2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

Wompa1 · 02-09-2015 6:02pm

Amerika wrote: »

IMO, I don’t hate him but I strongly dislike him, because he has done more than any other President in recent times to create ugly divisiveness between the parties and the US people. His legacy should be captioned "Party Politics over the People."

Did he or did the GOP?

I'm not a Democrat and I'm not a Republican. My voting record so far has actually been Republican, Democrat and Libertarian.

From what I have seen from his very first year in Office. There's been a backlash against him. The Republicans have done everything and anything to castrate him. Fox News (the highest rated cable news in the country) quickly went on the attack: Obama is rubbing shoulders with celebrities at the white house. Obama is going on TV shows... (Bush did both of those...but there ya go)...I remember when Clinton was president and the Republicans hopped on him because he was on JAG..I think it was JAG. Bush got into Office and was on Letterman..Frankly, the President going on TV might be a good thing in the US because it seems to be the only way to deliver a message to a certain section of the audience or get their attention.

John Boehner is an evil f*cking prick. He's a scumbag of the highest order. If there's anybody left in the GOP with redeemable qualities, they better step up right now or we'll all be subject to that c*nt Hillary Clinton as President..

My biggest criticism of Obama at this point is the fact he rested on his laurels for his first 4 years...I didn't vote for him for a second term. I thought he was a lousy president in his first term. BUT in his second term he's stepped it up. Which also is a little annoying, it's like he was just cashing his cheques for 4 years and decided he could throw caution to the wind after re-election since he has nothing to lose. It sets a dangerous precedent for others. There's also many policies he has continued on from the Bush Administration that are appalling.

All part of the reason why I'd like to see Bernie Sanders get elected. I don't think he'd run for a second term if he can accomplish what he wants in his first. He's getting on in years. He can hit the ground running and make swift changes whether the scumbags in Washington like it or not. Of course he won't win, though. The American public think any form of socialism is communism :P

eire4 · 02-09-2015 6:07pm

Wompa1 wrote: »

Did he or did the GOP?

I'm not a Democrat and I'm not a Republican. My voting record so far has actually been Republican, Democrat and Libertarian.

From what I have seen from his very first year in Office. There's been a backlash against him. The Republicans have done everything and anything to castrate him. Fox News (the highest rated cable news in the country) quickly went on the attack: Obama is rubbing shoulders with celebrities at the white house. Obama is going on TV shows... (Bush did both of those...but there ya go)...I remember when Clinton was president and the Republicans hopped on him because he was on JAG..I think it was JAG. Bush got into Office and was on Letterman..Frankly, the President going on TV might be a good thing in the US because it seems to be the only way to deliver a message to a certain section of the audience or get their attention.

John Boehner is an evil f*cking prick. He's a scumbag of the highest order. If there's anybody left in the GOP with redeemable qualities, they better step up right now or we'll all be subject to that c*nt Hillary Clinton as President..

My biggest criticism of Obama at this point is the fact he rested on his laurels for his first 4 years...I didn't vote for him for a second term. I thought he was a lousy president in his first term. BUT in his second term he's stepped it up. Which also is a little annoying, it's like he was just cashing his cheques for 4 years and decided he could throw caution to the wind after re-election since he has nothing to lose. It sets a dangerous precedent for others. There's also many policies he has continued on from the Bush Administration that are appalling.

All part of the reason why I'd like to see Bernie Sanders get elected. I don't think he'd run for a second term if he can accomplish what he wants in his first. He's getting on in years. He can hit the ground running and make swift changes whether the scumbags in Washington like it or not. Of course he won't win, though. The American public think any form of socialism is communism :P

Your right about how brain washed the Americasn public is when it comes to the word socialism. They do love their social security though.

Wompa1 · 02-09-2015 6:10pm

eire4 wrote: »

Your right about how brain washed the Americasn public is when it comes to the word socialism. They do love their social security though.

Not enough to fight for it. It's dwindling away. The age for collecting it is likely to be raised. Eventually it will be eliminated completely. The 401k is an absolute joke too...or at least the way it's promoted is.

eire4 · 02-09-2015 7:25pm

Wompa1 wrote: »

Not enough to fight for it. It's dwindling away. The age for collecting it is likely to be raised. Eventually it will be eliminated completely. The 401k is an absolute joke too...or at least the way it's promoted is.

All they need to do to take care of social security is take away the upper income limit on social security tax. You might be right and certainly it is no secret the Republicans want to do away with social security. But that is not what a clear majority of Americans including even just Republicans want:

"When asked the same question about increasing Social Security taxes for better-off Americans, 71% of Republicans and 97% of Democrats agree. Social Security taxes are paid by workers and their employers on earnings up to a cap ($113,700 in 2013). About 5% of workers earn more than the cap."

So I would suggest given how strongly most Americans feel about social security if the Republicans do get themselves into a majority in both houses and have the presidency which is what they would need to do this they will just be shooting themselves in the foot.

Amerika · 02-09-2015 7:56pm

eire4 wrote: »

All they need to do to take care of social security is take away the upper income limit on social security tax. You might be right and certainly it is no secret the Republicans want to do away with social security. But that is not what a clear majority of Americans including even just Republicans want:

"When asked the same question about increasing Social Security taxes for better-off Americans, 71% of Republicans and 97% of Democrats agree. Social Security taxes are paid by workers and their employers on earnings up to a cap ($113,700 in 2013). About 5% of workers earn more than the cap."

So I would suggest given how strongly most Americans feel about social security if the Republicans do get themselves into a majority in both houses and have the presidency which is what they would need to do this they will just be shooting themselves in the foot.

Do you really think all that is needed to fix Social Security is to take away the upper income limit on the social security tax? (Remember now, the combined 75 years of unfunded obligations of Social Security and Disability trust funds sits at $12.3 trillion.)

Amerika · 02-09-2015 8:52pm

Overheal wrote: »

Then let's carry on and repeal the Citizen's United decision.

That's spending, not voting. Unless you're telling me your vote can be bought.

Overheal · 02-09-2015 9:22pm

Amerika wrote: »

That's spending, not voting. Unless you're telling me your vote can be bought.

That's using money to manipulate the vote. Money doesn't have to go straight to the voter's pocket to be so.

eire4 · 02-09-2015 9:28pm

Amerika wrote: »

Do you really think all that is needed to fix Social Security is to take away the upper income limit on the social security tax? (Remember now, the combined 75 years of unfunded obligations of Social Security and Disability trust funds sits at $12.3 trillion.)

Currently social security is fully funded through 2033. After that it is funded only at about up to about 75% of what is needed. If the higher tax cap was removed about 70% of the shortfall would be taken care of. So yes there would still be some other things to look at to get to 100% but that is a very solid start.

Overheal · 02-09-2015 9:35pm

Could you expand on this point about unfunded obligations? I'd like to know if that's an actual problem or some problem made by pencil-pushing number skewing by someone owned by the Koch's

Amerika · 02-09-2015 10:44pm

Overheal wrote: »

Could you expand on this point about unfunded obligations? I'd like to know if that's an actual problem or some problem made by pencil-pushing number skewing by someone owned by the Koch's

I may have grossly underestimated the amount unfunded in Social Security from the sources I checked into. According to the Wall Street Journal, back in 2012, the net present value of the unfunded liability of Medicare was $42.8 trillion. The comparable balance sheet liability for Social Security is $20.5 trillion. I expect the numbers are far, far worse today.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323353204578127374039087636

(I have read some other data more favorable to the Democratic side (like the Atlantic), and it puts the unfunded Social Security at only about $16 trillion.)

Either way Overheal, I don't think there will be anything left for you when you come of age, in either Social Security or Medicare.

Overheal · 02-09-2015 11:25pm

This problem shows up when I do my budgeting in YNAB software: if I listed all my expenses predicted from now, until 2030, it would look like I was probably somewhere around $1 million in debt. Similarly by listing debts that Social Security will be expected to pay out until 2030, without being able to list a predictable income source (Payroll taxes are conservatively projected, which in reports does not meet the predicted supply of cash), that would give you those underfunded figures. And nobody can seem to agree how underfunded. Some sources say not at all, some say 31% some say $220 Trillion (probably an infinite-horizon projection without accounting for revenue). The official number is $8.6 Trillion over the next 75 years:

Payroll taxes will only cover about 75% of the scheduled payout amounts from 2033–2086. Without changes to the law, Social Security would have no legal authority to draw other government funds to cover the shortfall.[5]
Between 2022 and 2033, redemption of the Trust Fund balance to pay retirees will draw approximately $3 trillion in government funds from sources other than payroll taxes. This is a funding challenge for the government overall, not just Social Security.[5]
The present value of unfunded obligations under Social Security was approximately $8.6 trillion over a 75-year forecast period (2012-2086). In other words, that amount would have to be set aside in 2012 so that the principal and interest would cover the shortfall for 75 years. The estimated annual shortfall averages 2.5% of the payroll tax base or 0.9% of gross domestic product (a measure of the size of the economy). Measured over the infinite horizon, these figures are $20.5 trillion, 3.9% and 1.3%, respectively.[6]
The annual cost of Social Security benefits represented 5.0% of GDP in 2011. This is projected to increase gradually to 6.4% of GDP in 2035 and then decline to about 6.1% of GDP by 2055 and remain at about that level through 2086.[7]

This only remains true if no Social Security reform is implemented. It certainly sounds like an issue, but hardly the crisis it is made out to be.

CBO Proposals:

Removing the cap on the payroll tax. Income over a threshold ($110,100 in 2012) is not subject to the payroll tax, nor are additional benefits paid to those with income above this level. Removing the cap would fund the entire 75-year shortfall.

Raising the retirement age gradually. Raising the full-benefit retirement age to 70 would fund half the 75-year shortfall.

Reducing cost of living adjustments (COLA), which are annual payout increases to keep pace with wages. Reducing each year's COLA by 0.5% versus the current formula would fund half the shortfall over 75 years.

Reducing Initial Benefits for wealthier retirees, based on lifetime earnings.

Raising the payroll tax rate. Raising the rate by one percentage point would cover half the shortfall for 75 years. Raising the rate by two percentage points gradually over 20 years would cover the entire shortfall.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_debate_in_the_United_States#Size_of_funding_challenge

Black Swan · 03-09-2015 12:31am

Amerika wrote: »

And I find it rather funny when some here condemn the American two party system. Yet those same people often post over and over again about the evils of the Republican Party, and essentially claim we would be better off without it... which would make us then a one party system.

This is a sweeping and spurious generalisation against those not in favour of the 2-party system of American government. One party control of Congress and the Presidency is much worse, especially if they stack the US Supreme Court with justices that are favourable to their biased view. 1-party control exists in PRC, and I cannot say that 1-party control in the US is much better when it occurs, especially if it lasts several years.

Of course, both the Republicans and Democrats want 1-party control of these 3 branches of American government, which removes some of the checks and balances in their system. For example, ObamaCare (cloned RomneyCare) was passed during the last time the Democrats had 1-party control, and the SEC had been deregulated and understaffed to where investment banks (for all practical purposes) became self-regulating in 2004 when Republicans had 1-party control (which allowed investment banks to go wild with risky investments, and contributed to bank failures and the 2008 Great Recession).

Black Swan · 03-09-2015 12:50am

Amerika wrote: »

We do have a method for getting rid of such problems. It's called "one person, one vote."

Not when people vote for their party, right or wrong, which happens all too often in America. They are party loyal (just like they are loyal to their NFL team), no matter what they may say in forums like these. The Tea Party faction of the Republican party exemplifies this in that they endorse voting only for registered Republicans (except for a rare token) in congressional and presidential elections.

Although anecdotal and statistically insignificant, I heard one last week walk into our javahouse and proclaim that when the Republicans control both congress and presidency beginning 2017, there will be more jobs, prosperity for all, and the Fed deficit will be reduced substantially (i.e., heaven on Earth). In other words, Republicans = good, Democrats = bad for this particular party loyalist. Of course I could not bite my lip and remain silent, noting for this party loyalist that he might want to look at how the Fed deficit has doubled beginning with Ronald Regan to the present regardless of which party controlled congress or held the presidency, Republicans or Democrats, with the possible exception of Bill Clinton's 2nd term, which had occurred when neither party controlled both Executive (Democrats) and Congress (Republicans).

Overheal · 03-09-2015 5:16am

On the lighter side of news: things you can only do if you're a 2nd term president,

http://gizmodo.com/obamas-running-wild-in-alaska-with-a-selfie-stick-1728332068

Amerika · 03-09-2015 4:00pm

BIG TROUBLE IN LITTLE CHAPPAQUA?

It being reported (but unconfirmed) that a hacker is threatening to sell Hillary Clinton’s entire unreleased private emails For $500,000.

Bryan Pagliano, a staffer who worked on Hillary Clinton’s private email server while she was secretary of State, is expected to plead the Fifth rather than testify before Congress.

And now it appears the White House has had enough and is playing a well-orchestrated hit on her, as the FBI has begun a probe into whether foreign intelligence services compromised Hillary Clinton's e-mail server during and after her tenure as secretary of state, according to U.S. intelligence and Congressional officials, which likely indicates they were able to recover some of the information Clinton wiped from the server.

It is reported some documents have been manipulated and their classified markings have been removed or changed. This explains why she has changed her public statements about what was in her possession. She initially that there “was no classified material,” and changed it now to “The facts are I did not send nor did I receive material marked classified.” So, who will be the fall guy or gal for Hillary? Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills, Deputy Chief of Staff Jacob Sullivan, or key aide Huma Abedin? My guess it will be Sullivan, as the others are too important and know too much.

The Randy Riverbeast · 03-09-2015 4:03pm

These emails better contain some top secret chili recipe with all the hype they get.

Amerika · 03-09-2015 5:11pm

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

These emails better contain some top secret chili recipe with all the hype they get.

That will probably be Clinton's next excuse as to why she deleted emails and scrubbed her server clean after a subpoena order from a Congressional panel was issued. Well until at least it is discovered they didn’t serve chili at Chelsea’s wedding.

Overheal · 03-09-2015 5:16pm

Amerika wrote: »

It is reported some documents have been manipulated and their classified markings have been removed or changed. This explains why she has changed her public statements about what was in her possession. She initially that there “was no classified material,” and changed it now to “The facts are I did not send nor did I receive material marked classified.” So, who will be the fall guy or gal for Hillary? Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills, Deputy Chief of Staff Jacob Sullivan, or key aide Huma Abedin? My guess it will be Sullivan, as the others are too important and know too much.

Same thing at work: as a rule all our documents are fairly proprietary, but there are some special exceptions which mandate strict controls, like ITAR-controlled documents, or IEEE. Similarly doing business as SecState is not inherently all classified.

Amerika · 03-09-2015 5:30pm

Overheal wrote: »

Same thing at work: as a rule all our documents are fairly proprietary, but there are some special exceptions which mandate strict controls, like ITAR-controlled documents, or IEEE. Similarly doing business as SecState is not inherently all classified.

But there is a critical point at issue: The federal government classifies by information, not by markings. If a document contains obvious classified material (example: information provided by a foreign government), it is automatically considered classified, even if it isn’t marked as such. And every Secretary of State knows this. Unless you're Mrs Clinton, that is… Then it’s anything goes -- Party Time!

(Time to blame all her self inflicted problems on a vast right wing conspiracy again?)

ECO_Mental · 03-09-2015 9:56pm

I am confused ðŸ˜–

As far as I know the USA has the greatest spy and intelligence organization ever in world history NSA CIA FBI JSOC etc etc they spend countless BILLIONS on it every year.

How come they never pulled Hillary up on her private server or kept sending her "Top Secret" stuff. Did not one on the hundreds of thousands of people think it was wrong over the past ten years. Strange, they must have thought it was ok....

Manach · 03-09-2015 10:40pm

AFAIR from books like @War by Harris, only a certain number of US spy agencies have the authority to spy on American citizens. To do so as well requires a judge issued warrant supplied by what is 50:50 a Democratic appointee. Hence the lack of exposure to oversight by those organisations.

ECO_Mental · 03-09-2015 11:27pm

Manach wrote: »

AFAIR from books like @War by Harris, only a certain number of US spy agencies have the authority to spy on American citizens. To do so as well requires a judge issued warrant supplied by what is 50:50 a Democratic appointee. Hence the lack of exposure to oversight by those organisations.

Yes I think you might be right, but do you think the NSA would send a classified doc to Hillary@Yahoo.com. I don't think so, its not spying of citizens it's common sense they wouldn't do it

What I'm getting at is, yes that ther might be some sensitive stuff on the server like, "heads up hillary on your trip to Rome if Berlusconi asks you to go to a party...DON'T"

but nothing like an email saying,.." listen in the next two week we are going to have a SEAL team in Crimea to F**k Putins S**t up so stay away from the Ukraine in the next month or so."

but the GOP are grabbing at straws I think, but I could be wrong

frostyjacks · 04-09-2015 1:21pm

She was keeping silent up til now, but she's calling it:

http://m.independent.ie/style/celebrity/celebrity-news/roz-purcell-breaks-silence-on-former-model-boss-donald-trumps-us-presidential-bid-31501672.html

Now I can rest easy, thanks Roz.

Black Swan · 07-09-2015 12:50am

If elected president, what will Trump's Wall look like? Great Wall of China? Berlin Wall? Hadrain's Wall? Maginot Line? Siegfried Line? North-South Korea DMZ? What?

MightyMandarin · 07-09-2015 1:04am

Black Swan wrote: »

If elected president, what will Trump's Wall look like? Great Wall of China? Berlin Wall? Hadrain's Wall? Maginot Line? Siegfried Line? North-South Korea DMZ? What?

Something like this I'd say

Overheal · 07-09-2015 2:16am

Perhaps someone should remind him that as many as 40% of illegal immigrants are coming into the country via air, not via the border.

http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2015/jul/29/marco-rubio/rubio-says-40-percent-illegal-immigrants-are-overs/

Here is also the same statistic backed up 2 years ago also: http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2013/sep/06/john-carter/john-carter-claim-40-percent-nations-illegal-resid/

The Randy Riverbeast · 07-09-2015 3:11am

Overheal wrote: »

Perhaps someone should remind him that as many as 40% of illegal immigrants are coming into the country via air, not via the border.

http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2015/jul/29/marco-rubio/rubio-says-40-percent-illegal-immigrants-are-overs/

Here is also the same statistic backed up 2 years ago also: http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2013/sep/06/john-carter/john-carter-claim-40-percent-nations-illegal-resid/

Build the wall higher

CEOL40 · 07-09-2015 7:23am

I don't think Clinton is gonna get anywhere, people just don't like her, same as people just don't like Mitt Romney. I'm excira and delira that Bernie Sanders is in it. (I nearly said 'out and proud'

but you know what I mean.)

MightyMandarin · 07-09-2015 1:59pm

CEOL40 wrote: »

I don't think Clinton is gonna get anywhere, people just don't like her, same as people just don't like Mitt Romney. I'm excira and delira that Bernie Sanders is in it. (I nearly said 'out and proud' but you know what I mean.)

To be fair, people vote for candidates they don't like a lot. Hillary has the knack of being the 'safe' option for most people. That nearly always guarantees picking up swing voters; something which is crucial when running for President.

Overheal · 07-09-2015 2:52pm

she can at least afford to keep campaigning for the next year easily, so even if she dives in the polls unless she loses the nomination shes in it.

2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

Comments