Birthers, Deathers, and the Muddled Middle: POLITICS THREAD

by **Woody** » Thu Oct 15, 2009 09:08:41

zomg ebonix!

by **drsmooth** » Thu Oct 15, 2009 09:13:14

Werthless wrote:Check out the title from the link, and compare it to the screenshot.

What up?

oh

by **Werthless** » Thu Oct 15, 2009 09:31:55

We're going to pay seniors for not getting COLA adjustments? I'm not sure I understand the reasoning here.

President Barack Obama called on Congress Wednesday to approve $250 payments to more than 50 million seniors to make up for no increase in Social Security next year. The Social Security Administration is scheduled to announce Thursday that there will be no cost of living increase next year. By law, increases are pegged to inflation, which has been negative this year.
...
"I think it would be inappropriate," said Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H. "The reason we set up this process was to have the Social Security reimbursement reflect the cost of living."

Social Security payments increased by 5.8 percent in January, the largest increase since 1982. The big increase was largely because of a spike in energy costs in 2008.

Inflation has been negative this year largely because energy prices have fallen. Gasoline prices have dropped 30 percent over the past year while overall energy costs have dropped 23 percent, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Social Security payments, however, cannot go down. The average monthly Social Security payment for retirees is $1,160.

They should be happy their wages aren't falling

by **dajafi** » Thu Oct 15, 2009 10:00:45

Werthless wrote:We're going to pay seniors for not getting COLA adjustments? I'm not sure I understand the reasoning here.

President Barack Obama called on Congress Wednesday to approve $250 payments to more than 50 million seniors to make up for no increase in Social Security next year. The Social Security Administration is scheduled to announce Thursday that there will be no cost of living increase next year. By law, increases are pegged to inflation, which has been negative this year.
...
"I think it would be inappropriate," said Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H. "The reason we set up this process was to have the Social Security reimbursement reflect the cost of living."

Social Security payments increased by 5.8 percent in January, the largest increase since 1982. The big increase was largely because of a spike in energy costs in 2008.

Inflation has been negative this year largely because energy prices have fallen. Gasoline prices have dropped 30 percent over the past year while overall energy costs have dropped 23 percent, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Social Security payments, however, cannot go down. The average monthly Social Security payment for retirees is $1,160.

They should be happy their wages aren't falling

We need to form some Association of Non-Retired Persons.

Or start voting as much as the old folks do.

by **traderdave** » Thu Oct 15, 2009 10:54:35

Werthless wrote:Check out the title from the link, and compare it to the screenshot.

What up?

I was watching TRMS last night and they said that Steele's advisors made him change the original title because it made him "sound like he was 12-years old", which is pretty funny because every time I see a YouTube video of those Republican town hall meetings everybody is acting like they are 12-years old.

by **CrashburnAlley** » Thu Oct 15, 2009 10:57:16

Woody wrote:http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/entertainers/

That's not right. If Limbaugh was just an entertainer, why is he the de facto leader of the Republican Party? If FOX News is full of entertainers, why was it a mouthpiece for the Bush administration?

by **Harpua** » Thu Oct 15, 2009 11:02:54

Because entertainment is the top public cultural currency in the United States

by **Woody** » Thu Oct 15, 2009 11:04:20

Is there really that much difference between entertainers and politicians ?

by **CrashburnAlley** » Thu Oct 15, 2009 11:05:38

Woody wrote:Is there really that much difference between entertainers and politicians ?

No, but I thought I was the only one here who felt that our political system was a joke. Remember the ASG > Presidential election argument? 8-)

by **jerseyhoya** » Thu Oct 15, 2009 11:12:14

CrashburnAlley wrote:
Woody wrote:http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/entertainers/

That's not right. If Limbaugh was just an entertainer, why is he the de facto leader of the Republican Party? If FOX News is full of entertainers, why was it a mouthpiece for the Bush administration?

Because Rush isn't the de facto leader of the Republican Party?

by **Woody** » Thu Oct 15, 2009 11:13:12

Not everything is black or white. In fact most of it is grey.

by **TenuredVulture** » Thu Oct 15, 2009 11:14:29

jerseyhoya wrote:
CrashburnAlley wrote:
Woody wrote:http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/entertainers/

That's not right. If Limbaugh was just an entertainer, why is he the de facto leader of the Republican Party? If FOX News is full of entertainers, why was it a mouthpiece for the Bush administration?

Because Rush isn't the de facto leader of the Republican Party?

Right--he's irrelevant. I think David Brooks proved it.

by **Woody** » Thu Oct 15, 2009 11:15:27

by **jerseyhoya** » Thu Oct 15, 2009 11:16:47

I wonder if there's a middle ground between Limbaugh being the leader of the Republican Party and being irrelevant.

by **CrashburnAlley** » Thu Oct 15, 2009 11:16:49

jerseyhoya wrote:
CrashburnAlley wrote:
Woody wrote:http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/entertainers/

That's not right. If Limbaugh was just an entertainer, why is he the de facto leader of the Republican Party? If FOX News is full of entertainers, why was it a mouthpiece for the Bush administration?

Because Rush isn't the de facto leader of the Republican Party?

Which is why Michael Steele bent over for Rush after making some very light comments about his credibility.

If Limbaugh was irrelevant, Steele A) never would have made the comments and B) wouldn't have taken the time to back-track, especially in the way he did.

by **Harpua** » Thu Oct 15, 2009 11:17:43

There's a big difference between being the de facto leader and being irrelevant.

by **Houshphandzadeh** » Thu Oct 15, 2009 11:18:19

Most shocking about that link: fucking D.L. Hughley is a CNN host?

by **dajafi** » Thu Oct 15, 2009 11:19:02

The party not in the White House almost never has a clear, undisputed "leader."

I guess Newt Gingrich was that person for the Republicans between about 1994-98, but there was no one Republican at the beginning or end of the Clinton years until Bush won the 2000 nomination. If Al Gore had been a bit more intransigent after the disputed 2000 election, he probably could have been the Democrats' leader and presumptive nominee for '04, but he decided instead to binge-eat, grow a beard and make a movie. Other than Kerry for the months in '04 between when he was nominated and when he lost the general election, there was no one Democratic leader in the Bush years.

We could argue that this isn't really ideal, that it's yet another reflection of the Cult of the Presidency which I think most of us believe has been harmful. But it's the reality, and thus sort of a dumb argument as to whether the Republican "leader" is Rush, Beck, Steele, Joe the Plumber or John Boehner.

by **Woody** » Thu Oct 15, 2009 11:19:12

THERE'S A HUGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BEING IRRELEVANT AND BEING THE DE FACTO LEADER JESUS CHRIST H

by **drsmooth** » Thu Oct 15, 2009 11:49:56

Werthless wrote:We're going to pay seniors for not getting COLA adjustments? I'm not sure I understand the reasoning here.

President Barack Obama called on Congress Wednesday to approve $250 payments to more than 50 million seniors to make up for no increase in Social Security next year. The Social Security Administration is scheduled to announce Thursday that there will be no cost of living increase next year. By law, increases are pegged to inflation, which has been negative this year.
...
"I think it would be inappropriate," said Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H. "The reason we set up this process was to have the Social Security reimbursement reflect the cost of living."

Social Security payments increased by 5.8 percent in January, the largest increase since 1982. The big increase was largely because of a spike in energy costs in 2008.

Inflation has been negative this year largely because energy prices have fallen. Gasoline prices have dropped 30 percent over the past year while overall energy costs have dropped 23 percent, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Social Security payments, however, cannot go down. The average monthly Social Security payment for retirees is $1,160.

They should be happy their wages aren't falling

It's not as convoluted as the typical c-suite occupant's comp plans - which also tend to incorporate features that guard against reductions - so I can see how you'd not get it

Archived

Birthers, Deathers, and the Muddled Middle: POLITICS THREAD