Reply With Quote
No doubt.
You were also an Edward's supporter for a while. Obama was taking Edward's issues, so I backed the guy who originally said it. And i didnt fall for Edwards, I still believe he was passionate about helping the poor, which is what was important to me. He drove the dialogue in that election, that is a fact. I'm not pulling an "I told you so". Im just saying I knew it. Edwards messed up big time, but infidelity I don't think would determine that he would have folded as Obama did. Many leaders have cheated and stupidly lied about it. If he hadnt cheated, he could be VP right now and would have had a major impact. That sucks. Oh well.
No doubt.
You don't think that's by design?
Ironic that he got beat by the Democrat version of Bush.
Where's the change? We don't even have change after paying our bills any more.
2007-2008 called and wants its joke back.
Democrats Accept Major Cuts to Their Balls
WASHINGTON ( The Borowitz Report ) – After weeks of wrenching negotiations that went right up to the wire, Democrats in the House and Senate today accepted major cuts to their balls.
The cuts, which are expected to pass both houses of Congress on Tuesday, will give Republicans’ total custody of the Democrats’ cojones through the next election cycle.
The final hitch in the negotiations centered on how long the Republicans would keep the Democrats’ family jewels, with Democrats wanting them returned by 2012 and Republicans insisting on keeping them longer.
After much wrangling, a compromise was worked out in which the Republicans would keep the Democrats’ balls “indefinitely.”
After the deal was hammered out, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) was philosophical about an outcome that surprised no one.
“You win some and you lose some,” he told reporters. “Except that, as Democrats, only the second part is true.”
Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) said that the historic deal set the stage for more compromises between the two political parties: “Tomorrow we begin negotiating for their lunch money
http chez Borowitz
Last edited by boutons_deux; 08-02-2011 at 02:01 PM.
I never knew they had any balls to begin with.
They don't. They're on steroids. that's why they are so physiologically imbalanced.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...,2334100.storyThe deal that was struck is dramatically — shockingly — better from the Democrats' point of view.
The deal eliminates the leverage created by another imminent default until after the next election, where it will be exercised by new and possibly differently cons uted players.
And today's Republicans have not gotten much for giving up their leverage; certainly nothing close to what they asked for in Cut, Cap and Balance. The current deal cuts social programs rather than raising revenue, to be sure. But while the cuts are significant and will hurt, they leave the basic core of the American social safety net intact. And the bipartisan committee charged with negotiating a grander bargain in the fall is free to revisit the possibility of new taxes. In addition, it will take up the orthodox anti-tax position (represented by the balanced budget amendment) in a manner guaranteed to be purely symbolic.
Perhaps most important, this week's debt deal does nothing to change the fact that the George W. Bush tax cuts will expire at the end of 2012. Obama and congressional Democrats will be able to bargain for increased taxes on the wealthy, in a situation in which they have much less to lose.
The radicals in the Republican Party dragged the country to the edge of a cliff, but they failed to push us off; and they were even forced, at the last moment, to pull back.
Progressives have reason to lament the incremental cuts in the deal. But that which does not kill a social contract may make it stronger. And neither progressives nor the country should lose sight of the fact that the core ins utions of ours — Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid — have all been reaffirmed.
"Momentarily spared" would be a more accurate depiction. Bigger cuts, a higher retirement age, and increased payroll taxes are inevitable.And neither progressives nor the country should lose sight of the fact that the core ins utions of ours Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid have all been reaffirmed.
will be postponed as long as possible, particularly in light of the possibility of renewed economic contraction.Bigger cuts, a higher retirement age, and increased payroll taxes ....
No doubt. But they're still coming. We're hardly in a position to be boasting about en lement's "reaffirmation".
SS needs to end as does mandatory Medicare. Watching my father-in-law be forced to enroll and participate in Medicare when he does not want or need it strikes me as a ploy by the insurance companies guaranteeing their rolls wont be littered with broke-ass retirees, only retirees who can afford them.
SS is just a debacle. End it already. Grandfather people now over the age of (arbitrary age...) 40 and end it for everyone else younger than that. Still collect the SS taxes, as I understand it, SS come from the general fund anyway, and call it a wash.
SS's model does not work and it never will. The average lifespan is only going to increase the more sedentary we as a society become, not to mention the advances in medical science.
You cannot protect people from themselves when it comes to finances. You either know how and when to save for the future or you do not. You people who do not had better hope you win the lottery or one of your kids is successful when you reach an age where getting out of bed is a laborious task.
The goods.
That was pretty pompous. I thought Markovits ideas about negotiation deserved a place in the conversation, since the rest of us are mostly just waving our hands at it, and his takeaway is contrary to the prevailing feeling.
What do you replace SS with? give retirement funds to the Banksters who "manage" the funds to maximize their profits, not yours?
SS is required by law to lend money to the govt by buying T bonds. They aren't IOUs, they're backed by the "full faith and credit" of the US govt, just like those bought by (wealthy) Americans who hold 40%+ of US debt. Calling them IOUs is shilling for the VRWC as it tries to get its criminal hands $Ts of Human-Americans retirement savings.
I agree that Medicare and SS beneficiaries should be means tested, but they should not be excepted from life-long contributions because no one knows when their "means" may go poof and they have not enough to pay their medical bills.
What Markovitz said about balanced budgets, that the current deal obliges no more than symbolic action, is surely correct and deserves the emphasis. It may disclose the heart of the US Congress: not do do something, but to strike an effective pose.
Gotten to?
I don't have a problem with his thoughts being added to the conversation. I'm merely providing my thoughts on his thoughts.
I welcome your thoughts on his thoughts. Sorry if I somehow created the opposite impression.
No, the SS portion of the General Fund (iirc) should be seized by the government as normal revenue to be used to service debt and states.
Make the 4.2% employee and 6.2% employer contributions a tax, period.
Not invested, not given to "banksters", just an additional revenue stream. Of course people will complain, but they cant say this is a new tax seeing as that money was coming out their checks and balance sheets anyway.
Its just going somewhere different.
Then the law needs to be changed.SS is required by law to lend money to the govt by buying T bonds. They aren't IOUs, they're backed by the "full faith and credit" of the US govt, just like those bought by (wealthy) Americans who hold 40%+ of US debt. Calling them IOUs is shilling for the VRWC as it tries to get its criminal hands $Ts of Human-Americans retirement savings.
I agree that Medicare and SS beneficiaries should be means tested, but they should not be excepted from life-long contributions because no one knows when their "means" may go poof and they have not enough to pay their medical bills.
I am not going to argue the semantics of SS/Medicare. Ive no interest in either subject because I think both programs are and should be scrapped and one of them re-branded.
SS needs to go the way of the dinosaur. Like I said, grandfather in those who are 40 years old and older seeing as they are far too late in life to change the gameplan. Honor those social contracts in full. , setup a sliding scale of expected SS benefits for everyone 50 and younger. 50+, you get the full Monty. Between 40-50, youre going to get 75% of expected benefits (or whatever). Between 30-40, you get 50%. Between 20-30, you get 25%. Younger than that? Tough ing ...0%.
In 30 years, SS would be dead and gone, the payouts for once would decrease, yet revenue would stay flat.
Medicare needs to be re-branded. Only because the word Medicare carries stigma.
Make it non-mandatory first and foremost, that is the biggest crock of associated with it. Make the tax mandatory, yes. But make participation elective. I honestly dont know what effect that would have, if it would have an effect at all, but I do know a majority of the people I know who are old enough hate Medicare for one reason...they never wanted to be in to begin with. They, unlike others, can afford health insurance on their own and would much rather do so than have to participate in this scheme.
The funny part is not one of them said "But I also dont want to have to pay Medicare taxes." They dont give a , take the tax revenue, just dont force me to play the ing game.
We're not going to replace SS with anything. We're just going to keep marching towards the cliff. When we get too close for comfort, we'll enact some token tax increases, benefit cuts and raise the retirement age to take a few steps back. Then we'll start marching towards the cliff again. The cycle repeats with each generation putting more in and getting less out than the one before it.
"would be close to dead and gone"
SS isn't at risk, since the US govt will make good on the bonds SS holds.
It's being attacked by VRWC/Repugs who want to get their hands on $Ts of Human-Americans retirement savings.
SS cash flow is easy to fix, just uncap SS contributions, to be applied to 100% of all earned income.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
