U.S. Republican Primary

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10215
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby CorruptUser » Fri Aug 31, 2012 4:42 pm UTC

Social security will most likely be solved by raising the cap without raising the benefits. That is, all income will be subject to SS taxes, rather than just the first $110K-ish. Not the way I'd like it to be solved (raising retirement age), but being realistic that's what will happen.

As for the rest of the budget, DoD is one giant money pit IMO. We spent $4.5B building the Nimitz-class George HW Bush. For reference, that's what it cost to build the twin towers. How the hell can you use a Nimitz to fight The War on Terror? For $4.5B, you could train a third of the armed forces to be fluent in Arabic and have a few billion left over, and I'm quite sure having the armed forces know Arabic would help a whole lot more than another Nimitz.

[rant] Another thing that pisses me off about the military budget? Your pay/benefits increase if you are married. What. Fuck you, married people. You do the same damn job as us single people, you shouldn't be cut any slack. You think in the private sector, that you get a pay rise just for tying the knot? If you need the extra income to support your wife, well guess what, this is the 21st century, your wife can work like the rest of us. I actually know of two gay people (not same-sex) who had a sham marriage so they could get the extra benefits from the military. But where does the extra money come from? Why, from the wages of the people who didn't get married, that's where! You think it's fair to say to the single guy, 'gee, we have to cut your pay because your coworker is married now'? I don't.[/rant]

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Aug 31, 2012 6:01 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:As for the rest of the budget, DoD is one giant money pit IMO. We spent $4.5B building the Nimitz-class George HW Bush. For reference, that's what it cost to build the twin towers. How the hell can you use a Nimitz to fight The War on Terror? For $4.5B, you could train a third of the armed forces to be fluent in Arabic and have a few billion left over, and I'm quite sure having the armed forces know Arabic would help a whole lot more than another Nimitz.


Look, I know a few arabic linguists and rather a lot of military people. I get that your primary point is that carriers are bloody expensive...but the Arabic estimate is optimistic as hell.

User avatar
folkhero
Posts: 1775
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 3:34 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby folkhero » Fri Aug 31, 2012 9:45 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:[rant] Another thing that pisses me off about the military budget? Your pay/benefits increase if you are married. What. Fuck you, married people. You do the same damn job as us single people, you shouldn't be cut any slack. You think in the private sector, that you get a pay rise just for tying the knot? If you need the extra income to support your wife, well guess what, this is the 21st century, your wife can work like the rest of us. I actually know of two gay people (not same-sex) who had a sham marriage so they could get the extra benefits from the military. But where does the extra money come from? Why, from the wages of the people who didn't get married, that's where! You think it's fair to say to the single guy, 'gee, we have to cut your pay because your coworker is married now'? I don't.[/rant]

On the other hand, spouses of service personnel have a particularly hard time maintaining successful careers because of the constant moving that goes with a military life. Though the huge marriage benefits does incentivize bad marriages and flat out discriminates against single people.
To all law enforcement entities, this is not an admission of guilt...

User avatar
Iulus Cofield
WINNING
Posts: 2917
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:31 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Iulus Cofield » Mon Sep 03, 2012 5:48 pm UTC

No bounce for Romney in Florida

PPP's newest Florida poll, conducted completely after the Republican convention, finds no change in the Presidential race there. Barack Obama leads Mitt Romney 48-47, exactly as he did on our last poll of the state five weeks ago.

The Republican convention being held in Tampa appears to have been a wash. 33% of voters say it made them more likely to vote for Republicans, 33% said it made them less likely to vote for Republicans, and 34% said it didn't make a difference to them either way.
...


Pretty bad news for Romney. Florida is the most important swing state, having more electoral votes than any other swing state, and Obama has only held a narrow lead over Romney there, so a bump from the convention could have easily tipped the state in his favor. Then again, picking Ryan as VP was probably the easiest way to ensure an Obama win in Florida.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6527
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby sardia » Mon Sep 03, 2012 6:42 pm UTC

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.co ... on-bounce/
Don't forget to read more than one poll, and to take into account house effects since pollers lean democrat or republican to some degree.

User avatar
Iulus Cofield
WINNING
Posts: 2917
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:31 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Iulus Cofield » Mon Sep 03, 2012 7:16 pm UTC

It does not surprise me that Nate Silver goes immediately to Rasmussen for evidence that Romney got something that other pollsters say he didn't.

I'm not familiar with Ipsos, but two things strike me as interesting. They show Romney gaining four percentage points from their pre-convention polls, but this only places their Romney-Obama numbers in the same ballpark that other pollsters have been showing for some time now (a near split), and they apparently conducted their poll online. Online polls aren't necessarily wrong, but their report doesn't say how they picked their sample, so I can't weigh in on whether they, like Rasmussen, used a flawed methodology.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6527
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby sardia » Tue Sep 04, 2012 5:21 am UTC

If a convention poll bounce is a bounce, that means it'll fall by the time November rolls around. So if a polling center gives a poll bounce from 5 points down, to even split, that would mean that Romney will be back down by election time. This is different from having no convention bounce, and staying stable until voting time.

I didn't notice this earlier, but what's so special about Florida seniors that separates them from say... every senior in the country? Why would Ryan cost Romney Florida but not say... Ohio, Nevada, VA, WI, and IO? I'll ignore the non-swing states because any moderates shifts won't matter there.

User avatar
Giant Speck
Bouncy Sex Marshmallow
Posts: 3808
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 12:30 pm UTC
Location: Tucson, Arizona

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Giant Speck » Tue Sep 04, 2012 5:45 am UTC

Well, for one, Florida has the highest proportion of residents over the age of 65, with 17.3% of its residents within that age bracket (according to the 2010 Census). My guess -- and unfortunately I don't have statistics to back this up -- is that the senior population of Florida consists mostly of seniors who moved to Florida from several different states (and thus from places with widely differing political environments) after retirement.
"Did I say recently that I love Giant Speck? Because I love Giant Speck. He is the best." - Weeks

Derek
Posts: 2178
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:15 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Derek » Tue Sep 04, 2012 6:31 am UTC

Giant Speck wrote:My guess -- and unfortunately I don't have statistics to back this up -- is that the senior population of Florida consists mostly of seniors who moved to Florida from several different states (and thus from places with widely differing political environments) after retirement.

Actually my understanding is that they're mostly from the North-East, and thus lean Democratic to begin with. There is a well known joke in the South to the effect that the Florida peninsula is a Northern state. This is more accurate than you might think.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6527
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby sardia » Tue Sep 04, 2012 7:04 am UTC

Giant Speck wrote:Well, for one, Florida has the highest proportion of residents over the age of 65, with 17.3% of its residents within that age bracket (according to the 2010 Census). My guess -- and unfortunately I don't have statistics to back this up -- is that the senior population of Florida consists mostly of seniors who moved to Florida from several different states (and thus from places with widely differing political environments) after retirement.

You're correct that Florida has the most percentage of senior citizens, 17% in 2003. This compares vs Alaska, which has the lowest, 5% seniors. Now, figure out how many seniors will abandon Romney that only affects florida, yet no other state.
http://seniorjournal.com/NEWS/SeniorSta ... eniors.htm
That'll give you an idea of the senior population across the country. (I'm not even considering how much more likely they are to vote than others)

http://www.tnr.com/blog/electionate/106 ... rs-florida
This post explains why the assumptions people have about Ryan's budget plans w/ regard to seniors is either wrong or overblown. Florida is not overwhelmingly senior citizens, nor are senior citizens against Ryan's budget plan. Old people are perfectly safe under Ryan's plan, it's those under 55 that get screwed.

User avatar
Iulus Cofield
WINNING
Posts: 2917
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:31 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Iulus Cofield » Tue Sep 04, 2012 8:05 am UTC

sardia wrote:If a convention poll bounce is a bounce, that means it'll fall by the time November rolls around. So if a polling center gives a poll bounce from 5 points down, to even split, that would mean that Romney will be back down by election time. This is different from having no convention bounce, and staying stable until voting time.

I didn't notice this earlier, but what's so special about Florida seniors that separates them from say... every senior in the country? Why would Ryan cost Romney Florida but not say... Ohio, Nevada, VA, WI, and IO? I'll ignore the non-swing states because any moderates shifts won't matter there.


What I'm saying is that it's possible the Ipsos poll pre-convention may have been off and their post convention poll simply matches what others had been showing already. Even a perfectly executed poll has a margin of error.

I brought up Florida specifically because Florida is the largest, and perhaps the most likely to switch sides by November, swing state. It's pretty interesting that senior's don't seem alarmed by a plan that, logically, can only reduce the effectiveness of medicare.

User avatar
bentheimmigrant
Dotcor Good Poster
Posts: 1365
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 9:01 pm UTC
Location: UK

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby bentheimmigrant » Tue Sep 04, 2012 10:17 am UTC

sardia wrote:http://www.tnr.com/blog/electionate/106 ... rs-florida
This post explains why the assumptions people have about Ryan's budget plans w/ regard to seniors is either wrong or overblown. Florida is not overwhelmingly senior citizens, nor are senior citizens against Ryan's budget plan. Old people are perfectly safe under Ryan's plan, it's those under 55 that get screwed.

The issue with Florida is that it's practically a tie. Any shift among seniors makes the difference between win or lose. Saying "oh, well, it's only a 0.1% swing" is ignoring the fact that the state has been won by less than that - there really isn't a state as close as Florida. So yes, the senior vote in FL is incredibly important. The article basically argues that they have a disproportionate effect on the electorate in FL, that the messaging will likely be directed more at the retirement communities in FL than in any other state, and then come to the conclusion they were aiming at - but it doesn't even work within their own article.

Also, with regards to the claim that only those below 55 get hurt by Ryan's plan, that all depends which of the promises you expect R-R to keep - If they manage to balance the budget they're got to make something like a 30% cut from social programs by 2016. Furthermore the argument that seniors aren't against Ryan's plan isn't quite true. Many voters simply don't know what's in it - and when they're told, they don't like it, with some focus groups even saying they didn't believe that it had actually been proposed. So that's Obama's main challenge - tell the truth about the Ryan budget, and convince voters that you're actually telling the truth.

So... are we actually going to move over to a general election thread at some point?
"Comment is free, but facts are sacred" - C.P. Scott

User avatar
EsotericWombat
Colorful Orator
Posts: 2567
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2007 4:36 pm UTC
Location: Boston, MA
Contact:

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby EsotericWombat » Tue Sep 04, 2012 1:50 pm UTC

The thing about current seniors being safe isn't even a little bit true. Ryan guts Medicaid, 23% of whose expenditures go towards care for seniors also receiving Medicare. Repealing the Affordable Care Act would re-open the donut hole, reduce access to preventative care, and increase premiums to the tune of eleven grand for the average (current) 65 year-old over the course of their retirement.

It's also quite likely that the Romney-Ryan plan is going to increase overall healthcare costs, which, again, hurts seniors.

They're going to get their asses kicked up and down about this during the debates.
Image

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Sep 04, 2012 6:31 pm UTC

EsotericWombat wrote:The thing about current seniors being safe isn't even a little bit true. Ryan guts Medicaid, 23% of whose expenditures go towards care for seniors also receiving Medicare. Repealing the Affordable Care Act would re-open the donut hole, reduce access to preventative care, and increase premiums to the tune of eleven grand for the average (current) 65 year-old over the course of their retirement.

It's also quite likely that the Romney-Ryan plan is going to increase overall healthcare costs, which, again, hurts seniors.

They're going to get their asses kicked up and down about this during the debates.


Well, this all depends who you will believe. The right would have you believe that they can make those cuts from other sectors without affecting the care provided to those elderly currently on it. If you already lean right, you're probably inclined to believe this, likely without further fact checking.

Will the politicians deliver on this promise post election? Well, probably at least mostly. They're gonna want re-election, and pissing off the senior block en masse is not a winning move. So, they really can't afford to cut coverage too much to seniors.

User avatar
EsotericWombat
Colorful Orator
Posts: 2567
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2007 4:36 pm UTC
Location: Boston, MA
Contact:

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby EsotericWombat » Tue Sep 04, 2012 7:07 pm UTC

Uh, no. They aren't even making that case. Cutting Medicaid is explicitly part of their proposals. It's just that when they talk to seniors, they leave Medicaid out of it entirely. Seniors are currently more likely to support the current incarnation of the Romney-Ryan plan than other Americans, largely because in the early days after Ryan's selection, they've managed to sell the lie about the Medicare cuts in the Affordable Care Act. And because the first few Ryan appearances talking to seniors were so high-profile, that's sort of dominated the earned media on the topic thus far. The BS that they're spinning works when they're the only ones on the stage, but it isn't going to fly when the opposition is right there in the room
Image

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Sep 04, 2012 7:24 pm UTC

EsotericWombat wrote:Uh, no. They aren't even making that case. Cutting Medicaid is explicitly part of their proposals. It's just that when they talk to seniors, they leave Medicaid out of it entirely. Seniors are currently more likely to support the current incarnation of the Romney-Ryan plan than other Americans, largely because in the early days after Ryan's selection, they've managed to sell the lie about the Medicare cuts in the Affordable Care Act. And because the first few Ryan appearances talking to seniors were so high-profile, that's sort of dominated the earned media on the topic thus far. The BS that they're spinning works when they're the only ones on the stage, but it isn't going to fly when the opposition is right there in the room


Cutting medicaid is, yes. Cutting medicaid for seniors is not. The original Ryan plan, IIRC, was built on the assumption that sufficient cuts could be made without affecting seniors at all.

Is this practical in the real world? Probably not. But it's definitely been a thing. Limbaugh was talking it up for a while, too. So, yeah, the right wing has definitely not been proposing any cuts of benefits to the elderly. It's just another standard case of "promise everything, even if those promises are incompatible".


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: SecondTalon and 21 guests