While many Republican politicians claim they back the Tea Party, when they had a chance to pass a Paul Ryan authored budget bill with no interference from the Democrats they scrambled like hell to make sure it didn't pass after all.

Dems Jam Republicans With Even More Conservative Budget

Almost zero coverage in the press of course.  Brilliant maneuver by the Dems.

While many Republican politicians claim they back the Tea Party, when they had a chance to pass a Paul Ryan authored budget bill with no interference from the Democrats they scrambled like hell to make sure it didn't pass after all.

Dems Jam Republicans With Even More Conservative Budget

Almost zero coverage in the press of course.  Brilliant maneuver by the Dems.


I'm waiting for Harry Reid to bring up Ryan's budget in the Senate.  That should be fun

While many Republican politicians claim they back the Tea Party, when they had a chance to pass a Paul Ryan authored budget bill with no interference from the Democrats they scrambled like hell to make sure it didn't pass after all.

Dems Jam Republicans With Even More Conservative Budget

Almost zero coverage in the press of course.  Brilliant maneuver by the Dems.
No all but 4 republicans voted for "The Ryan Plan" in the US House. You must be talking about "The Republican Study Comimittee Plan".

Old people use medicare.  Old people vote.  The party that screws up medicare is dead meat.  I don't think either party really wants to pass a budget that decimates medicare.

While many Republican politicians claim they back the Tea Party, when they had a chance to pass a Paul Ryan authored budget bill with no interference from the Democrats they scrambled like hell to make sure it didn't pass after all.

Dems Jam Republicans With Even More Conservative Budget

Almost zero coverage in the press of course.  Brilliant maneuver by the Dems.


That's the thing that keeps me up at night.  They pull that stunt during a vote on whether or not to raise the debt ceiling or default, and the world ends.  The only good thing will be that both the Elephants that thought they could play chicken with the train of bond ratings agencies - as well as the Jackasses that dared them to try - will be as doomed as the rest of us when the cities burn.  There's barely a 1% chance of it going down that way (because neither side wants it), but they did it in 2008 when they failed to pass the bailout bill on schedule, and they could well do it again later this year.

Old people use medicare.  Old people vote.  The party that screws up medicare is dead meat.  I don't think either party really wants to pass a budget that decimates medicare.
Max I don't like "The Ryan Plan" myself because it doesn't rescind the Bush Tax Cuts and even cuts taxes further for the top 2% of earners down to 25% if I am correct. With that said "The Ryan Plan" does not effect anybody medicare wise from ages 55 and up.

Max I don't like "The Ryan Plan" myself because it doesn't rescind the Bush Tax Cuts and even cuts taxes further for the top 2% of earners down to 25% if I am correct. With that said "The Ryan Plan" does not effect anybody medicare wise from ages 55 and up.



That means by the time you reach retirement age, Medicare would have gone the way of the dodo. I guess you are SOL with the "Ryan Plan."



Cat

That means by the time you reach retirement age, Medicare would have gone the way of the dodo. I guess you are SOL with the "Ryan Plan."



Cat


The Ryan Plan is a terrible idea, but TV is still right, I overlooked the fact that it doesn't those currently 55 and over.  There are lots of people younger than 55 who get medicare.  I do because I'm on SSDI.

The Ryan Plan is a terrible idea, but TV is still right, I overlooked the fact that it doesn't those currently 55 and over.  There are lots of people younger than 55 who get medicare.  I do because I'm on SSDI.




I'm still fighting to get SSDI-but that is another issue.



Cat

The Ryan Plan is a terrible idea, but TV is still right, I overlooked the fact that it doesn't those currently 55 and over.  There are lots of people younger than 55 who get medicare.  I do because I'm on SSDI.



My son and all his friends with various developmental delays.  The people screaming for getting rid of "entitlements" will tell you "well. that's not what I meant"  Well, idiot, that is what happens.

My son and all his friends with various developmental delays.  The people screaming for getting rid of "entitlements" will tell you "well. that's not what I meant"  Well, idiot, that is what happens.


SSDI ain't no picnic either.  I'd rather be out working for a buck, believe me.  Social services for occupational rehab are farcical nowadays.  Once you've been out of work for a couple of years and you're collecting disability, employers don't want anything to do with you.
::)

SSDI ain't no picnic either.  I'd rather be out working for a buck, believe me.  Social services for occupational rehab are farcical nowadays.  Once you've been out of work for a couple of years and you're collecting disability, employers don't want anything to do with you.
::)


The regs for developmentally delayed are draconian.  They get about $550 a month, and any money they make over $60 dollars a month is taken away dollar for dollar.  They cannot have assets of more than $2000 dollars or they are dropped, but it is o.k. the can reapply...HELLO!!!  The DEVELOPMENTALLY DELAYED are allowed to REAPPLY...99.9 percent don't know the concept.  It is possible to set up an irrevocable trust with funds that the state cannot take into consideration, but the trust is TAXED AT A VERY HIGH RATE.  They don't get a break in taxes.  There are more regulations aimed at kicking them to the curb. It is bad, and just so wrong.

The regs for developmentally delayed are draconian.  They get about $550 a month, and any money they make over $60 dollars a month is taken away dollar for dollar.  They cannot have assets of more than $2000 dollars or they are dropped, but it is o.k. the can reapply...HELLO!!!  The DEVELOPMENTALLY DELAYED are allowed to REAPPLY...99.9 percent don't know the concept.  It is possible to set up an irrevocable trust with funds that the state cannot take into consideration, but the trust is TAXED AT A VERY HIGH RATE.  They don't get a break in taxes.  There are more regulations aimed at kicking them to the curb. It is bad, and just so wrong.


Yes, I'm familiar with the "system."  There is a whole swath of the government human services sectors who make their living guiding clients through the bureaucratic maze.  Bully for them! The maze doesn't end.  There's always some catch or some snag and it's a whole new round of delays and mound of paperwork. 
>:(

That means by the time you reach retirement age, Medicare would have gone the way of the dodo. I guess you are SOL with the "Ryan Plan."


In fairness, that's what I'm expecting with regard to Medicare and Socialist Insecurity by the time I retire anyways, so they're no big loss.  Since the day I entered the workforce, I knew I was never going to get a dime back on either.

Which raises an interesting demographic/generational question.  That's not hyperbole - I have never expected to get a cent's worth of benefit out of those programs.  Most of my friends and co-workers (just as boringly college-educated upper-middle-class 30s-40s techno-nerds), whether they vote Jackass or Elephant, believe pretty much the same thing.  It's something for the Boomers to collect on, because their parents were too stupid to realize they'd bought into a pyramid scheme.  It's something that Xers will pay for, but never collect.  (The best we Xers can hope for is to get paid what we were "promised", which a net loss after 40 years of even 3% inflation.)

The interesting part of the debate has only come around in the past decade, when our workplace started hiring 20somethings.  They're quick to point out that even if only 50% of projected benefits can be paid out, even if it's still a horrible money loser for them, it's still a better deal than the -100% return we're expecting on those taxes"contributions" we're paying"making".  Technically, they're right that getting anything back out of an investment in which one expected to get nothing is a better outcome than what was expected, and I'll grant them that point.

What fascinates me is that they're pretty much OK with that deal.  A guaranteed loss over 40 years is somehow better, to them, than the risk of retiring in 2007 only to see the markets inflict upon them the same 50% loss after a career's worth of gains.

In fairness, that's what I'm expecting with regard to Medicare and Socialist Insecurity by the time I retire anyways, so they're no big loss.  Since the day I entered the workforce, I knew I was never going to get a dime back on either.

Which raises an interesting demographic/generational question.  That's not hyperbole - I have never expected to get a cent's worth of benefit out of those programs.  Most of my friends and co-workers (just as boringly college-educated upper-middle-class 30s-40s techno-nerds), whether they vote Jackass or Elephant, believe pretty much the same thing.  It's something for the Boomers to collect on, because their parents were too stupid to realize they'd bought into a pyramid scheme.  It's something that Xers will pay for, but never collect.  (The best we Xers can hope for is to get paid what we were "promised", which a net loss after 40 years of even 3% inflation.)

The interesting part of the debate has only come around in the past decade, when our workplace started hiring 20somethings.  They're quick to point out that even if only 50% of projected benefits can be paid out, even if it's still a horrible money loser for them, it's still a better deal than the -100% return we're expecting on those taxes"contributions" we're paying"making".  Technically, they're right that getting anything back out of an investment in which one expected to get nothing is a better outcome than what was expected, and I'll grant them that point.

What fascinates me is that they're pretty much OK with that deal.  A guaranteed loss over 40 years is somehow better, to them, than the risk of retiring in 2007 only to see the markets inflict upon them the same 50% loss after a career's worth of gains.


why do Conservatives want to turn the clock back to 1900?

why do Conservatives want to turn the clock back to 1900?



Because the Gilded Age worked well for them.

http://davidoffutt.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/gilded20age1.jpg

http://www.slu.edu/Images/sluma/gilded_age.jpg

^ Looks familiar!
;D

Also back in 1900 only the right kind of folks were allowed to vote!
8)

Because the Gilded Age worked well for them.


Got that in higher res?  I need new desktop wallpaper! :)

American-style:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_r_ixWTtaZxc/SyBz7HvHz0I/AAAAAAAAAOI/7Y1PbmoEJk8/s1600/16765_329630925216_744260216_9592064_8344305_n.jpg
(American-style in high resolution)

Commie-style:
http://www.soviethistory.org/images/Large/1917/autocratic.jpg

I'm not asking much.  Just want to get off the ground floor.  Even if I magically had billions, I wouldn't want to climb higher than that.  They're the only ones on the pyramid who seem to be having fun.

Got that in higher res?  I need new desktop wallpaper! :)

American-style:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_r_ixWTtaZxc/SyBz7HvHz0I/AAAAAAAAAOI/7Y1PbmoEJk8/s1600/16765_329630925216_744260216_9592064_8344305_n.jpg
(American-style in high resolution)



I'm not asking much.  Just want to get off the ground floor.  Even if I magically had billions, I wouldn't want to climb higher than that.  They're the only ones on the pyramid who seem to be having fun.



We have that hanging in our stairwell.



Cat

So now the Repubs are begging Obama to stop the Dems from using "mediscare" tactics because its too partisan.  Well they voted for that budget, now they need to live with the consequences

We have that hanging in our stairwell.


Win.

I'd actually use that as a serious litmus test of what it means to be a libertian and a (Tea Partier | Country Club Republican | Corporatist Democrat ). 

"If you accept this pyramid's existence, how far up the pyramid would you like to climb?"

The libertarian will stop at the second level, and be the one saying "if we could just build an army of robots at the bottom level, everyone could be at the second level and we wouldn't need the other levels". 

You might get a kick out of Marshall Brain's 8-chapter sci-fi novella, Manna.  If you liked that, I'd also suggest Max Barry's Jennifer Government.

Win.

I'd actually use that as a serious litmus test of what it means to be a libertian and a (Tea Partier | Country Club Republican | Corporatist Democrat ). 

"If you accept this pyramid's existence, how far up the pyramid would you like to climb?"

The libertarian will stop at the second level, and be the one saying "if we could just build an army of robots at the bottom level, everyone could be at the second level and we wouldn't need the other levels". 

You might get a kick out of Marshall Brain's 8-chapter sci-fi novella, Manna.  If you liked that, I'd also suggest Max Barry's Jennifer Government.


Litmus test...you can take that along the Mississippi River right now.  My guess is a lot of Libertarians will be taking some of my tax money and will be grateful for it. Maybe we should ask them to name names first.

Litmus test...you can take that along the Mississippi River right now.  My guess is a lot of Libertarians will be taking some of my tax money and will be grateful for it. Maybe we should ask them to name names first.


We'll know in a week or so, but thus far the folks in the camps along the Atchafalaya spillway seem to be taking it pretty well in stride.  The Army Corps of Engineers floods 'em out - to the minimal amount required to save Baton Rouge and New Orleans.  That was the tradeoff made in the 1920s: the land's cheap because it comes with the encumbrance that it can be flooded out without notice.  They're packing up and moving out, and will rebuild when the waters subside next month.