2016 Election
Quote: RonCSince you mentioned Social Security...
I am in favor of two changes to social security that would both save money and allow your money to grow faster:
--Eliminate payment of social security benefits to rich people. That's right. If you are a millionaire (or some other more than reasonable number that protects people from poverty in their old age--the original intent of the program), billionaire, zillionaire, or maybe a many hundred thousandaire...nothing for you. Graduated at a certain level and gently fizzling out at a higher level. You made it! You achieved the American Dream! Congratulations! No real need for you to get anything back; it was an insurance plan against you not making it...
....
This already happens, and it's not to rich people. Perhaps you're not aware of it? Though investment earnings such as IRA's are excepted from the means earning test, so perhaps you'd like to close that loophole.
For me, age 56 (which is where this starts and continues for the rest of my life), I can earn $15,100 this year. After that, my SS payments decrease $1 for every $2 I earn until they are gone. Different people have different amounts of SS coming in, so while I think the bottom threshold is the same for everyone, the top will depend on your payments.
When I retired at 50, I started receiving SS as part of my tiered retirement plan, but was allowed to earn whatever in that 6 year window without affecting it. However, this year is the first where I had to answer a SS questionnaire about earnings above retirement income.
Down here in Florida, that rule is part of the reason there are many, many part-time jobs, and many revolving openings. A lot of retired folks will work full-time for 3-4 months, or work just enough part-time hours throughout the year to augment their income enough to stay under the earnings-loss threshold.
Quote: beachbumbabs
Down here in Florida, that rule is part of the reason there are many, many part-time jobs, and many revolving openings. A lot of retired folks will work full-time for 3-4 months, or work just enough part-time hours throughout the year to augment their income enough to stay under the earnings-loss threshold.
Does this 'augmenting' of their retirement income, allow some of these "people of experienced years" to eat dinner at dinner time, instead of always hitting the early bird special? LOL. I am just kidding. I actually am on the retirement eating schedule, most days eating our big meal early/mid afternoon. In our case, it's a matter of convenience rather than thriftiness, but the afternoon 'lunch' prices are lower than dinner prices often for the same food, so that does stretch our comp dollars, which is an added benefit. :)
Quote: beachbumbabsThis already happens, and it's not to rich people. Perhaps you're not aware of it? Though investment earnings such as IRA's are excepted from the means earning test, so perhaps you'd like to close that loophole.
For me, age 56 (which is where this starts and continues for the rest of my life), I can earn $15,100 this year. After that, my SS payments decrease $1 for every $2 I earn until they are gone. Different people have different amounts of SS coming in, so while I think the bottom threshold is the same for everyone, the top will depend on your payments.
When I retired at 50, I started receiving SS as part of my tiered retirement plan, but was allowed to earn whatever in that 6 year window without affecting it. However, this year is the first where I had to answer a SS questionnaire about earnings above retirement income.
Down here in Florida, that rule is part of the reason there are many, many part-time jobs, and many revolving openings. A lot of retired folks will work full-time for 3-4 months, or work just enough part-time hours throughout the year to augment their income enough to stay under the earnings-loss threshold.
According to the SSA:
"In 2015, the annual earnings limit is $15,720 if you’re under full retirement age. If you will reach full retirement age in 2015, the limit on your earnings for the months before full retirement age is $41,880.
Starting with the month you reach full retirement age, there is no limit on how much you can earn and still receive your benefits."
http://www.ssa.gov/planners/retire/whileworking2.html
Chart of full retirement age:
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/planners/retire/agereduction.html
I am not sure what you are getting is actually "Social Security"...it sounds like something covered here:
http://www.govexec.com/pay-benefits/retirement-planning/2009/05/special-considerations/29122/
I am glad people don't agree with my idea. They aren't calling names. Ideas evolve when we talk about them, not when we label people bad names just for considering any kind of change.
My basic idea:
--Reduce disability fraud
--Don't give millionaires Social Security
--allow a small portion of SS collections (taxes you can't deduct...) to be invested as directed by individual
Quote: RonC
My basic idea:
--Reduce disability fraud
--Don't give millionaires Social Security
--allow a small portion of SS collections (taxes you can't deduct...) to be invested as directed by individual
I support your first two. #3 I am not so keen on.
Disability fraud is huge. My partner is on social security disability. He has a legitimate disability and began receiving disability during the Bush years, before Obama turned social security disability into a variation and extension of welfare.
Disability exploded during Obama's term. Obviously I am not a doctor, so I am not qualified to say who is disabled and who isn't, but there are many people receiving disability that should not be. They probably belong on welfare or some other social program, but not disability. And that is not fair to people who truly are disabled and their disability prevents them from gainful employment and normal daily living activities.
I am sure this is politically incorrect but god forbid someone has some back pain or knee pain, which almost everyone has, especially the large portion of "large" people in our population....they all have some degree of back pain and boom...they qualify for disability. Don't even get me started on people with anxieties qualifying for disability. :(
Quote: RonCAccording to the SSA:
"In 2015, the annual earnings limit is $15,720 if you’re under full retirement age. If you will reach full retirement age in 2015, the limit on your earnings for the months before full retirement age is $41,880.
Starting with the month you reach full retirement age, there is no limit on how much you can earn and still receive your benefits."
http://www.ssa.gov/planners/retire/whileworking2.html
Chart of full retirement age:
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/planners/retire/agereduction.html
I am not sure what you are getting is actually "Social Security"...it sounds like something covered here:
http://www.govexec.com/pay-benefits/retirement-planning/2009/05/special-considerations/29122/
What I am getting is Social Security. It's part (a "tier") of my retirement system, along with a pension, and a TSP (federal 401K). The SS part is vulnerable to overearning. I was forced into the SS system about 6 months after I was hired, but had already paid SS etc. for 15+ years at that point and almost had my 40 quarters anyway. Congress changed us over when SS payers were declining and it looked like the system was going broke; it was a couple million people suddenly paying SS on federal wages starting April 1986 rather than CSRS (the old retirement system).
That last link was a good one, thanks!
Quote: beachbumbabsWhat I am getting is Social Security. It's part (a "tier") of my retirement system, along with a pension, and a TSP (federal 401K). The SS part is vulnerable to overearning. I was forced into the SS system about 6 months after I was hired, but had already paid SS etc. for 15+ years at that point and almost had my 40 quarters anyway. Congress changed us over when SS payers were declining and it looked like the system was going broke; it was a couple million people suddenly paying SS on federal wages starting April 1986 rather than CSRS (the old retirement system).
http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v49n11/v49n11p5.pdf
I would call it something different than what I am talking about--Social Security payments at retirement ages of 62 or higher. It is properly means tested, in my opinion, no matter what it is called...and I think ALL of SS payments for retirements of any kind should be.
This is why I would call it something different than actual Social Security retirement, but I guess that is just how I see it:
http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v49n11/v49n11p5.pdf
"The billionaire real estate mogul Donald J. Trump, subsidized by a seemingly endless wave of free news and television coverage, raised about $4 million, including $100,000 of in-kind donations to himself, and spent slightly more. The numbers suggest that Mr. Trump is no longer a self-funding candidate, but rather is running his campaign like everyone else, with money from his supporters."
"On the Democratic side, Hillary Rodham Clinton, who secured commitments from many of the party’s biggest donors before she even announced her candidacy, barely outraised Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, a self-described socialist, bringing in half as much money a week during the three months ending Sept. 30 as she had earlier in the campaign."
"...Ben Carson, a retired neurosurgeon, reported raising by far the most cash, $20 million, in the three months ending Sept. 30. Senator Ted Cruz of Texas raised $12 million, and Carly Fiorina, a former Hewlett-Packard executive, raised about $7 million. All of them increased or held steady their average weekly cash intake over the previous quarter."
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/16/us/politics/outsider-presidential-candidates-prove-competitive-in-fund-raising.html?_r=0
Hillary and Jeb have the big donor lists going back to the late 80's and 90's. Of course, some of those donors are gone now but the big donors who are still with us tend to donate often. Even with huge advantages like that, Jeb fails to excite many people and Hillary seem to be under performing. Funny, that is kind of my opinion of Hillary--she could really be something but she just never quite gets it all right. Jeb--he has not impressed me at all.
Jeb Bush is almost done. Oh, he isn't going to drop out of the race. He still has a lot of money....well his super packs do, not really his campaign. But he is just going nowhere. He is likely not to do well in Iowa just because of the make up of the Iowa caucus goers (very conservative), so his campaign, like many others was banking on a big showing in New Hampshire to get him going. Campaign and super packs have spent a large amount of money over the past 6 weeks buying air time and running commercials to increase his numbers. They spent more money that all other candidates on BOTH sides combined and at the end of the six week period, Jeb's numbers have dropped slightly. Now donors are beginning to slow down as he raised significantly less than Carson, Hillary and Sanders for the first time.
That is a real bad sign. people just don't like him. His campaign is now cutting back....cutting staff, down grading his hotel accomadations and travel in an effort to save money. A very bad sign.
Dr Ben Cason announced he is taking a 2 week leave of absence from the campaign trail to do a book signing tour. This is very strange for a candidate running second in the polls. Makes it seem like he is not taking this campaign seriously and more interested in selling books.
If Doc Carson and Jeb are fizzling and Carly's numbers seem to have already dropped, that leaves, Trump and Rubio as the two real contenders for the republican party. Several online bookmaker sites have already lowered Rubio's odds to the favorite to win the Repub nomination. Very interesting.
Quote: kewljDr Ben Cason announced he is taking a 2 week leave of absence from the campaign trail to do a book signing tour. This is very strange for a candidate running second in the polls. Makes it seem like he is not taking this campaign seriously and more interested in selling books.
Spin is everything...
"Carson will be going back and forth between campaign fundraising events and book tour events over the next two weeks. His campaign says he has over 20 campaign fundraising events scheduled over that time period."
"In the ABC report, Carson spokesman Doug Watts explained that leaving the campaign staff behind while Carson spends a few days focusing on his book tour alleviates concerns about “co-mingling from the corporate standpoint to the Federal Election Commission standpoint so it’s just better to avoid any bad appearance.”
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/10/15/ben-carsons-book-tour-threatens-end-civilization-know/
The Dem debate is the rage right now and he'll be back for the Republican debate.
Could be something; could be nothing...
Quote: RonCSpin is everything...
I wasn't suggesting that Dr Carson, was dropping out or anything. But it did make me wonder about his priorities. Likely he received advice from someone saying he needed to distinguish between his book tour and campaigning and not blur the two as he has been.
Personally, I figured Dr Carson a flash in the pan, very similar to The Pizza guy last cycle. But like Trump, he has had far more staying power than I would have thought. And now Dr Carson's fundraising numbers for the 3rd quarter, 20 million, highest among republicans, and 7 million more than Jeb. That makes him a legit candidate.
Campaigns take money in this day and age. BUT, to my knowledge, Dr Carson, still has little organization and ground game, something also very important in getting the nomination. You gotta not only get people to like you and your message, but you gotta get them to the polls. It also costs money to just get on the ballot in every state. Maybe Dr Carson, will use some of this campaign money to start to build an organization and ground game. Trump has begun to do that in recent months as well.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/16/politics/donald-trump-george-bush-sept-11/
It always makes me throw up in my mouth a little when Jeb! tells the lie that "my brother kept us safe." Tell that to the families of the 3,000 who died on 9/11.
I wish Trump would have spoken up during that 2nd debate when Jeb! repeated that lie to thunderous applause. That would have been amazing.
Quote: @realDonaldTrump.@JebBush,
At the debate you said your brother kept us safe- I wanted to be nice & did not mention the WTC came down during his watch, 9/11.
I am LOVING this.
Quote: ams288Wow. Trump is taking heat for pointing out the rather obvious truth that most Republicans seem to either forget or ignore: George W. Bush was President on 9/11.
George Tenet was the CIA Director from 1996 to 2004.
This is his report on the deplorable condition of the CIA when he became director.
Tenet
The agency was decimated by budget cuts that began under Bush Senior, but were accelerated by the Dems in Congress during the Clinton Administration.
They cut the Military budget and they felt the CIA should be cut by $1 billion.
And this was three months after the first WTC bombing.
They really care about us, don't they.
NY Times
Five deadly terrorist attacks followed those cuts.
Tenet describes his efforts to rebuild the CIA:
"I reiterate that we were rebuilding the clandestine service essentially from a standing start after I became DCI."
"...as a Community, we had lost 25% of our people and nearly $30 billion in investment compared to the 1990 baseline."
It takes years to rebuild from those losses and establish and modernize intellegence capability.
Bush was only in office for eight months on 9/11.
He bears some of the blame, but Clinton deserves most of it.
Clinton first learned of Al Qaeda's intentions to bring down the Towers in 1998.
He passed on at least two chances to take out Bin Laden and possibly prevent 9/11.
Forbes
Clinton should have fought harder to prevent any cuts to the military or CIA budgets following the first WTC bombing, but he did not.
The first WTC bombing, Khobar Towers, the U.S. embassy bombing in Kenya and Tanzania, the U.S. Cole bombing, and 9/11 might never have happened if not for those cuts.
We don't need to trample on the rights of our citizens as much as we have to do nothing--the whole strip search at the airport hours before you get on the plane (if you get there at the recommended time) is nothing more than window dressing. It is seeking out the people who organize attacks, their sympathizers, and good old investigation and spy work that really get the job done. We need to stop them before they start; once they put a plan in motion, a little luck one way or the other can determine the outcome.
So...which candidate wants to preserve our rights while vigorously protecting out interests with a robust security operation?
This is a lose-lose for Jeb! His brother did NOT keep Americans safe on 9/11. 3,000 people died on his watch and Trump is correct to point that out.
What exactly do you say Bush should have done?Quote: ams288This is a lose-lose for Jeb! His brother did NOT keep Americans safe on 9/11. 3,000 people died on his watch and Trump is correct to point that out.
Quote: ams288I'll be curious to see if Jeb! takes the bait and reacts again to Trump's criticism.
This is a lose-lose for Jeb! His brother did NOT keep Americans safe on 9/11. 3,000 people died on his watch and Trump is correct to point that out.
So Trump can say that about JEB!'s brother; can he also say it about Hillary Clinton? Her husband was part of dismantling our human intelligence network; that would maker her just as culpable as JEB! since neither was President. JEB! did defend his brother but I hardly see Hillary saying Bill screwed it up...
Plus, she did less than her best with Benghazi. Forget the investigation. Forget everything but the truth that is out there:
--extra security was not provided
--the blame was placed on some obscure video that had nothing to do with it
--they lied until they had to tell the truth
We don't need an endless investigation--we know that and only the unreasonable will say that those three things aren't true. You can argue about who was at fault in the three, of course, but it did happen when Hillary was SecState.
So, I think Trump blaming George W is a bit of a cheap shot. But that was his intent, to get under Jeb's skin....AGAIN! Even if it was a cheap shot, it is equally ridiculous for Jeb to continue to claim that George W "kept us safe". Unlike Trump who says and does what he wants, Jeb is a professional politician. He has paid advisors crafting his every move and telling him what to say. Makes you wonder what Jeb is paying for. ??
Quote: kewljSo, I think Trump blaming George W is a bit of a cheap shot. But that was his intent, to get under Jeb's skin....AGAIN! Even if it was a cheap shot, it is equally ridiculous for Jeb to continue to claim that George W "kept us safe". Unlike Trump who says and does what he wants, Jeb is a professional politician. He has paid advisors crafting his every move and telling him what to say. Makes you wonder what Jeb is paying for. ??
The thing that most of you guys seem to be missing is that Trump isn't necessarily blaming GWB, he is simply pointing out that he WAS President on 9/11, so the idea that he kept us safe is obviously false.
From the original CNN article I posted:
Quote:"When you talk about George Bush, I mean, say what you want, the World Trade Center came down during his time," Trump said on Bloomberg TV.
Bloomberg anchor Stephanie Ruhle interjected, "Hold on, you can't blame George Bush for that," before Trump stood by his comments.
"He was president, OK? ... Blame him, or don't blame him, but he was president. The World Trade Center came down during his reign," Trump said.
Jeb Bush angrily responded Friday afternoon, calling the comment "pathetic."
Quote: ams288The thing that most of you guys seem to be missing is that Trump isn't necessarily blaming GWB, he is simply pointing out that he WAS President on 9/11, so the idea that he kept us safe is obviously false.
From the original CNN article I posted:
Nobody is missing it. It is obvious that Bush was President on 9/11. Duh. Who the hell doesn't know that?
Pretty much the narrative during the time, from both sides, was that he did keep us safe after we were attacked (as Obama has also done to date) but that the intelligence network was seriously compromised.
Trump is the ultimate sound byte candidate, he is great at it, but a lot of his statements don't hold up to deeper scrutiny. That works for our electorate--it got Obama elected. Trump, based on that, is our next President.
The crickets shout, especially the face of historical facts.Quote: SanchoPanzaWhat exactly do you say Bush should have done?
Here is just one. It is Congressional testimony from one of Bush's harshest critics, Richard Clarke, who just happened to be the nation's top anti-terror expert for a couple of administrations. The questioner is a senator who just happened to be a member of the 9/11 commission.
GORTON: Now, since my yellow light is on, at this point my final question will be this: Assuming that the recommendations that you made on January 25th of 2001, based on Delenda, based on Blue Sky, including aid to the Northern Alliance, which had been an agenda item at this point for two and a half years without any action, assuming that there had been more Predator reconnaissance missions, assuming that that had all been adopted say on January 26th, year 2001, is there the remotest chance that it would have prevented 9/11?
CLARKE: No.
GORTON: It just would have allowed our response, after 9/11, to be perhaps a little bit faster?
CLARKE: Well, the response would have begun before 9/11.
GORTON: Yes, but there was no recommendation, on your part or anyone else’s part, that we declare war and attempt to invade Afghanistan prior to 9/11?
CLARKE: That’s right.
--http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0403/24/bn.00.html
Quote: RonCNobody is missing it. It is obvious that Bush was President on 9/11. Duh. Who the hell doesn't know that?
So- acknowledging that and that fact that 3,000 people died that day, do you think it is honest for Jeb! to keep repeating that his brother "kept us safe?"
Quote: ams288So- acknowledging that and that fact that 3,000 people died that day, do you think it is honest for Jeb! to keep repeating that his brother "kept us safe?"
Everyone wants "yes" or "no" answers to questions like this, but I know you are a deeper thinker than the sound byte guys. The fair answer seems to be that 9/11 happened on his watch, so he is culpable to some extent but that most of the work that could have been done to prevent it was not done based on the policies of his predecessors which decimated the human intelligence capabilities of our nation. It was a huge failure of leadership that some say started in the first Bush administration and carried over in a bigger way in the Clinton White House.
I don't think it is a great talking point for JEB! and I wouldn't use it. I would say that his brother took the lead and worked to keep us safe after the attack and I give the same credit to Obama, since we have remained safe. I see big problems in foreign policy that could make us less safe in the world; I see us being fairly safe inside of our borders...but...
Everyone needs to remember that terrorists only have to be right once when they make a plan to have a huge impact. Our defenses against attacks (intelligence, law enforcement, etc.) have to have it right every time. That is a bar that is hard to uphold.
Quote: RonCTrump is the ultimate sound byte candidate, he is great at it...
Better than anyone realizes.
This is the brilliant Scott Adams, creator of 'Dilbert', discussing what he calls Trump's 'Linguistic Kill Shots':
Scott Adams
Quote: RonCEveryone wants "yes" or "no" answers to questions like this, but I know you are a deeper thinker than the sound byte guys. The fair answer seems to be that 9/11 happened on his watch, so he is culpable to some extent but that most of the work that could have been done to prevent it was not done based on the policies of his predecessors which decimated the human intelligence capabilities of our nation. It was a huge failure of leadership that some say started in the first Bush administration and carried over in a bigger way in the Clinton White House.
I don't think it is a great talking point for JEB! and I wouldn't use it. I would say that his brother took the lead and worked to keep us safe after the attack and I give the same credit to Obama, since we have remained safe. I see big problems in foreign policy that could make us less safe in the world; I see us being fairly safe inside of our borders...but...
Everyone needs to remember that terrorists only have to be right once when they make a plan to have a huge impact. Our defenses against attacks (intelligence, law enforcement, etc.) have to have it right every time. That is a bar that is hard to uphold.
I think that is a very well thought out response.
Trump was just on Fox News Sunday and Chris Wallace asked him about it. He reiterated that while GWB may not be responsible, he didn't keep us safe at the time.
He also said those terrorists wouldn't have been in the country had he been President. I think that is retrospective B.S., but Trump will get away with it I'm sure.
http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/10/18/chris-wallace-presses-donald-trump-fox-news-sunday-george-w-bush-911-comments
Quote: ams288I think that is a very well thought out response.
Trump was just on Fox News Sunday and Chris Wallace asked him about it. He reiterated that while GWB may not be responsible, he didn't keep us safe at the time.
He also said those terrorists wouldn't have been in the country had he been President. I think that is retrospective B.S., but Trump will get away with it I'm sure.
http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/10/18/chris-wallace-presses-donald-trump-fox-news-sunday-george-w-bush-911-comments
Many of Trump's promises sound deserving of the saying that describes some folks here in Texas...
"All hat, no cattle"
He could possibly be a strong leader, but he still will not come close to doing "everything" he says he will...and he says he'll do much more than any of the other candidates on either side...
Johnson didn't "keep us safe" in the Gulf of Tonkin. F.D.R. didn't "keep us safe" at Pearl Harbor. Wilson didn't "keep us safe" on the Lusitania. And, heaven forbid, Clinton didn't "keep us safe" in Benghazi. To keep it fair and balanced, Lincoln didn't "keep us safe" at Fort Sumter.Quote: ams288Trump was just on Fox News Sunday and Chris Wallace asked him about it. He reiterated that while GWB may not be responsible, he didn't keep us safe at the time.
Quote: SanchoPanzaJohnson didn't "keep us safe" in the Gulf of Tonkin. F.D.R. didn't "keep us safe" at Pearl Harbor. Wilson didn't "keep us safe" on the Lusitania. And, heaven forbid, Clinton didn't "keep us safe" in Benghazi. To keep it fair and balanced, Lincoln didn't "keep us safe" at Fort Sumter.
So it seems you agree Bush didn't "keep us safe."
Go Trump.
Quote: kewljI don't think people will be surprised by tomorrows official announcement of no COLA for 2016. It has been know that this was likely for several months.
I personally am not worried about Social Security. I figure it will not be there for me, when the time comes (still years away), so I am planning as such. If it is, that will be a bonus. :) My partner need not worry either, as he is not dependent on his social security any longer. He just doesn't seem to realize that. :/
Someone earlier mentioned one possible solution being kicked around is some sort of means test, which would disqualify those at a certain financial level from Social Security. I am not sure why there is such resistance to this. Yes, some well off people would not receive SS that they paid into. Isn't it the same with welfare and unemployment? You pay into these, directly or through various tax dollars, and if you are never in a position that you need them, you don't get them.
Canada does this. There is CPP (Canada Pension Plan) which is based on what you contribute when you work - it's not much - $1,065/month maximum. And then there is the OAS (Old Age Security) which is dependent on the number of years present in Canada after your 18th birthday (maximum 40) which is worth about $570/month which gets clawed back at $118K of income. And finally, for low income earners, there is a Guaranteed income supplement of up to $773/month but is only payable if your income is under $17K.
These are all funded pension plans with a fund value of $269 billion and a 7.6% / annum return over the last 10 years.
Whoooshsh!Quote: ams288So it seems you agree Bush didn't "keep us safe." Go Trump.
In each case sans Lincoln, I think people key in on the wrong word. What needs to be understood is who "us" is. And even in Lincolns case, the big slave distributors were never penalized in any way.Quote: SanchoPanzaJohnson didn't "keep us safe" in the Gulf of Tonkin. F.D.R. didn't "keep us safe" at Pearl Harbor. Wilson didn't "keep us safe" on the Lusitania. And, heaven forbid, Clinton didn't "keep us safe" in Benghazi. To keep it fair and balanced, Lincoln didn't "keep us safe" at Fort Sumter.
What happened at Tonkin? Halliburton [lady bird] made fortunes, in Vietnam as well as Iraq. Pearl Harbor, was known about in advance as well as goading the Japanese by blocking fuel imports. Wilson and the Lusitania? It is now known it was hauling WMD's, making it a legitimate target. Clinton and Libya? That worked out splendidly for "us". The opposition formed a central bank during the conflict, who does that?
Russia is considering chasing ISIS in Libya. The ISIL creeps are heading back into Afghanistan, and Ukraine. Central banks will make a killing on WW3. read today that Russia is not only doing more damage to ISIS in Syria in two weeks than we did in four years, but he is planning on engaging them in Libya as well. With the backing of the UN.
If Jeb said George protected "us", I have to agree. GHB, GWB, Jeb, Hillary, Bill, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Halliburton etc. are all doing pretty darn good as far as I can tell. So "us" is doing just fine. What's not to like, "us" is safe.
He who writes the history, controls the narrative.
As I ate lunch with my partner, a SS recipient, yesterday, he was STILL rambling on about not getting an increase.
So my Question: Are all you older folks this upset or is my partner unusually nuts?
I mean a 1.5% (which I what I think they got last year) amounts to about 16-17 dollars a month for him. Seems like getting worked up about almost nothing. Maybe it's the principal, that seniors feel they are being screwed, I don't know. ??
But if all seniors are this upset, it occurs to me that it would be good politics for the Dems (the party that gives) to propose a one time payment of say $200 or $300 to SS recipients to offset the higher costs of health care and medications that are a larger part of their spending that the normal cost-of-living calculations doesn't account for.
I mean just imagine the position something like that would put the republicans in, as an election year approaches. If they vote against it, they would alienate seniors, a group that votes, in pretty high numbers. I don't know that I would be in favor of such a proposal, it just occurs to me it would put the repubs in a bind and be a smart move by dems.
Bush is fumbling defending his brother (9/11) but going after Clinton (Benghazi) . Hypocrisy.
Trump is going where the left wont go, blaming Bush for 9/11
Trump just doubled down, 9/11 would not have happened if he was President
Wow, talk about a loose cannon
Jeb and the whole Republican party don't want to go to 9/11
Yet they have to go there due to Trump
Quote: terapinedCarly is tanking
Bush is fumbling defending his brother (9/11) but going after Clinton (Benghazi) . Hypocrisy.
Trump is going where the left wont go, blaming Bush for 9/11
Trump just doubled down, 9/11 would not have happened if he was President
Wow, talk about a loose cannon
Jeb and the whole Republican party don't want to go to 9/11
Yet they have to go there due to Trump
Sometimes you have to go places you don't want to go...and craft an answer that makes sense. It is answers that make so sense that drive normal people nuts... 9/11 can be addressed,. If it was "fully" GWB's fault and people really believed that, I doubt he could have been re-elected in 2004. The fault likes in a lot of places and we need to always make sure we don't make the same mistakes over and over again. An answer with that idea will work for people who have not already decided the issue one way or the other.
The quicker that JEB! comes to the conclusion that he needs a better answer, the better for him. Just as Hillary's biggest problem is being connected to things that have happened in this administration at this point, JEB!'s is being connected to his brother's administration. Hillary will be tied to Bill more in the general if she gets there; that really doesn't matter in the primary...and JEB! will be tied more to his brother should he get there. Both need to be ready for that fun!!
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/10/20/webb-to-drop-out-democratic-2016-race/
...just to be fair and balanced...
"Jim Webb announced that he will drop out of the Democratic race, in favor of a potential Independent Presidential bid. He will make this announcement during a press conference Tuesday."
http://www.msnbc.com/jos--d-az-balart/watch/webb-will-drop-out-of-democratic-race-547893827746
I didn't think he would stay around long. I am waiting to see who drops next on the Republican side. That...and for Biden to get in...
Did anyone see O'Reilly's thing about the Romney possibility...
"Bill O'Reilly believes the GOP nominee could end up being Mitt Romney given his support in 2012 and the current state of the Republican presidential field."
http://nation.foxnews.com/2015/10/19/oreilly-gop-nominee-could-be-mitt-romney
Quote: RonC"
Did anyone see O'Reilly's thing about the Romney possibility...
"Bill O'Reilly believes the GOP nominee could end up being Mitt Romney given his support in 2012 and the current state of the Republican presidential field."
http://nation.foxnews.com/2015/10/19/oreilly-gop-nominee-could-be-mitt-romney
I do see Mitt getting pressure to run again by the Repup establishment. The Repub establishment will get desperate once Trump wins his 1st primary. There will be a "Stop Trump" or "Anybody but Trump" started by the Repub establishment.
I don't see Mitt running again. I don't see anybody that will take the Repub nomination except Trump. He's up against an incredibly weak field. That's why Trump is dominating.
How about Trump, just tripled down on 9/11
“They knew an attack was coming, George Tenet, the CIA director, knew there would be an attack, and he said so to the president and said so to everybody else that would listen.”
Quote: RonCDid anyone see O'Reilly's thing about the Romney possibility...
"Bill O'Reilly believes the GOP nominee could end up being Mitt Romney given his support in 2012 and the current state of the Republican presidential field."
http://nation.foxnews.com/2015/10/19/oreilly-gop-nominee-could-be-mitt-romney
What happened to all the Republicans pretending that they had this huge field of amazing candidates for this election cycle??
I can't see Romney coming in at the last minute. Aren't there filing deadlines in the next week or so?
Hillary said that the Republicans are her enemy...I wonder how much you can do with someone who thinks like that on ANY side...
Quote: RonCJim Webb is 100% correct in pointing out that the other side is the "opposition" and not the "enemy"... Politicians forget what they are doing and think this is akin to battle, where you need to kill the enemy. In politics, you need to convince people that your ideas are better than theirs. Faced with a gun, you need to kill the one who wants to kill you.
Hillary said that the Republicans are her enemy...I wonder how much you can do with someone who thinks like that on ANY side...
In a civilize contest, the term "opposition" is appropriate. But looking at the way the opposing sides attacking her and their dirty tricks, it is fair for her to classify the opposition as the “enemy” (unfortunately, dirty tricks and uncivilized behaviors often happen on all sides). Does Hillary use dirty tricks and uncivilized behaviors in her campaign? Well, the answer depends on which side you are on.
Quote: 777In a civilize contest, the term "opposition" is appropriate. But looking at the way the opposing sides attacking her and their dirty tricks, it is fair for her to classify the opposition as the “enemy” (unfortunately, dirty tricks and uncivilized behaviors often happen on all sides). Does Hillary use dirty tricks and uncivilized behaviors in her campaign? Well, the answer depends on which side you are on.
So both sides just let it go on and we become worse and worse as a nation? Or does someone call "BS" and say this is enough? Maybe that is part of what Trump is doing.
Does Hillary use dirty tricks and uncivilized behaviors? It really ISN'T up to the other side to decide. It is up to her and her side to decide how to act and what is appropriate behavior. No one is required to bow down to someone behaving in a way that they feel is beneath them. If she doesn't resort to dirty tricks and uncivilized behaviors, it will be hard for anyone to get away with accusing her of things she and her people don't do. I am not saying that the accusations won't come, it is just that no one will believe them if none can be proven.
Same goes for the other side.
Quote: RonCJim Webb is 100% correct in pointing out that the other side is the "opposition" and not the "enemy"... Politicians forget what they are doing and think this is akin to battle, where you need to kill the enemy. In politics, you need to convince people that your ideas are better than theirs. Faced with a gun, you need to kill the one who wants to kill you.
Hillary said that the Republicans are her enemy...I wonder how much you can do with someone who thinks like that on ANY side...
Its just a term
Politics is about going to battle.
How about those cross hairs targets that Palin used.
Same thing
What's next, politically correct language regarding sports?
Quote: RonC
Hillary said that the Republicans are her enemy...I wonder how much you can do with someone who thinks like that on ANY side...
Is that any different than the leader of the minority party in the Senate (Mitch McConnell) standing up and saying his top priority is to make the current president a one term president? Shouldn't his top priority be representing the people in his state to the best of his ability. Find common ground to work for things that will benefit his constituents and opposing things that won't. But that's not what he said or did. He opposed everything the president was for, whether it was good for his people or not.
The REAL solution is to do completely away with political parties. Everyone runs as an independent. There would be no primaries, just a general election consisting of 3 or 4 candidates. In some places like Massachusettes, liberal seats (congress or senate) might be an election between several liberal candidates. In some conservative places like Texas or Alabama, an election might be between several conservative candidates only. In the end, you would have a house of reps and a senate of 435 and 100 independent people, some ultra liberal, some leaning liberal, some moderates, some conservative, some ultra conservatives, who would have to form coalitions to get things done.
Elected officials would vote for if something was good for the people in their district or state and not their party. Without being 'tied' to a political party agenda, it might just make for some unusual coalitions that have some things in common.
ahhh...one can only dream.
Do they really need to report that every damn day?
Bah. If he runs, report it, don't just keep reporting he is not running.
Quote: terapinedIts just a term
Politics is about going to battle.
How about those cross hairs targets that Palin used.
Same thing
What's next, politically correct language regarding sports?
The problems is when the "win" comes at the cost of doing the right thing.
It isn't the language at all.
In sports or in politics.
It is forgetting what you are trying to "win" and just doing what it takes to "win"...
In sports and politics, it ends in cheating.
Which is rampant in both.
The "win" in politics is supposed to help the people, not the politicians. I know, I know...nothing impacts you... Still, politicians building an maintaining empires is not the purpose of "winning" the election.
Expect Hillary's poll numbers to go up, as he will no longer be included in the polls.
Her numbers had already gone up significantly since the debate.
Quote: steeldcoI watched some of the Benghazi hearings today and I have just one question.............how does Hillary Clinton live with herself? My God, I don't now if I can recall a worse candidate, or human.
We must be watching different hearings.
Hillary is KILLING it.
Fox News cut away while the other networks are still broadcasting it live. Hmmmm..... wonder what that signals.
