Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Yes and no. BBC Scotland, for one, is quickly becoming something akin to a licence-fee funded Fox News with depression.
edited 15th Nov '12 6:32:11 AM by TheBatPencil
And let us pray that come it may (As come it will for a' that)Like Serocco said earlier, if they raise Medicare eligibility age, that robs you of thousands upon thousands of dollars in benefits that you could've gotten if they hadn't forced you to wait another two years.
Narrowing the measures of inflation for Social Security robs you of hundreds, sometimes thousands of dollars, because the cost of living adjustment goes slower.
edited 15th Nov '12 6:35:49 AM by Sledgesaul
If you raise the retirement age, people are forced to wait another two years before they get the benefits they would've earned if you hadn't raised the retirement age eligibility.
Like Serocco mentioned, the extra two years means you have to work more than you're probably capable, and it denies you of thousands of dollars in benefits for another two years.
Plus, if you raise the retirement age, spending for Medicare goes down as costs go up
.
Some rockets were fired at Israel. Eight people harmed. None killed.
Israel decides to retaliate - and killed 1,400 Palestinians, many of which civilians.
Failing to get America to attack Iran apparently green-lights intensifying your own war with Palestine, eh, Netanyahu?
edited 15th Nov '12 7:01:40 AM by Sledgesaul
"Like Serocco said earlier, if they raise Medicare eligibility age, that robs you of thousands upon thousands of dollars in benefits that you could've gotten if they hadn't forced you to wait another two years."
That's only true if you don't live any longer. Otherwise you make up the difference later.
Anyway, the real problem with Healthcare, including Medicare, isn't revenue or benefit level, it's costs. This problem isn't solvable until we do something to bring costs down. Only two ways to do that: cap costs by fiat (not happening, nor would it be a good idea) or reward healthcare providers for providing effective and cost-efficient care.
But that's a debate no one in Washington has even begun.
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.Making the difference later is another way to say "Fuck off. We'll force you to work more before you get what you need."
If you're 65 today, you are eligible for the benefits of Medicare. Let's say Congress decides to raise the retirement age by the end of this year. All your benefits will cease by then.
Nobody likes having a rug pulled from under them.
edited 15th Nov '12 7:14:14 AM by Sledgesaul
I don't know if this has been covered already:
Let me get this straight
-Man runs over wife in Wisconsin for not voting Walker
-Women runs over husband for allowing Obama to win
-Women runs over husband for not voting
What is it with politics and Car Fu this year?
Well, the democrats with their liberal ways did prevent them from getting guns to do it!
"You can reply to this Message!"@Death and Sledge: and how to you respond to the assertion that health care costs are forecast to keep growing for the foreseeable future, and to continually raise taxes to pay for it is a non-viable option?
Personally, I would prefer single-payer to that.
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.

Here we go. Baehner said no. Obama can take that and turn it around by saying "Republicans want tax cuts, except for you."
Instead, watch as he attempts to reach out to Baehner again.
edited 15th Nov '12 6:18:57 AM by Sledgesaul