really hates American and wants to destroy it narrative.
I just wish some of these people could apply some critical thinking. I mean really . . . if Obama actually hated American and wanted to destroy it . . . don't you think he could do a little bit more that he is supposedly doing?
And even the mainstream right fuels it. When you have Peggy Noonan saying these 'scandals' are worse than Iran-Contra & Watergate . . . it is ridiculous.
It makes me appreciate people like Code Pink. They serve a great job in showing that Obama is not some crazy left-winger like the right likes to allege.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Agreed, the media's compliance is often stunning. You've got Fox openly saying Obama sent a Muslim cleric to that funeral, as if it's a fact. Even the most lazy journalism would reveal that the cleric was there since Afghan soldiers were being buried too, and the idea that his prayer was offensive or damning is nonsense.
TacticalFox88
Banned
Whoever came up with the idea that the media is "Liberal" set this country back god knows how much. Any fight back against OBVIOUS fucking retarded right-wing fantasy nonsense is seen as "liberal". The fuck kind of shit is that?
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
I think the main reason why Liberal blogs and such might be dismissing some of the legitimate concerns is because all the shit republicans/fox news are just throwing at the administration right now. It's pretty insane. They are literally trying to make everything a huge scandal. Has this ever happened to another president in the past? At least to this extent?
Clinton.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
Was it like this though? Every other day there is some sort of controversy. I seriously don't even remember anymore.
I am Michael Bolton
Banned
Besides possible immigration reform, am I the only one who assumes that for the rest of his term Obama will be a lame duck Pres? We're basically 18 months away from the mid term elections so it's likely that he'll only have six months to get anything meaningful passed as we all know that starting January 1st next year nothing will get done. Once the mid terms are over (regardless of who wins), the Republicans will obstruct until 2016.
I'd say that at least the nominees for the courts and agencies will finally get a vote due to Harry Reid's testicles seemingly have dropped but it's Harry Reid. The irony is that while McConnell is the one that looks like a turtle, it's Harry Reid's balls that seem to return into hiding when Mitch calls his bluffs.
I'd say that at least the nominees for the courts and agencies will finally get a vote due to Harry Reid's testicles seemingly have dropped but it's Harry Reid. The irony is that while McConnell is the one that looks like a turtle, it's Harry Reid's balls that seem to return into hiding when Mitch calls his bluffs.
There was no Fox News during his first term, and their media echo chamber wasn't quite as sophisticated as it is these days, but they tried to throw the kitchen sink and then some at him.
They also went after Hilary significantly harder than they go after Michelle.
I think it all depends on how the midterms go.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
Hillary was actually attempting policy though. They have most definitely gone after Michelle for the most innocuous things. She just seems to be 'laying low' lately. These people are insufferable. It is such a disgrace.
TacticalFox88
Banned
When 90% of your party is filled with disgraceful human beings that's what the result is.
Mrs. Manky
Banned
It looks like the term "liberal media" was part of Nixon's Southern Strategy, per the Dredd Blog: http://blogdredd.blogspot.com/2010/02/origin-of-liberal-media-meme.html
So it seems a lot of the pain in this country for the last 40 years can be placed at the feet of Nixon and Lee Atwater.
I can see where one could get that impression, however, the employees who make the decisions never consider if there is budget room, I promise you this. If a decision maker short changes or denies a claim incorrectly, and is caught, not only does the employee have to correct it on their own work time (meaning that it cuts into the ability to meet production quotas) but their quality (another part of production quotas) gets slammed. One error in the whole file and the employee gets a 0. The quota says the employee must maintain a quality rate of 90. Only five cases are reviewed per month. If you get a 0 on one case you have 80 percent quality for the month. It's not in the interest of the employees to incorrectly deny or assign a lower evaluation than they should. Then there is 38 C.F.R 4.3, 4.7 and 4.23
I started writing a whole paper on VA, but, I decided to do it in Word and take my time.
They accused her of murder, repeatedly.
And just the language they used was so fucking vile, I honestly think it's not politically viable to attack first ladies like that, especially with the women vote being what it is.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Real talk?
If you'd been here when the "scandals" first leaked you'd have called it the end of the Obama presidency.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
Oh yeah, forgot about that. Holy shit.
PhoenixDark
Banned
I was here for the initial break out of them, and even then I was skeptical. Initially the one I was concerned about was the IRS stuff, but now we know it was basically a couple dumbasses in Cincinatti.
Still, nothing gets conservatives riled up like alleged oppression and the IRS. The scandal, even if it goes nowhere, could spur 2014 turnout. Not that republicans will need it; they'll handily hold the House due to gerrymandering.
Link
The Autumn Wind
Which is hilarious when you think about it.
Arrowgigantic
Member
It's not ugly. It's a cost of doing business for accepting and publishing classified information. It's not legal and it shouldn't be automatically legal, otherwise you invite spies to get jobs as journalists to shield themselves from prosecution.
The AP is only pretending like getting a couple months of what numbers they called and how long they talked pulled is some egregious invasion of privacy. It's a political move on their part. It gets spun up into things that didn't happen, like wiretapping and reading all of their email, and soon it doesn't even matter that the AP published an article that let al-Qaeda know that the US was aware of their new underwear bombing scheme, instead it's all about Obama vs. Freedom.
There is shameful classified stuff that deserves press coverage, a la "sunlight is the best disinfectant". Things like Abu Ghraib. Then there's this particular AP incident, which caters far less to the public interest than it does to damaging national security operations.
If the story is "Government Obtains Phone Records", and that's all you know, it is foolish to assume it's some attempt at ending the free press. This plays right into the Karl Rove manual of "making your enemy's strength a weakness". It has been done countless times with Obama, whose civil rights record is on par with LBJ and Lincoln.
airmangataosenai
Member
Family Facebook humor time!
Never has the image choice for an image macro ever been so appropriate.
Never has the image choice for an image macro ever been so appropriate.
Black Mamba
Member
Figures conservative humor and Jay Leno would go together.
There is no more perfect match.
There is no more perfect match.
Black Mamba
Member
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...26/bob-dole-gop-should-be-closed-for-repairs/
Bob Dole is not pleased. Fox must be even less pleased it happened on their channel.
edit: he also said the filibuster is being abused.
- Status