|
computer parts posted:The support system exists because of the inherent racism of the system. Whilst the right does enjoy blaming minorities etc. for the problems in European welfare systems, to say that it "exists because of inherent racism" is utterly ridiculous and borderline insane. What inherent racism was necessary to the establishment of the NHS?
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 19:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 05:01 |
|
|
Amergin posted:Social security was 24% of the 2013 budget, Medicare+Medicaid+CHIP was 22% of the budget, general "other" safety net programs were 12% of the budget. Altogether, almost $2 trillion. That's "neutered"? This is a really weird way of calculating a percentage of the budget. According to your source, things like the EITC and child tax credit are budget expenditures, but things like the mortgage interest deduction, primary residence capital gains exemption, or the favorable tax treatment of capital gains are not. Why is tax welfare for the poor counted as spending, but tax welfare for the rich just foregone revenue?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 19:05
|
|
|
Mister Adequate posted:Whilst the right does enjoy blaming minorities etc. for the problems in European welfare systems, to say that it "exists because of inherent racism" is utterly ridiculous and borderline insane. What inherent racism was necessary to the establishment of the NHS? It exists due to inherent racism because many services are not provided to non-citizens and European nations make it a point to deny citizenship to non-white people, even if they and their descendants are allowed to live in the country forever.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 19:06
|
|
|
Some European nations will give citizenship to non-whites. But as a whole it's very segregated. National identity is really tied to ethnicity in my experience. I lived in Sweden for a while and people were very uncomfortable once they were actually face-to-face with dark-skinned non-swedes. And when I said I went into the suburbs of Stockholms where the minorities lived they freaked out. Everyone thinks of the Nordic countries as bastions of acceptance and all that, but they do have some serious issues no talks about. The social services were great for me, but I'd hate to have to navigate that system as a refugee or poor immigrant.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 19:26
|
|
|
Jackson Taus posted:O/T: Amergin, you've mentioned that you've found conservative forums with a similarly high signal-to-noise ratio to this, would you mind sharing? I don't want to go poo poo them up or whatever, but I always appreciate an opportunity to see what they think without it getting filtered through screaming folks in tri-corner hats. Simply put: I haven't found any single conservative discussion boards of the same caliber as SA USPol. That said, with patience, you can get some decent conservative arguments through a combination of sources. Comments sections for The Economist, WSJ (be very patient), and international newspapers to get more international conservative arguments (Yomiuri Shimbun, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, etc). Blogs from WSJ and Drudge (with some filtering). C-SPAN discussions when relevant. Also when you don't necessarily care about quality, but rather you just want a quick check on the pulse and what's being discussed, r/conservative, TheHighRoad.org's forums, ManlyExcellence.com's forums, The American Conservative, and of course Fox, Drudge and WSJ. But honestly for my daily perusal I usually stick to Fox, WSJ and The Economist (which isn't necessarily conservative, but can lean capitalist).
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 19:41
|
|
|
Amergin posted:Social security was 24% of the 2013 budget, Medicare+Medicaid+CHIP was 22% of the budget, general "other" safety net programs were 12% of the budget. Altogether, almost $2 trillion. That's "neutered"? It could be 100% of the budget and cost $500trillion per day, if it's not enough to do the job because of politically-motivated cuts aimed at "starving the beast", it's neutered. computer parts posted:It exists due to inherent racism because many services are not provided to non-citizens and European nations make it a point to deny citizenship to non-white people, even if they and their descendants are allowed to live in the country forever. Like, I don't disagree that this is a thing in many European societies, but it's a pretty huge stretch to say that IF comprehensive social security THEN racism.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 19:41
|
|
|
Mister Adequate posted:
It's more that if they have comprehensive welfare then they haven't had historic issues with ethnic conflict due to homogeneity. The racism part comes in when ethnically diverse groups attempt to assimilate with society and then are (effectively) segregated.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 19:47
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:If you can find them though some speeches were totally worth catching. Warren, obviously. She was calling for a fight and it was wonderful. Biden on Thursday gave an unexpectedly good one that hasn't been getting much attention, basically the same content as Warren's with taking on income inequality and the 1%, but framed as less combative. He kept riffing on the theme of "imagine", as in "imagine an America where people have easy access to mental health treatment". It was a new pitch that could sell. And Rev. Barber was there giving a speech, if you haven't caught anything he's been doing with the Moral Mondays you have been missing out, that guy can give a barn burner.-effort.html?pg=all&ref=http%3A%2F%2Ft.co%2FMY9Zesl3Aj?ref=http%3A%2F%2Ft.co%2FMY9Zesl3Aj[/url] Remember when I said this, so I don't have to dig up poo poo like I do about "Obama will be the next President" back in 2004. Instead I just get "Rick Perry will be the nominee and could really pull this off!" or whatever it was hung around my neck  EDIT: Seriously, I'd never thought of it until today, but Biden / Warren could actually be one Hell of a surprise ticket if they started from day one as, "We're running together" instead of spending that time as opponents. ReindeerF fucked around with this message at 19:51 on Jul 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 19:49
|
|
|
ReindeerF posted:Biden / Warren 2016. That's Warren/Biden mister! > I don't think there is any space to the left of Hilary and Obama available. Maybe pre Citizens United when individual donations were playing a larger role each election cycle, but now it is even easier for big money to wipe out the voice of other people.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 19:57
|
|
|
Someone explain to me again why there's even a Social Security cap at all? Because that would fix that loving problem right there. Just raise the cap or remove it all together. What's the reasoning behind capping it on the first place?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 19:57
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:That's Warren/Biden mister! > EDIT: My real sense, and I said this with Obama too, is that things change when someone is smart enough to see a way to re-frame how people understand things and exploit it. Warren's the closest we've come in a long time to striking the historical American populist chord with people who have spent their entire lives parroting FREE MARKET FREE MARKET BGAWK but who were raised in a country where everyone from Robin Hood to FDR is an icon. Right now is a very interesting time because a shitload of people are in debt up to their eyeballs, have been screwed by every corporation imaginable, can't get a job, don't have benefits, can't get healthcare and so on. If anyone could find a way to catalyze that across party lines, which is possible, it could be huge. I have no idea who that is, though, but she's the closest we've seen in a mainstream politician and while I don't know how much of it Biden believes, he checks the working class yankee white dude with a heart of gold box pretty well. ReindeerF fucked around with this message at 20:03 on Jul 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 19:58
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:Someone explain to me again why there's even a Social Security cap at all? Because that would fix that loving problem right there. Just raise the cap or remove it all together. What's the reasoning behind capping it on the first place? You pay into social security so that you'll get money out based on what you pay in, and there is a limit on how much you can get out, so it's only fair that you not have to pay in if you aren't going to benefit later. The taxable earnings cap has been there since the beginning for that reason. It should probably be eliminated (although not the benefits cap that mirrors it.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 20:04
|
|
|
On that note the New Yorker has an interesting piece on Biden today http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/07/28/biden-agenda
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 20:07
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:Someone explain to me again why there's even a Social Security cap at all? Because that would fix that loving problem right there. Just raise the cap or remove it all together. What's the reasoning behind capping it on the first place? If rich people paid more in than they got back they'd screech even harder to dismantle it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 20:09
|
|
|
Kalman posted:You pay into social security so that you'll get money out based on what you pay in, and there is a limit on how much you can get out, so it's only fair that you not have to pay in if you aren't going to benefit later. The benefits cap can be eliminated too to make the removal of the taxable earnings cap more political palatable, it just has to be done smartly. The benefits already don't scale directly with what is paid in (someone who paid SS taxes on $100k for 20 years will get less than twice the benefits of someone who paid on $50k for that same period). Just continue the formula progressively beyond the current cap, and a lot of the immediate arguments against it are undercut while still adding a lot of solvency to the system. Oh, and tax all income for SS, not just wages.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
Perry just announced he is calling up the National Guard and deploying them along the border. 1,000 troops to start.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
effectual posted:If rich people paid more in than they got back they'd screech even harder to dismantle it. Or they could actually take the option of increasing both the tax and benefit cap. Which would eliminate 95% of the projected SS shortfall (per CRS) and avoid any "fairness" concerns. Raise the rate from 12.4 to 12.5% and you make up that 5% gap. https://opencrs.com/document/RL32896/2005-05-02/ has lots more info on the cap/options regarding the cap.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 20:13
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:Perry just announced he is calling up the National Guard and deploying them along the border. 1,000 troops to start. I was going to comment on the optics of sending troops to shoot(?) children, but then I realized that this will probably win him votes in a Republican primary.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 20:13
|
|
|
Kalman posted:You pay into social security so that you'll get money out based on what you pay in
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 20:14
|
|
|
effectual posted:If rich people paid more in than they got back they'd screech even harder to dismantle it. Yeah, but they'd get told to go gently caress themselves by basically everybody. The only reason Social Security changes get any traction whatsoever is because they're able to claim that it's gonna go bust.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 20:15
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:On that note the New Yorker has an interesting piece on Biden today quote:ohn Marttila, one of Biden’s political advisers, told me, “Joe and Barack were having lunch, and Obama said to Biden, ‘You and I are becoming good friends! I find that very surprising.’ And Joe says, ‘You’re loving surprised!’ ”
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 20:18
|
|
|
ReindeerF posted:Incorrect. It's defined benefit, not defined contribution - and, just to stop you in your tracks, explain to us how disability benefits relate to your statement. Wrong. Your benefits are explicitly based on your prior contributions. SSDI is also linked to your wage contributions to SS funds. Go read the CRS report I linked.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 20:27
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:Perry just announced he is calling up the National Guard and deploying them along the border. 1,000 troops to start. Isn't that kinda illegal? Like, wouldn't that interfere in the Feds ability to do foreign policy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 20:34
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:Isn't that kinda illegal? Like, wouldn't that interfere in the Feds ability to do foreign policy. "The communist atheist facist muslim has made his decision, now let him enforce it" - Republican reply if Obama calls out Perry on the legality and how it totally interferes with federal jurisdiction on boarder patrol issues.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 20:54
|
|
|
Don't most of the kids just turn themselves in? Obama should thank Perry for his help in allowing more immigrant children into our country.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 21:02
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:I was going to comment on the optics of sending troops to shoot(?) children, but then I realized that this will probably win him votes in a Republican primary. Considering his being torn apart in last election's primary over being too human toward the undocumented, he's decided to become a modern day George Wallace. Rick Perry circa 2016 posted:"I'll never be out-Illegal'd again!"
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 21:03
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:Perry just announced he is calling up the National Guard and deploying them along the border. 1,000 troops to start. 1k people for a border that is how many miles long? And how much will the glorious state of Texas pay these gentlemen for their fine service? 
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 21:07
|
|
|
You all don't seem to be aware that, currently, the major conservative idea for securing the border is that all we have to do is use the armed forces to form a human chain from the Pacific to the Gulf Coast and physically push people back who try to cross. Like the people at the periphery of a mosh pit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 21:12
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:You all don't seem to be aware that, currently, the major conservative idea for securing the border is that all we have to do is use the armed forces to form a human chain from the Pacific to the Gulf Coast and physically push people back who try to cross. Like the people at the periphery of a mosh pit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 21:22
|
|
|
I'm wondering, what ever happened to stem cell research being a big political issue? I remember that was one of the reasons why I started paying attention to politics in the first place and now its something I never hear discussed by either party. It basically fell off the map right after Obama was elected in 2008. My guess is that once something is fixed people tend to forget that there was ever an issue in the first place? Did conservatives realize it was a losing issue?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 21:22
|
|
|
ufarn posted:There is however one maverick who favoured putting up a danged fence.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 21:26
|
|
|
For the love of Sagan, don't remind them. You might just give them ideas.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 21:26
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:I'm pretty sure the fence idea is falling out of fashion. At least, a fence that's not made out of troops or police officers or some other people. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jO-q5lI7618
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 21:27
|
|
|
Sephiroth_IRA posted:I'm wondering, what ever happened to stem cell research being a big political issue? I remember that was one of the reasons why I started paying attention to politics in the first place and now its something I never hear discussed by either party. It basically fell off the map right after Obama was elected in 2008. You know, that's a good question. I think our understanding of the science behind it might have changed a bit?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 21:29
|
|
|
I honestly would love to see a compilation of ideas people have to secure the border. Just walk down a busy street with a video camera and ask a bunch of John Doe's how they would secure it. When I asked my co-worker this his serious honest to god reply was Napalm. "Just drop a line of Napalm down the border every day and no one will go near it."StandardVC10 posted:You know, that's a good question. I think our understanding of the science behind it might have changed a bit? Salon has a good article. http://www.salon.com/2012/08/23/stem_cells_a_culture_war_gone_quiet/ quote:While a draft plank in the Republican Party’s platform supporting a constitutional amendment banning abortion has gotten plenty of attention, so far unnoticed is another culture war provision tucked right alongside it — an opposition to federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. “We oppose the killing of embryos for their stem cells. We oppose Federal funding of embryonic stem cell research,” the draft language reads, mirroring previous years’ platforms. You’d be forgiven for having déjà vu from 2004, when stem cell research was at the top of the agenda of both parties and sparked fierce and emotional debate. It’s completely vanished from the political scene since — what happened? quote:...What changed? Two things — one scientific, and one political. First, there were great advances in the way the science is conducted, lessening the need for the destruction of new embryos. In 2007, scientists first reported developing human Induced pluripotent (iPS) stem cells. IPS cells are adult cells that have been “genetically reprogrammed” to behave like embryonic stem cells. They possess many of the same qualities of embryonic cells, and when they emerged, iPS cells were heralded as a replacements for embryonic stem cells — all the scientific benefit with none of the controversial political complications. Bush and other social conservatives had long supported stem cell research, as long as embryos were kept out of it, and iPS seemed to offer that solution. Even though research now suggests iPS cells may not ultimately be an effective replacement for embryonic cells, both for scientific and funding reasons, the advent of the cells effectively deescalated the debate over research and helped move it to the back burner. Sephiroth_IRA fucked around with this message at 21:41 on Jul 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 21:30
|
|
|
Sephiroth_IRA posted:I'm wondering, what ever happened to stem cell research being a big political issue? I remember that was one of the reasons why I started paying attention to politics in the first place and now its something I never hear discussed by either party. It basically fell off the map right after Obama was elected in 2008. EDIT: Beaten to it with a better explanation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 21:39
|
|
|
I guess that's an actual example of GOP Rebuilding? While many of them decided to keep quiet about being against it others are openly for it, even the Reagans. Still, I like to bring it up with my conservative friends because I'd hate to go back to the days when we banned funding it. If the GOP ever got control of congress they would put up a lot of restrictions.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 21:45
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:On that note the New Yorker has an interesting piece on Biden today "With nineteen months until the Iowa caucuses in 2016, Biden’s prospects are not good. He is a frequent visitor to South Carolina (home of the third primary), but a 2012 poll found that nearly a third of those surveyed there couldn’t name the sitting Vice-President." God I love this state  also just the turn of phrase and subtext is hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 21:46
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:Isn't that kinda illegal? Like, wouldn't that interfere in the Feds ability to do foreign policy.  It isn't because the Fed isn't acting, putting the great state of Texas and the Republic itself in danger
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 21:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 05:01 |
|
|
Sephiroth_IRA posted:I guess that's an actual example of GOP Rebuilding? While many of them decided to keep quiet about being against it others are openly for it, even the Reagans. It's not really rebuilding when the party was divided on it anyway and the issue became a non-issue with the development of new techniques. I'd say the same thing would happen if there was scientific evidence of, say, homosexuality being triggered by genetics.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 21:51
|
|