Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Use my Amazon Portal
I LOVED this from the NYT article today:But it was there that Dale Weiss, a 64-year-old Democrat, approached the Republican running for Congress in a special election and, without provocation, blasted the president for failing to tame runaway federal spending. “We need to cut Medicaid,” she declared, “but he won’t do that.” She shook her head in disgust. “He is a moron.”
Tom, I was just about to paste the same quote.That alone ought to persuade Paul Ryan to run.Let's see...UW TA union--dead.Meme of throwing granny off a cliff--dead.Speculation about Obama resigning--the new CW.Helluva way to start the week.
Yes, Chip! A great start of the week!
Speculation about Obama resigning--the new CW.Where do you see that?
ScottM, You know how it works: From Althouse's lips to Insty's ears. After that, it's a full-blown internet meme.
"Your vote is gonna count twice." Now that's funny.
"But it was there that Dale Weiss, a 64-year-old Democrat, approached the Republican running for Congress in a special election and, without provocation, blasted the president for failing to tame runaway federal spending. “We need to cut Medicaid,” she declared, “but he won’t do that.” She shook her head in disgust. “He is a moron.”" I totally appreciate the sentiment, but you know who else is a moron? All the dopes who voted Democrat over the decades who gave us unsustainable social welfare/middle class entitlements that are cannibalizing America's future.But at least those morons have an excuse: Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson and Clinton were at least qualified to be president. The morons who gave us the Dali-Obama have no such excuse, or even reason to complain.There was never a reasonable expectation he could handle the job.
" . . . Surprising Anger at Obama"Yeah, surprising, I'm sure that's the word, Mr. Headline Writer. There's nothing at all about the current national situation that would make anger at the President predictable.
There's nothing at all about the current national situation that would make anger at the President predictable.I do love the way the "If you're not outraged you're not paying attention" bumper stickers have taken on a whole new meaning.
The "Weiner seat". Heh.
“We need to cut Medicaid,” she declared, “but he won’t do that.” She shook her head in disgust. “He is a moron.”You do understand that Medicaid is NOT the same thing as Medicare?Medicaid is the money taken from the Medicare program and given away as welfare benefits to the permanent welfare class and to illegal aliens.Money that has been paid in by those retirees who worked all their lives. They see their retirement benefits like Medicare and Social Security (through it's welfare arm SSI) being burned up and given away so that Obama and the liberals can buy the votes of the indigent, welfare class.If anyone is throwing Granny from the cliff, it is the progressives who are bankrupting both Medicare and Social Security for their own purposes of retaining power and control.These people in this article, who are pissed at Obama and the Democrats, may be old....they aren't stupid.
You do understand that Medicaid is NOT the same thing as Medicare?Yes, as a matter of fact, we do.Do you understand that this sort of sentiment among NYC Democrats represents a major crack in political support for a comprehensive welfare state? Do you understand the broader political implications of your last two paragraphs and how they relate to the quote?
In the voting booth all these alter cockers who complain about the wealth transfering Dems? They'll pull the Dem lever. These are lifelong Brooklyn/Queens residents. I know you won't trust me for saying trust me but trust me NOTHING can make them pull the Republican lever.
Democrats are looking at this and seeing the rage building in this country (wait till the price of household power goes through the roof and the rolling blackouts start), and this race is becoming emblematic of what '12 may look like.Tim said..."But it was there that Dale Weiss, a 64-year-old Democrat, approached the Republican running for Congress in a special election and, without provocation, blasted the president for failing to tame runaway federal spending. 'We need to cut Medicaid,' she declared, 'but he won’t do that.' She shook her head in disgust. 'He is a moron.'" I totally appreciate the sentiment, but you know who else is a moron? All the dopes who voted Democrat over the decades who gave us unsustainable social welfare/middle class entitlements that are cannibalizing America's future.And every time a Republican warned them, they didn't want to hear it.Dust Bunny Queen said..."We need to cut Medicaid," she declared, "but he won’t do that." She shook her head in disgust. "He is a moron."You do understand that Medicaid is NOT the same thing as Medicare?Of course, they don't.
Do you understand the broader political implications of your last two paragraphs and how they relate to the quote?Of course I do. BTW: many people including talking heads on television,politicians and commenters on the internet don't seem to be able to (or don't want to) distinguish between Medicare and Medicaid.One of the implications of the quote is the realization that older people who are getting or near getting social security and medicare do NOT object to changes in the program. They objectively see that if the program is to be saved, and they are to continue to receive benefits, that there must be cuts and there must be changes. It is in their own best interest to take some cuts and to cut the program's welfare aspect.The idea that these programs are sacred cows and must never be touched or all old people will curl up and die, is a myth.It IS a major shift that Democrats in NYC can actually see some of the handwriting on the wall and have woken up to their own danger. I have no hope that any such thing will happen in California, however it is encouraging.As I said. They may be old. They aren't stupid. Despite what the politicians and the Democrats in particular think.
Bottom line is we can't afford ANY of it anymore. SocSec, Medicare, Medicaid, agriculture subsidies, military. It all has to go.
Bottom line is we can't afford ANY of it anymore. SocSec, Medicare, Medicaid, agriculture subsidies, military. It all has to go.OK then. Give me back ALL the money that I paid in and I'll take care of myself.Thank you.
Give me back ALL the money that I paid in and I'll take care of myself.It's amazing to me how few people in this country seem to have had parents.
"Give me back ALL the money that I paid in and I'll take care of myself."It's amazing to me how few people in this country seem to have had parents.Yes it is sad. People who seem to think that it is OK to steal from one group and give to another. People who think that is is fine to break contracts and renig on promises. Contracts that we were coerced into participating in in the first place.While you are at it. You might give back the money that was also paid in by my employers.You note that I was generous in not asking for the compounded interest that I might have earned by investing in a simple bank CD over these last 47 years. You should be grateful.Just think. If you were to let people opt out of paying into these mandatory programs they would have an immediate 8% or better increase in pay....and the government would be off the hook for subsidising them in their old age. Win Win.
Not sure this candidate will get the same "pass" on the whole Cosmo posing in the nude thing as Scott Brown.
Okay. If Weiner's seat "flips" ... it still has to go on the market, again, in 2012.Boehner? He can wear a new tie. And, everyone will admire the "awed-ass-ity of it all. Ho hum.
Being the New York Times [We Shall Tell You What You Need to Know], there is little emphasis on that 'Republican running for Congress' but he has a history in that district.Republican Bob Turner, who ran and lost last cycle by 58 to 42 percent, is again seeking this seat. ... In a district where Democrats outnumber Republicans by nearly a 4-to-1 margin. If you just go by registrations, Bob Turner's performance [vs Weiner] was very good -- no wonder he is doing well now.
"I'm an alter cocker who doesn't make sense and doesn't know that she doesn't make sense and doesn't care that she doesn't know that she doesn't make sense, so there!"--Carol Herman
OK lets just get thing out of the way, so we can move on:RACIST!There, now having said that this is reminiscent of the Democratic politics I saw in Chicago. Every ethnic group voted Democratic but they each got their own piece of the pie including representatives: black alderman for the South Side; Irish alderman for Bridgeport etc. Of course some got bigger pieces of the pie. (Which is part of what lead to Mayor Washington's election.)No one ever seemed to ask how the pie was being paid for.Its the Tito form of democracy.(PS I note that no one of the quoted crowd complained about Medicare.)
The 64-year-old woman apparentely wanted to cut Medicaid, not Medicare. The Dem establishment accused the Republicans wanting to cut Medicare. Cynical, no?If the Dems were raving mad about Obama's spendings, would the TeaPartiers' refusal to raise the debt ceiling without credible spending cuts, and causing a "near" default a plus or minus to the Tea partiers? Are the Dems really so stupid that they don't know you need two to tangle? Obama's refusal to make cuts could be more to blame to cause a default? Do you believe your bankruptcy is caused by the credit card company's refusal to raise your credit limit aka your debt ceiling, or your irresponsible spendings? I guess Dems will blame the credit card company, that's why all those legislations to rein in the banks; Republicans will blame the big spenders. (Not a good example to gauge the Dems' reactions to the debt ceiling brinksmanship, my bad.)Oh, who is that Lieberman guy limousined in to campaign for a fellow orthodox Jew? Wasn't he drummed out of the Dem Party for not toeing the Party Line?
@DBQ--I think we'd all be thrilled to offer you that deal.For early-stage boomers or older, SS is a decent deal for the level of risk involved. For post-boomers, it's a terrible deal.My main point, though, was that for people born in the 1920s or thereabouts--which is to say, the parents of the boomers--SS was a really good deal. And if your parents were wealthier because of SS, then it's a near-certainty that you were also wealthier because of it. It's simply incorrect to look at things solely in terms of your own taxes and benefits.Yes, the demographics now tell us that this program is doomed, so we have to change it fundamentally. But you and your parents have done just fine.
My parents live in Weiner's district. I expect heavy turnout--the Jews and the Irish vote.
ChipS: SS was a TERRIBLE deal for the original participants. Their life expectancy was 65 years and SS didn't begin to pay out until 65. Also, SS was not/is not something that can be passed along to your heirs. So it was a great deal if you lived a bit longer than expected but for the average person it was not so hot.
Yes, the demographics now tell us that this program is doomed, so we have to change it fundamentally. But you and your parents have done just fine.I have collected nothing. So far all I've done is paid and paid.Yes the system needs to be drastically restructured. The first step would be to quit using it as a piggy bank for welfare purposes and not allow illegals to game the system.The second would be to allow people to opt out of the system. If I want to have personal health insurance WHEN I am eligible for Medicare, I am not allowed to do so unless I also give up Social Security benefits. This makes no sense. Why shouldn't I be allowed to purchase my own insurance and opt out of Medicare? Wouldn't this SAVE the government money?Third: Economy. Reduce the benefits. Don't cover every little thing and every medication. It should be for emergencies and some basic wellness procedures. Put some sort of a lifetime cap on medical. Put a lifetime cap on Social Security. Raise the eligibility age.Last and probably FIRST. Do something about the rampant fraud in both the Medicare and Medicaid systems and in the SSI Disability system. RAMPANT. FRAUD. Wasting billions and billions of dollars.One example. A dentist that I know (now deceased and good riddance) was sending in billings for hundreds of patients that he never saw and for procedures that he never performed. He bilked the system of a huge amount of money. One family reported him for billing for procedures when their mother was in long term care in another part of the State. Medi-cal did nothing. NOTHING at all to stop him. Multiply him by thousands of doctors and hundreds of thousands of welfare cheats.Do something about that FIRST. Then talk to me.
I've run the numbers on my contributions to SS and what I expect to receive. Assuming I live to 90 like most of my ancestors, I will be getting a reasonable, not great, but reasonable, return on the dollar.For those who say to simply toss SS, do they understand that it is nearly solvent and could be fixed quite easily?That said, if the government moves all the money I paid and that which was matched with simple interest equal to inflation into my ROTH IRA, and put all future contributions into my 401k, I'll take the deal..
@Michael--Actually, SS was a terrific deal for the original participants, since they had already survived well into adulthood. The bulk of the gains in life expectancy in the US have been due to the dramatic increase in the proportion of people who survive to adulthood.Here are some relevant numbers:A 40-year old white male born in 1920 could have expected to live another 30 years.A 40-year old white male born in 1970 could expect to live another 32 years.The gains were much bigger for white females (from 31 to 38 years).So, your point is relevant, but perhaps not as dramatic as it might seem at first.
DBQ, You make it very difficult to have a coherent discussion of SS because you mix together several different questions. One question is what rate of return people who are currently in their late 50s or early 60s can expect to get on average. They'll do OK but not great. As I've said twice before, their parents' cohort did very well--because they had a nice, big labor pool to tax.Another question is how to go about privatizing the system without completely screwing people who've planned on getting SS payments. It's not simply a matter of announcing that we're scrapping the whole thing tomorrow.The third issue you raise has to do with setting the qualifications criteria for (as far as I can tell) Medicaid. Or else you're worked up about the progressivity of SS. Not sure which, but either one is separate from SS as a general proposition.
You make it very difficult to have a coherent discussion of SS because you mix together several different questions.No I don't. I didn't address some of those questions. You did. You can't have a discussion with someone and then complain that they didn't read your mind and answer questions before they were posed.I never discussed the progressiveness of Social Security. You brought it up.However, if you want to discuss rate of return on investment or the progressive nature of SS.....I'm your game :-D"The bottom four quintiles (by lifetime earnings) pay negative net tax rates for Social Security, meaning that they receive more in Social Security benefits than they pay in payroll taxes. Only the top income quintile pays more in payroll taxes than they receive in Social Security benefits. The bottom income quintile gets the best deal of all, with a negative net payroll tax rate of almost 27%, meaning that their lifetime Social Security benefits far exceed the payroll taxes they contribute to the Social Security program"Discuss how the rich get ripped off by the system, contribute more than they will ever get in return, yet are the targets of the Democrats because they are the nasty rich and how the rich should be taxed even MORE. The whole system, along with our progressive income tax system is nothing more than a wealth distribution from those who work and pay taxes to those who don't.Let's talk about the real rate of return that I could have experienced on my forced contributions if I had been able to invest them as I would like. Even in a simple CD my rate of return would have been greater than that of the government. My potential income would be much greater than the SS calculated for me.How about if I could have had control, I could also pass along those contributions as an asset to my heirs or used them as I saw fit in whatever quantity I would like for whatever purpose I wanted.
DBQ @ 12:43: The first step would be to quit using it as a piggy bank for welfare purposes...DBQ @ 1:35: I never discussed the progressiveness of Social Security.Whatever.About the only thing you haven't gone on and on about is my original point.As for the progressivity of SS, it's a lot more complicated than your blogger pal seems to realize. Oddly enough, that's largely because of different adult life expectancies of the poor and the non-poor. What's completely weird about this whole exchange is that I'm in favor of starting to dismantle the system. I just don't feel the need to justify doing so on the grounds that nobody has ever gotten a good rate of return from it. What matters is that future cohorts are going to get a lousy rate of return.
The whole question falls on who the rabbi's endorse. The Orthordox vote as one man and if they go for the Republican then he has a real shot.The recent murder of that child might play into it since you have a pervert Democratic Congressman as the last occupant of that seat.It might get interesting.
When Weiner first resigned, I remember looking up the stats on his district. It is pretty solid Democrat. Since about 1850, IIRC, repos have held the seat for about 8 years. The last time was in the 1920's.John Henry
A sliver of Park Slope in Brooklyn is in Wiener's district.Park Slope has the largest Jewish population in NYC.Park Slope is part of 6, yes six, congressional districts.Gerrymandering is a science not an art.
For these people, he's the zebra that couldn't.
Please help me for Christ sake
I read this article yesterday and found it fascinating, especially coming from the NYT, nobody's idea of a pro-Republican shill. The Democrat candidate is only up by 6 points in a deep blue district where Democrats outnumber Republicans three to one, and Democrats are coming up to the Republican candidate to vent about Obama. If Obama's policies are so unpopular there, among people who should be his base, how well is he really doing in other less friendly venues?
Post a Comment