Beto 2020

[bad_teammate 13136]

Just now, Dahobbs said:

Looking at it doesn't mean adopting it. Let's look at all our options and choose the best one. And, even if this were adopted, it doesn't seem that bad to me. People are living longer and are more active at older ages. If we can provide better benefits by extending the eligible age for SS to 68, why isn't that a reasonable option to discuss?  

Because there are far better options that don't involve screwing over people who are paying into the system and have been for decades. But it takes vision and courage to fight, so... impossible for some I guess.

And yes, "looking at it" DOES mean voting for it if it comes to it. The entire point of telling your voters that you're "looking at it" means it's an option.

[horncyclist 1386]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

So for you guys who feel very attacked by my insane purity politics, which Beto do you agree with? 2012 Beto who says we need to raise the retirement age and implement means testing or 2019 Beto who says we need to actually expand Social Security?

Choose one. (Or don't lol who cares nothing matters when my life looks into his dreamy eyes)

Why not both? Those things you listed aren't mutually exclusive. I'd like a serious discussion that actually considers the tradeoffs. Raising the retirement age isn't a terrible idea, but it doesn't work for everyone in all jobs. My dad worked his ass off his whole life and by 62 his body couldn't work anymore. My father-in-law will work until he's 70, is in perfect health, and is loaded. Working out some different options for people that end up in each of those outcomes, while ensuring that we all are guaranteed that our basic needs are met at retirement sounds reasonable to me. 

[Dahobbs 17451]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

So for you guys who feel very attacked by my insane purity politics, which Beto do you agree with? 2012 Beto who says we need to raise the retirement age and implement means testing or 2019 Beto who says we need to actually expand Social Security?

Choose one. (Or don't lol who cares nothing matters when my wife looks into his dreamy eyes)

Why not both? I want to expand social security so those in need of it have access to a higher standard of living. I also want to consider raising the retirement age and implement means testing so those that need it have access to a higher standard of living. And, let's also increase funding if it is needed to reach our targets. You are so strange. 

[bad_teammate 13136]

*has a dad whose body fell apart at 62*

*doesn't understand why crazy b_t is 100% opposed to raising the SS age*

I'm on Mars.

[bad_teammate 13136]

1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

Why not both? I want to expand social security so those in need of it have access to a higher standard of living. I also want to consider raising the retirement age and implement means testing so those that need it have access to a higher standard of living. And, let's also increase funding if it is needed to reach our targets. You are so strange. 

Why? Who does that benefit?

[bad_teammate 13136]

1 minute ago, longhornmatt said:

Higher taxes alone won't cut it.

This is absurd. This is magical thinking. Of COURSE more revenue would "cut it". That's how math works.

[Dahobbs 17451]

6 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Because there are far better options that don't involve screwing over people who are paying into the system and have been for decades. But it takes vision and courage to fight, so... impossible for some I guess.

And yes, "looking at it" DOES mean voting for it if it comes to it. The entire point of telling your voters that you're "looking at it" means it's an option.

Right, an option. An option that can be rejected if data analysis shows it isn't a good option. But we have to be willing to discuss it in order to get that data. Otherwise, it is just ideological purists yelling at each other and not policy founded on reality. 

Edited March 20, 2019 by Dahobbs

[horncyclist 1386]

3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

*has a dad whose body fell apart at 62*

*doesn't understand why crazy b_t is 100% opposed to raising the SS age*

I'm on Mars.

I wouldn't want it raised for him. That was the point. For my whitecollar father in law, absolutely. 

[Dahobbs 17451]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

Why? Who does that benefit?

Potentially everyone if it ensures a more solvent and flexible social safety net? I don't think the advent of fiat currency suddenly made resources unlimited. Apparently you do. 

[bad_teammate 13136]

2 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

Yes, from the magic money tree that creates unlimited government revenue with no consequences. 

 

3 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I don't think the advent of fiat currency suddenly made resources unlimited. Apparently you do. 

Conservative talking points: Engage! Beto 2020!

[bad_teammate 13136]

Also, you "I JUST WANT TO BEAT TRUMP!" types need to realize that Trump won the 2016 Republican primary because he was basically the only one to promise not to touch Social Security and Medicare.

 

[bad_teammate 13136]

lol

"I only care about beating Trump."

*makes all the arguments that lost to trump*"

[horncyclist 1386]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

lol

"I only care about beating Trump."

*makes all the arguments that lost to trump*"

i'm pretty sure Trump didn't win the republican primary because he promised not to cut social security/medicare. And both him and Hillary made those promises. What are you on? Do you think this is an effective way to discuss issues? Really, how old are you? What do you do for a living?

[Celery Man 20888]

but he states it with such certainty

[bad_teammate 13136]

1 minute ago, horncyclist said:

i'm pretty sure Trump didn't win the republican primary because he promised not to cut social security/medicare. 

I don't care about how sure you think you are, do you have any evidence? Watch the debate clip and listen to the reaction.

Read about why he took the working class and buffaloed the GOP elite. Research doesn't hurt.

1 minute ago, longhornmatt said:

You are literally the person who asked everyone to put politics aside and just have a discussion about what idea they thought was correct as a matter of principle.  And now you're falling back on the "but it won't beat Trump!" card.

The right policy is to provide for the needs of the poor and elderly. If insolvency looms, raise taxes on the wealthy. Only when the wealthy are tapped out do you think about cutting benefits. There. There's your policy talk. You're welcome.

[troph 24577]

The right policy is to provide for the needs of the poor and elderly. If insolvency looms, raise taxes on the wealthy. Only when the wealthy are tapped out do you think about cutting benefits. There. There's your policy talk. You're welcome.

That’s a bad way to go about it. Wealthy retirees should be excluded from benefits and abled bodied and able to work shouldn’t be able to retire under SS. That’s responsible. That means the elderly poor and unable to work and poor have full and complete benefits.

There’s your policy talk. You’re welcome.

[Dahobbs 17451]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

I don't care about how sure you think you are, do you have any evidence? Watch the debate clip and listen to the reaction.

Read about why he took the working class and buffaloed the GOP elite. Research doesn't hurt.

The right policy is to provide for the needs of the poor and elderly. If insolvency looms, raise taxes on the wealthy. Only when the wealthy are tapped out do you think about cutting benefits. There. There's your policy talk. You're welcome.

You are insufferable. I have no intention of needing social security. And I have no problem if when the time comes I do not collect a dime despite having paid into it. I am perfectly alright accepting that some of us who are lucky have to give more to help those who are not. We appear to want the same goals for the same reasons. But, because I dont subscribe to your absolutist position that yours is the only way to get there, I am your sworn enemy. I cannot think of a more morally repugnant and self defeating position. But, by all means, continue your self righteous rampage. 

[troph 24577]

Why is 65 a static number for defining the elderly - the same as in 1935 - given the advances in medicine, health, and life expectancy in the last 85 years?

Elderly should be defined as unable to work based on an age range that’s approximately close to the time the average American is unable to work. If someone falls ill or becomes unable before that age then SS disability should kick in. Benefits should be given based on need not on how much a person put into the system. It’s a tax not a pension plan or 401k.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

52 minutes ago, troph said:

The rich should have SS benefits cut - aka means testing - so the poor get more - aka enough to live on - and our country isn’t bankrupted.

Including Boomers.  Hell, particularly Boomers.  The only problem I had with Beto's quotes above is his statement that social security should only be inviolable for the very assholes who fucked everything up. 

[troph 24577]

Including Boomers.  Hell, particularly Boomers.  The only problem I had with Beto's quotes above is his statement that social security should only be inviolable for the very assholes who fucked everything up. 

From a policy perspective I agree but that ain’t happening and you know it.

[horncyclist 1386]

3 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

Why is 65 a static number for defining the elderly - the same as in 1935 - given the advances in medicine, health, and life expectancy in the last 85 years?

Not everyone has enjoyed those advances in medicine, health and life expectancy. Ideally you'd have different retirement ages for different people, but I don't know how you go about that. Keeping the retirement age the same plus means testing would probably help. I'd guess means testing is probably a good proxy for determining who need to retire at 65 and who don't cause they're rich and healthy. 

BT, you got an answer to the question above? It's a good question. 

[Brisketexan 104683]

The right policy is to provide for the needs of the poor and elderly. If insolvency looms, raise taxes on the wealthy. Only when the wealthy are tapped out do you think about cutting benefits. There. There's your policy talk. You're welcome.

This is brilliant.
Until you realize that the definition of “the wealthy” will be lowered over and over till you’ve bled the middle class dry

[Mojo Hand 4580]

3 minutes ago, troph said:

From a policy perspective I agree but that ain’t happening and you know it.

I do, and I don't blame him for saying that.  Selfish assholes vote too.

[bad_teammate 13136]

2 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

Why is 65 a static number for defining the elderly - the same as in 1935 - given the advances in medicine, health, and life expectancy in the last 85 years?

I don't think "work until you're physically incapable of it" is a value worth having as a nation and certainly not someone we should aspire to. The Protestant Work Ethic is complete bullshit. The poor and rich don't age the same.

Basically, "Human Dignity" is the answer to your question.

1 minute ago, troph said:

Wealthy retirees should be excluded from benefits and abled bodied and able to work shouldn’t be able to retire under SS.

 

This sentence is wobbly, so pardon me if I misunderstand, but is a 65-year-old man who is "able bodied" but still has to work to live considered "wealthy"?

Also, "should be able to work" is a 100% GOP talking point that they use in an attempt to make it seem like SS retirement age forces people to retire. It's a common attempt by Republicans to scaremonger the elderly.

3 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

You are insufferable. I have no intention of needing social security. And I have no problem if when the time comes I do not collect a dime despite having paid into it. I am perfectly alright accepting that some of us who are lucky have to give more to help those who are not. We appear to want the same goals for the same reasons. But, because I dont subscribe to your absolutist position that yours is the only way to get there, I am your sworn enemy. I cannot think of a more morally repugnant and self defeating position. But, by all means, continue your self righteous rampage. 

You don't have an argument here about the actual policy so... cool self-conception of what a self-reliant independent badass you are, I guess.

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

This is brilliant.
Until you realize that the definition of “the wealthy” will be lowered over and over till you’ve bled the middle class dry

hahaha someone shined the "Don't cut SS" bat signal and here come the Republicans.

The middle class has already been bled dry by redistribution upwards. Fuck off with this.

[bad_teammate 13136]

"I SWEAR TO GOD I'M WOKE JUST DON'T RAISE TAXES OH GOD!" - Newlibs from NeverTrumplandia

[horncyclist 1386]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

I don't think "work until you're physically incapable of it" is a value worth having as a nation and certainly not someone we should aspire to. The Protestant Work Ethic is complete bullshit. The poor and rich don't age the same.

 

This didn't answer the question. Why is 65 the right number in 1935 and still the right number today? If you say that 65 was too high in 1935, fine, that's possible and probably right. Why is 65 right today? Should we actually be talking about lowering it? Why not 60? Why not 45? His question was should the number change based on changes to life expectancy and health. 

[bad_teammate 13136]

Just now, horncyclist said:

This didn't answer the question. Why is 65 the right number in 1935 and still the right number today? If you say that 65 was too high in 1935, fine, that's possible and probably right. Why is 65 right today? Should we actually be talking about lowering it? Why not 60? Why not 45?

I would much prefer that conversation.

YangGang is wanting to lower it pretty far.

Quote

His question was should the number change based on changes to life expectancy and health. 

It literally wasn't his question.

[horncyclist 1386]

His question was should the number change based on changes to life expectancy and health. 

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

I would much prefer that conversation.

YangGang is wanting to lower it pretty far.

It literally wasn't his question.

His question: Why is 65 a static number for defining the elderly - the same as in 1935 - given the advances in medicine, health, and life expectancy in the last 85 years?

My paraphrase: "should the number change based on changes to life expectancy and health."

You're insufferable. I'm going to bed. 

[troph 24577]

Look policy in two or three sentences is going to be wobbly. Policy talk on these boards will also be wobbly even if we spend pages talking about it. The program itself is probably thousands of pages long and there is discretion throughout in terms of disability.

 

But I’ll take a stab at it -

 

Retirement age range - at the choice of the individual - from 68-73 much like the current system with ages moved higher. If you suffer from a disability that requires retirement before age 68 you get to retire with the same treatment as though you retired at age 68.

 

Your starting eligibility is based age of retirement election and an annually adjusted minimum needed income. From there you apply means testing.

 

If you’re retirement income without SS is $45-50k per year you begin the phase out with a complete phase out if your income without SS is $125k per year. These numbers are adjusted annually.

 

The means test is annual based on prior year tax returns.

 

Healthcare is covered with minimal copays etc outside of SS with reformed Medicare (Medicare for All with private supplemental allowed if you want it and can afford it).

 

Something like that. Numbers can be moved one way or another based on cost, rational basis and negotiation to get a deal done.

 

And I bet you with this reform we still need to raise taxes. And frankly we should for healthcare/Medicare, shoring up SS, and a dozen other programs that are in desperate need of modernized funding (roads, bridges, public works, research, nasa, education, etc).

 

[Dahobbs 17451]

12 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

"I SWEAR TO GOD I'M WOKE JUST DON'T RAISE TAXES OH GOD!" - Newlibs from NeverTrumplandia

I literally just said I am fine with effectively raising my taxes (ie, not receiving social security) and you thought it was commentary on my self reliance. My point was that we agree that society should help those that need it. And we agree that those who have more should contribute more. But you can't see anything beyond your own bullshit. At least Trump et al. are internally consistent: they do not actually care about other people. You do, but apparently not enough to consider any way to help them other than your way. 

Edited March 20, 2019 by Dahobbs

[bad_teammate 13136]

So take a deep breath and take a few steps back and notice something: In the face of even MILD social democratic thought ("do not cut SS in any way"), the "centrist moderates" are forcefully and passionately arguing in defense of raising the Social Security age.

Now ask yourself this question: How will Beto hold up under pressure from the center-right in his own party and the entire GOP?

Quote

You do, but apparently not enough to consider any way to help them other then your way. 

Who does raising the SS age help?

[troph 24577]

So take a deep breath and take a few steps back and notice something: In the face of even MILD social democratic thought ("do not cut SS in any way"), the "centrist moderates" are forcefully and passionately arguing in defense of raising the Social Security age.

Now ask yourself this question: How will Beto hold up under pressure from the center-right in his own party and the entire GOP?

You do, but apparently not enough to consider any way to help them other then your way. 

 

Wait I thought he didn’t have substantive positions?

 

 

[troph 24577]

So take a deep breath and take a few steps back and notice something: In the face of even MILD social democratic thought ("do not cut SS in any way"), the "centrist moderates" are forcefully and passionately arguing in defense of raising the Social Security age.
Now ask yourself this question: How will Beto hold up under pressure from the center-right in his own party and the entire GOP?

You do, but apparently not enough to consider any way to help them other then your way. 

Who does raising the SS age help?


The poor who need more income when they retire.

[Dahobbs 17451]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

So take a deep breath and take a few steps back and notice something: In the face of even MILD social democratic thought ("do not cut SS in any way"), the "centrist moderates" are forcefully and passionately arguing in defense of raising the Social Security age.

Now ask yourself this question: How will Beto hold up under pressure from the center-right in his own party and the entire GOP?

Who does raising the SS age help?

Um, you're the one being forceful here chief. Everyone else is just trying to have a normal discussion on how best to meet our shared goals. 

[Chuckie Finster 22600]

You pieces of shit don't believe in anything and I'm glad to be fighting you.

Big picture we’re on the same team here, but good lord you can be one hell of a bad teammate.

[scottsins 1953]

"Social Security, the people who paid into social security and who are earning their checks back from investment in social security, that needs to be protected. That's inviolable. But going forward for future generations, for my kids' generation, five, three, and one year old. Right now, we need to look at things like means testing," O'Rourke said.
He continued, "We need to look at perhaps a longer a later age at which my kids are going to retire. That's a tough decision. It's not easy to say it's going to be politicized by my opponent, but those are the tough things that you're going to want me to weigh in on when I'm in Washington, DC."
It's fucking hilarious to watch you guys defend this. I don't know what you think you're accomplishing.
"Are cuts important over the long term?" O'Rourke said. "Absolutely. You have kids, I have kids, as we have, uh, as our kids have kids, um, their ability and options and opportunities in life are going to be significantly curtailed if we don't get our national debt under control because every dollar they pay in, in taxes is going to go right out to China or to someone else who's financing our extravagant government."
Fuck.
You pieces of shit don't believe in anything and I'm glad to be fighting you.

Ok.
Cool.
Hook ‘em.

IF Bernie doesn’t get the nomination, will you be voting for that democratic candidate in 2020, no matter what? I’m genuinely curious as to your stance on that choice.

[Brisketexan 104683]

"I SWEAR TO GOD I'M WOKE JUST DON'T RAISE TAXES OH GOD!" - Newlibs from NeverTrumplandia

Well, if you hadn’t completely made an ass of yourself, you sealed it with the straw man.
Nobody here is saying “don’t raise taxes.” In fact, what most everyone is saying is that we should consider several approaches, which could be used alone or in combination, depending on the analysis. For example, I think that we should look at 1) raising the cap on contributions, 2) means testing, and 3) raising the retirement age.

There’s wiggle room in all of them. The point is to reach solvency without hurting the people who really need it. That may mean 1) getting more money in from people who can afford it (the only approach you are willing to consider), 2) paying less out to people who don’t need it, and 3) shortening the amount of time over which we make payments, perhaps to get it closer to what it was when we created SS.

But you...Classic “when all you have is a hammer, every problem is a nail.” We get it - TAX THE RICH. The thing is, most folks here don’t oppose that tool, within reason. We just know that solving problems usually requires multiple tools.

If you want to know why Bernie bros have a hard time rallying support, your analysis should start with the mirror.

[horncyclist 1386]

This thread needs to get back on track. Beto's doing a good job of reaching out to local officials while campaigning. 

 

[bad_teammate 13136]

14 minutes ago, troph said:

If you’re retirement income without SS is $45-50k per year you begin the phase out with a complete phase out if your income without SS is $125k per year. These numbers are adjusted annually.

Means testing is a benefits cut, so it all fits under my "only cut if we can't fund it through taxation/revenue raising". I would advocate means testing as the first round of cutting only if revenue sources were tapped out. Which they aren't; not even close.

9 minutes ago, troph said:

The poor who need more income when they retire.

That's a dodge.

Raising the age doesn't help anyone.

6 minutes ago, scottsins said:

IF Bernie doesn’t get the nomination, will you be voting for that democratic candidate in 2020, no matter what? I’m genuinely curious as to your stance on that choice.

Yes, of course.

If someone won through backroom shenanigans I wouldn't fundraise or donate, but I'd vote for him or her. If someone wins legit, I'll donate, fundraise, and knock doors. I always do.

[BradInATX 9208]

So take a deep breath and take a few steps back and notice something: In the face of even MILD social democratic thought ("do not cut SS in any way"), the "centrist moderates" are forcefully and passionately arguing in defense of raising the Social Security age.

Now ask yourself this question: How will Beto hold up under pressure from the center-right in his own party and the entire GOP?

You do, but apparently not enough to consider any way to help them other then your way. 

The irony of b_t telling someone to take a breath and take a few steps back. Awesome.

 

[bad_teammate 13136]

That's fine, but what's your answer to the question?

[BradInATX 9208]

That's fine, but what's your answer to the question?

I'm not part of this debate. I have mixed feelings on SS and despite being miles more fiscally conservative than you, am probably closer to you on SS than the folks you're arguing with. I'm just here to take pot shots from the sideline.

[Dropout 355]

Bt is The Wolf from Pulp Fiction. Say pretty please. 

[troph 24577]

Bt - we disagree then. I don’t see SS as a pension for everyone regardless of income for a full and complete retirement from 65 until death, I just don’t. It’s original intent was to make sure the poor who couldn’t work were minimally cared for. What I proposed above goes way beyond that. You want more. Ok. We disagree.

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23364]

Joe Biden has his work cut out for him.

 

[BradInATX 9208]

Bt is The Wolf from Pulp Fiction. Say pretty please. 

Nah, he is basically this scene on loop 24/7, but swap Bluto's whiskey for adderall. He's much more enjoyable if you read his posts with "forget it, he's rolling" as general context. 

 

 https://youtu.be/V8lT1o0sDwI

 

I like you, b_t. I actually do. I think you're a bad advocate for your guy, but I'd put a few beers down with you. And I'll vote for your guy if he wins the primary, despite your best efforts.

 

 

 

 

[troph 24577]

Yeah anyone that thinks bt is a bad guy is silly and not paying attention.

[Dropout 355]

idk Brad. We have blood all over our fucking face as a nation and he’s simply trying to start w the simplest answer. All these Vincent Vega’s need him to be nice first. If I’m curt with you it’s bc time is a factor.

[Bama Chick 28596]

Yeah anyone that thinks bt is a bad guy is silly and not paying attention.

No not a bad guy.

Emotional and hysterical when challenged?

Most definitely.

[BradInATX 9208]

idk Brad. We have blood all over our fucking face as a nation and he’s simply trying to start w the simplest answer. All these Vincent Vega’s need him to be nice first. If I’m curt with you it’s bc time is a factor.

I understand where you're coming from. It's probably cathartic to be outwardly angry. But I don't think it's the path to victory.

 

I agree with you on the importance of victory. I just disagree with the strategy of using anger and purity tests as the vehicle. I don't think it's a winning strategy.