Your average Democrat

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 1141 - 1160 of total 1192 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Dec 13, 2012 - 04:25pm PT
Agreed.. but how

My preferred way would be to gradually raise eligibility ages to reflect current demographic reality, rather than 1930's demographic reality.

I think this would be less contractionary (if it is contractionary at all) than raising payroll taxes, and would be more in keeping with the original intent of the programs, namely to provide for necessities for people after they can no longer work.

I don't like means testing, particularly for Social Security, because of the moral hazard issue Dave Kos has so accurately described on the thread involving the Republicans. Nonetheless, if some means testing is necessary to reach a political compromise that actually gets passed, I'd rather have that than a stalemate. Politics is (or at least should be), after all, the art of the possible. leaving the current system unchanged simply guarantees the demise of both programs.

As a suggested bumper sticker of one of my friends says, "Warning: dates on calendar are closer than they appear."

John

Edit: Eric and Karl, I agree that there's plenty of platinum-plated military expense that we can't afford, not the least of which is where we send our troops. That isn't the only conservative favorite I would reduce substantially. In my opinion, our drug laws -- with their ridiculously long sentences (and ridiculously longs sentences generally) are a luxury we can't afford, and are actually counter-productive.

I could go on, but it's increasingly clear that a majority of Americans -- of all political persuasions -- prefer the buy now, pay later (preferably after I'm dead) plan to confronting our financial issues realistically.
Karl Baba

Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
Dec 13, 2012 - 04:58pm PT
Edit: Eric and Karl, I agree that there's plenty of platinum-plated military expense that we can't afford, not the least of which is where we send our troops. That isn't the only conservative favorite I would reduce substantially. In my opinion, our drug laws -- with their ridiculously long sentences (and ridiculously longs sentences generally) are a luxury we can't afford, and are actually counter-productive.

Agreed, and when we consider REAL cuts to the military and the prison industrial complex, it's enough to save medicare and social security if we go back to Clinton era taxes

Easy!

But our government is purchased by them both

Peace

Karl
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Dec 13, 2012 - 07:00pm PT
Looks like John Kerry might be the next Sec of state instead of Rice.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Rice-out-secretary-state/2012/12/13/id/467684
healyje

Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
Dec 13, 2012 - 08:44pm PT
John: ... but the biggest spending issues remain Medicare, Social Security and the increased costs inherent in the ACA.

John, hey, that (edit: fourth) spike in the deficit chart I posted above didn't come from any of those things. And those things, minus ACA, were all in play during Clinton era surpluses. It just doesn't wash or compute in any way.
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Dec 13, 2012 - 08:46pm PT
Yet another example of lefty racism.

froodish

Social climber
Portland, Oregon
Dec 13, 2012 - 10:04pm PT
My preferred way would be to gradually raise eligibility ages to reflect current demographic reality, rather than 1930's demographic reality.

This is a really bad idea. The folks who will need to rely upon Social Security the most (the bottom income quintiles) have not made much in the way of life expectancy gains in the last 40 years.

A modest raising of the income contribution cap would probably handle things just fine and not leave the most vulnerable with a gap between the age at which they can no longer effectively work and when they are eligible for SS.

Social Security funding is a easily solved issue and it's disingenuous to throw it into the same mix as Medicare.
donini

Trad climber
Ouray, Colorado
Dec 13, 2012 - 10:08pm PT
And then there is the average Republican: white, male, bigoted.
rottingjohnny

Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
Dec 13, 2012 - 10:31pm PT
We went over the fiscal cliff when Junior suckered us into 2 wars , gave the well off a tax cut that they didn't need , and handed the bill to the middle class...here's to looking back up at the top of the cliff at the moron republican saboteurs who insist on stealing the America Dream...Go big R ! ...RJ
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Dec 19, 2012 - 01:35pm PT
ok,,, Hillary having a "concussion" and now she cant testify....Really??

Goooood gaaarrrriiiieeeffff!
survival

Big Wall climber
Terrapin Station
Dec 19, 2012 - 01:54pm PT
I like how TGT's video was removed because of youtubes policy against "Spam, Scams and commercially deceptive content."
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Dec 19, 2012 - 01:57pm PT
Ron, have you read the new report just released by the independent Accountability Review Board?

Now, will you please stop posting nonsense about the Benghazi attack? Like, it's no conspiracy, OK?
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Dec 19, 2012 - 02:22pm PT


Yes ive seen the massive buck passer eerrr i mean report.

But it strikes me odd that your next candidate for president cant testify because she has a "concussion".. paaalease....

Boxers can do it but she cant??
couchmaster

climber
pdx
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 21, 2012 - 10:36am PT
Speaking of amendments, according to this journalist, looks like the unwarranted infinite detention (ie, lock you up with no trial) may be next before they work on screwing up the 2nd (gun ownership).

"What everyone must understand is that American politics doesn't work the way you'd think it would. Most people presume that government officials would never willfully withhold penicillin from men with syphilis just to see what would happen if the disease went untreated. It seems unlikely that officers would coerce enlisted men into exposing themselves to debilitating nerve gas. Few expected that President Obama would preside over the persecution of an NSA whistle-blower, or presume the guilt of all military-aged males killed by U.S. drone strikes. But it all happened.

Really thinking about all that may make it easier to believe what I'm about to tell you.

It may seem like imprisoning an American citizen without charges or trial transgresses against the United States Constitution and basic norms of Western justice dating back to the Magna Carta.

It may seem like reiterating the right to due process contained in the 5th Amendment would be uncontroversial.

It may seem like a United States senator would be widely ridiculed for suggesting that American citizens can be imprisoned indefinitely without chargers or trial, and that if numerous U.S. senators took that position, the press would treat the issue with at least as much urgency as "the fiscal cliff" or the possibility of a new assault weapons bill or likely nominees for Cabinet posts.

It may seem like the American citizens who vocally fret about the importance of adhering to the text of the Constitution would object as loudly as anyone to the prospect of indefinite detention.

But it isn't so.

The casual news consumer cannot rely on those seemingly reasonable heuristics to signal that very old norms are giving way, that important protections are being undermined, perhaps decisively.

We've lost the courage of our convictions -- we're that scared of terrorism (or of seeming soft on it).

News junkies likely know that I'm alluding to a specific law that has passed both the Senate and the House, and is presently in a conference committee, where lawmakers reconcile the two versions. Observers once worried that the law would permit the indefinite detention of American citizens, or at least force them to rely on uncertain court challenges if unjustly imprisoned. In response, Senator Dianne Feinstein tried to allay these concerns with an amendment:

An authorization to use military force, a declaration of war, or any similar authority shall not authorize the detention without charge or trial of a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States apprehended in the United States, unless an Act of Congress expressly authorizes such detention.

You'd think the part about American citizens being protected from indefinite detention would be uncontroversial. It wasn't. But the amendment did manage to pass in the United States Senate.

Afterward everyone forgot about it pretty quickly. But not Charlie Savage. He's a journalist at The New York Times. If every journalist were more like him the United States government would be far less able to radically expand the president's unchecked authority without many people noticing.

Here is his scoop:

Lawmakers charged with merging the House and Senate versions of the National Defense Authorization Act decided on Tuesday to drop a provision that would have explicitly barred the military from holding American citizens and permanent residents in indefinite detention without trial as terrorism suspects, according to Congressional staff members familiar with the negotiations.

Says Adam Serwer, another journalist who treats these issues with the urgency that they deserve:

Of the four main negotiators on the defense bill, only one of the Democrats, Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), opposes domestic indefinite detention of Americans. The Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Carl Levin (D-Mich.), believes detaining Americans without charge or trial is constitutional, and only voted for the Feinstein amendment because he and some of his Republican colleagues in the Senate convinced themselves through a convoluted legal rationale that Feinstein's proposal didn't actually ban the practice. Both of the main Republican negotiators, House Armed Services Committee Chairman Howard "Buck" McKeon (R-Calif) and Senator John McCain (R-Ariz) believe it's constitutional to lock up American citizens suspected of terrorism without ever proving they're guilty.

There is a complication, as he notes: Civil liberties groups "aren't shedding any tears over the demise of the Feinstein-Lee amendment," because they objected to the fact that it protected only U.S. citizens and permanent residents, rather than all persons present in the United States. While I respect that principled stand, the more important thing is that this outcome puts us all at greater risk of having a core liberty violated, and that Senators McCain, Levin, and many other legislators suffer no consequences for failing to protect and defend the United States Constitution.

As Serwer puts it, "The demise of the Feinstein-Lee proposal doesn't necessarily mean that Americans suspected of terrorism in the US can be locked up forever without a trial. But it ensures that the next time a president tries to lock up an American citizen without trial -- as President George W. Bush previously tried -- it will be left up to the courts to decide whether or not it's legal."

Don't let the dearth of attention fool you -- this is a scandal. Congress has turned its back on safeguarding a core Constitutional protection and a centuries old requirement of Western justice.

Rage, rage against the dying of the 5th."

Story here: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/12/scandal-alert-congress-is-quietly-abandoning-the-5th-amendment/266498/
Karl Baba

Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
Dec 21, 2012 - 10:55am PT
Such a shameful and sad story above on indefinite detention of citizens. Americans and their politicians have become such cowards to permit such an evil perversion of the heart of the constitution. Obama and Bush are both responsible and worthy of disrespect over this

Even Rome in the time of Christ had greater protections for its citizens and they threw Christians to Lions

Peace

Karl
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Dec 21, 2012 - 11:37am PT
I have written my reps at least ten times over this law.. It was passed 98 to 0 with 2 votes not present. Wonder if this is how folks thought in Germany in the very early 30s..
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Jan 6, 2013 - 01:13pm PT
Iranian officials have ordered residents of its third largest city to evacuate, raising new concerns about a potential leakage of radioactive material from a nuclear facility.

An edict issued on Wednesday told residents in Isfahan, a provincial capital of 1.5 million people 340 miles south of Tehran, to leave the city “because pollution has now reached emergency levels,” the BBC reported.

Michael Rubin, a former Pentagon adviser on Iran and Iraq and former editor of the Middle East Quarterly, said: “Pollution in Isfahan is a problem but in the past, Iranian authorities [responded] by closing schools and the government to keep people at home and let the pollution dissipate. Mass evacuations suggest a far more serious problem.”

Rubin added that a “radiation leak” is a possibility, the Washington Free Beacon reported, noting that the evacuation order may corroborate previous reports of radioactive leakage.

The Uranium Conversion Facility in Isfahan converts yellowcake into uranium oxide, uranium metal, and uranium hexafluoride. The plant sits on an active fault line, and Isfahan has been heavily damaged six times by earthquakes, according to the Free Beacon.
monolith

climber
albany,ca
Jan 6, 2013 - 01:25pm PT
It's OBOMERS fault. If he hadn't imposed sanctions, they would be able to have first class, safe, uranium enrichment sites.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Feb 18, 2013 - 01:10pm PT


"U.S. Federal Court hits President Barack Hussein Obama with three charges of abuse of office"
Submitted by galtgulch on Sun, 02/17/2013 - 15:23
in
Daily Paul Liberty Forum
Link to article at Before ITs News:

http://beforeitsnews.com/blogging-citizen-journalism/2013/02...






PLEASE NOTE: When i copied and pasted the article in whole, it was here for a second or two then GONE. And gone from the original source..Within a minute.....??????
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Feb 18, 2013 - 02:23pm PT
like the article in yesterday's Sunday NYTimes, "Can the Republicans Be Saved From Obsolescence?"
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/17/magazine/can-the-republicans-be-saved-from-obsolescence.html
ROBERT DRAPER

many good observations and wonderful lines in that one... from the mouths of the young faction of the G.O.P....

but this one might be pertinent to this discussion, and some food for thought about the next couple of decades... taking from the Democrat's history...

“It ought to concern people that the most Republican part of the electorate under Ronald Reagan were 18-to-29-year-olds. And today, people I know who are under 40 are embarrassed to say they’re Republicans. They’re embarrassed! They get harassed for it, the same way we used to give liberals a hard time.”

what goes around, comes around
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Feb 18, 2013 - 02:39pm PT
Perhaps Ed.. Yet,, Obama said when he was running, that it was totally irresponsible of a president not to have a budget and a debt ceiling, and now he seeks to remove the debt ceiling. He has engaged us in ILLEGAL war actions just like his predecessors. And he has ILLEGALY appointed positions behind the back of the senate and congress. The NDAA 2013 bill is full of actions contrary to our Constitution.
Messages 1141 - 1160 of total 1192 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews