☆~Sleepy Joe 2021~☆

[Mace1647545504]

Can everyone, at least agree, that Congress needs Term Limits? Two Terms of 4 years, start 2 years off of the Presidency. That will help clear up a good bit on BOTH sides of the aisle.

 

KillJoy

 

I've said this for years !!!!!!!

Like this covid bill...20 percent is actual covid relief and 10 percent to the people..soooo full of pork

[Geeto67]

Can everyone, at least agree, that Congress needs Term Limits? Two Terms of 4 years, start 2 years off of the Presidency. That will help clear up a good bit on BOTH sides of the aisle.

 

KillJoy

 

no I don't agree. Statistically and historically speaking, veteran congress people actually become more bi-partisan over time, at least they did before the 2008 GOP strategy to just obstruct anything and everything.

 

Honestly, being a legislator is a difficult job, and one that requires a period of time to figure out. Term limits won't iron out the wrinkles of complication, and it won't improve the quality of legislation passed - if anything we will end up with a bunch of non-saavy individuals passing substandard laws.

 

Gerrymandering I think is the bigger issue, having a political party hold sway over the election process is very problematic on all fronts. It messes with the platforms of candidates who can tailor their goals to special or polarizing interests in their state rather than work the common ground, it gives the veteran congress person confidence to not represent their state's constituents but rather party interests, heck the GOP wouldn't even have tried the obstruction route as a plan if they didn't know they had the next 10 years stacked in their favor.

 

The way the system used to work, and should work is that if the congress person wasn't doing a good job by his constituents they voted him/her out and got someone new, if the person continued to represent the majority of their constituents then they stayed. It creates an incentive for the politician to know and care about what his voters want, instead of what a few special interests with money want.

 

All the ills people think will be cured by term limits: power of special interests, Partisan corruption, etc...may actually get worse if you put a time limit on it as lobbyists will ramp up their efforts and spending, while idealism will bring any bi-partisan cooperation to a halt. Furthermore it may create a revolving door situation where instead of seeing the same people in the same roles, you will see the same people in different roles in government so you won't exactly get the fresh blood that is wanted as house reps become senators and senators become house reps and both seek executive positions.

 

I'm not saying term limits have no value, just that while gerrymandering is still happening things won't improve.

[Mace1647545504]

Kerry i agree and disagree.

 

Yes , gerrymandering is a problem that need to be addressed, but term limits need to be implemented.

 

What's good for one district may not be good for the country, so as far as your example, just because I hear my constituents and get them what they want again may not be good for th entire country. Like spock said "needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few".

 

Pelosi and McConnell have been there WAAAAAYYYYYYYY too long. It's all about power

[Geeto67]

Kerry i agree and disagree.

 

Yes , gerrymandering is a problem that need to be addressed, but term limits need to be implemented.

 

Why? What do you think term limits will do to change the congress person's incentives?

 

What's good for one district may not be good for the country, so as far as your example, just because I hear my constituents and get them what they want again may not be good for th entire country. Like spock said "needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few".

 

yes and that is why we have a house of representatives with 435 representatives and 100 senators. They are supposed to be working to find the common ground and the common issues from their districts and their states and work on federal solutions. But with Gerrymandering they work more from a party platform that they force on their constituents instead of advocating for them and working to find common areas of improvement. The point of a representative government is to have representation - not force a buy in to a two party system.

 

If you believe in small government this is the path - Local district issues get handled by local government, while issues that commonly affect a majority of the population get worked on the federal level. But to get there - we need to put the fear of not being re-elected back into our politicians.

 

If there is one scary part it is that it represents a more radical change in direction for the GOP than it does for democrats since a lot more of GOP policy tends to be from a special interest or minority view. While both sides gerrymander, the GOP has mounted the largest effort to do so to date in order to push more unpopular policy positions and we are poised to see a retaliation and escalating arms race in this area. The upside is that the GOP would no longer be a party that just exists to troll the democrats and actually return to one that makes valuable policy decisions.

 

Pelosi and McConnell have been there WAAAAAYYYYYYYY too long. It's all about power

 

There is a value to experience, and both of those are masters of a two party political system that benefits from a party strategy than a strategy that benefits the constituents they represent. Mitch McConnell is one of the (if not the most) hated representatives by his own constituents, and Nancy Pelosi isn't well liked in either her party or her own state. Neither would survive under an election that was devoid of gerrymandering.

[Mallard]

Term limits will only lead to massively inexperienced people who don't know how to get things done, which will then sprout back offices of Congressional "experts" that will effectively pull the strings of Representatives. So instead of having Mitch McConnell elected to office, you'll have Mitch McConnell advising multiple reps on strategy perpetually, and the inexperienced who lack this advisement will get eaten alive. IMO.

 

If a rep isn't working for their constituents they should be voted out, and districts should be drawn to make that possible.

 

 

 

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[Mace1647545504]

Then term limits of 2 election cycles..you must then sit out 2 cycles then you can run again.

If you were that good you will get reelected

[Mallard]

Works so well in Russia.

 

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[Otis Nice]

[oh8sti]

Now Panduh's going to get fired up about the "armed" verbiage lol. Windows were broken, doors were broken through, we had a huge number of guys with tacticool vests, body armor, restraints, etc. INSIDE the capitol building that I could see with my eyes. Might as well extend that argument to include the muffins and scones that were identified, as the goal was so clearly to make nice with the elected officials inside. So was it burglary then, just not armed burglary?

 

Then we can ice that cake with talk about "holding people accountable". Laughable to sane people, but you do you, "sane" guy.

 

Words are important, yes.

 

By all mean, hold Meal Team 6 accountable for the damage they caused to the window and rotunda bench.

[l36tols1]

Words are important, yes.

 

By all mean, hold Meal Team 6 accountable for the damage they caused to the window and rotunda bench.

 

Well I mean they also killed and injured a few police officers too...

[Mace1647545504]

Well I mean they also killed and injured a few police officers too...

 

I was just reading about this yesterday on yahoo and they are now saying cnn has proof that they didn't kill the officer but yes they did injure a few of them.

[oh8sti]

So far Biden is doing the same thing trump did as president with “kids in cages” and “ripping immigrant kids from their parents” and the left has their blinders and ear plugs in.

 

If trump was hitler, does this also confirm Biden is hitler as well? Asking for a friend.

[Otis Nice]

If trump was hitler, does this also confirm Biden is hitler as well? Asking for a friend.

 

No. Hitler didn't have a trbl son.

[Mace1647545504]

This whole cuomo thing is tiring...he's not going to resign..trump didn't resign..bill didn't resign..I wish the news would just stop it

[Mace1647545504]

While watching the news I got a good laugh...as the reporter was talking about the covid over-spend bill she called president biden...president obiden..Freudian slip ??

[Mace1647545504]

I found this amazing..here is part of where the "covid" money went..thank the dems for moving on this.. This is an op-ed article:

 

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-hopeful-news-for-social-security-buried-in-the-1-9-trillion-bailout-11614912469?siteid=yhoof2

 

Nobody’s noticed, but there may be a glimmer of hope for Social Security in the gigantic “rescue” package currently going through Congress.

 

Lawmakers have moved to include in the bill an unrelated $86 billion bailout for bankrupt union pension plans.

 

And once they’ve done that, it’s going to be even harder for them to argue that they shouldn’t bail out the stricken Social Security trust fund that is actually their responsibility. Social Security’s deficit: $16.8 trillion, or about $50,000 for every person in America.

 

On the other hand, if Congress tries to weasel out of fully funding Social Security in a few years’ time, this rescue of private sector union pensions is going to look like an outrage.

 

I write about retirement and I am (within reason) generally going to fight for retirees and future retirees. So I confess I’m glad elderly members of these “multiemployer” union plans aren’t going to the wall. Call me a bleeding heart. Even with the bailout, many members will be looking at pension cuts.

 

But this bailout is hard to justify on any grounds other than compassion—or, perhaps more accurately, “politics masquerading as compassion.”

 

These are private-sector plans. Clearly the members—the workers and their employers — paid in too little over the years. Sure, there were external factors. But everyone has to deal with external factors in handling their retirement.

 

These are union plans. One of the biggest unions involves is the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. (And before anyone attacks me for casting aspersions on the Teamsters, or their past history involving pension funds, my mom was a member of the Teamsters in the days of Jimmy Hoffa.)

 

I spoke to John Murphy, the vice president at large of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. He defended the rescue of these multiemployer union pension plans. He said a society should be measured by how it treats the sick and the elderly. Fair enough. He flatly denied that the plans were in trouble because of any mismanagement attributable to the unions, saying anyone making that claim “doesn’t know what they are talking about.”

 

He also said during our conversation that the $86 billion rescue was the result of five years’ hard and intense “lobbying”—his word, not mine—on Capitol Hill by the Teamsters and other unions.

 

 

There is plenty of blame to go around for the crisis at these pension funds. Blame the employers who paid in too little, banked too many dividends, then filed for bankruptcy when times got hard. Blame the unions, who sold their members promises that couldn’t be met. Blame the government-owned Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, for charging these plans too little over the years in annual premiums. (Even today, the PBGC charges multiemployer plans just $31 per member per year.) Oh, and blame Congress and state governments, for not intervening years ago.

 

To bail out these plans, we the taxpayers are writing a check to the PBGC, which insures these pension plans. But the PBGC was never supposed to be supported by taxpayers. Says the 1974 law that created it: The “United States is not liable for any obligation or liability incurred by the corporation.” Oops. The PBGC is supposed to be self-funding, through premiums raised from member plans. Its liabilities are not our liabilities. This isn’t our bill.

 

Very few of the taxpayers paying for this rescue are lucky enough to have defined-benefit plans at all. We’re all on “defined contribution” plans. If our 401(k)s and IRAs leave us underfunded in retirement, nobody is going to bail us out.

 

Charles Blahous, an expert at George Mason University’s libertarian-leaning Mercatus Center, tells MarketWatch the bailout is not merely “irresponsible,” but “scandalous.” He accuses companies and unions of using accounting gimmicks to hide the problems for years, and warns that the new law won’t force them to stop, either.

 

Given this, it’s going to be a much bigger scandal if Congress shafts Social Security beneficiaries harder than it does members of these union pensions. It would be ludicrous to hope that shame or embarrassment would constrain most politicians. But right now Social Security beneficiaries could be looking at a 25% benefit cut in just over a decade.

 

Joe Biden ran on a platform of protecting benefits, and actually raising them for many.

 

When the time comes for Congress to address the matter, they’d better give us the same terms as the unions, or we’re going to want to know the reason why.

[Mallard]

I found this amazing..here is part of where the "covid" money went..thank the dems for moving on this.. This is an op-ed article:

 

 

 

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-hopeful-news-for-social-security-buried-in-the-1-9-trillion-bailout-11614912469?siteid=yhoof2

 

 

 

Nobody’s noticed, but there may be a glimmer of hope for Social Security in the gigantic “rescue” package currently going through Congress.

 

 

 

Lawmakers have moved to include in the bill an unrelated $86 billion bailout for bankrupt union pension plans.

 

 

 

And once they’ve done that, it’s going to be even harder for them to argue that they shouldn’t bail out the stricken Social Security trust fund that is actually their responsibility. Social Security’s deficit: $16.8 trillion, or about $50,000 for every person in America.

 

 

 

On the other hand, if Congress tries to weasel out of fully funding Social Security in a few years’ time, this rescue of private sector union pensions is going to look like an outrage.

 

 

 

I write about retirement and I am (within reason) generally going to fight for retirees and future retirees. So I confess I’m glad elderly members of these “multiemployer” union plans aren’t going to the wall. Call me a bleeding heart. Even with the bailout, many members will be looking at pension cuts.

 

 

 

But this bailout is hard to justify on any grounds other than compassion—or, perhaps more accurately, “politics masquerading as compassion.”

 

 

 

These are private-sector plans. Clearly the members—the workers and their employers — paid in too little over the years. Sure, there were external factors. But everyone has to deal with external factors in handling their retirement.

 

 

 

These are union plans. One of the biggest unions involves is the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. (And before anyone attacks me for casting aspersions on the Teamsters, or their past history involving pension funds, my mom was a member of the Teamsters in the days of Jimmy Hoffa.)

 

 

 

I spoke to John Murphy, the vice president at large of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. He defended the rescue of these multiemployer union pension plans. He said a society should be measured by how it treats the sick and the elderly. Fair enough. He flatly denied that the plans were in trouble because of any mismanagement attributable to the unions, saying anyone making that claim “doesn’t know what they are talking about.”

 

 

 

He also said during our conversation that the $86 billion rescue was the result of five years’ hard and intense “lobbying”—his word, not mine—on Capitol Hill by the Teamsters and other unions.

 

 

 

 

 

There is plenty of blame to go around for the crisis at these pension funds. Blame the employers who paid in too little, banked too many dividends, then filed for bankruptcy when times got hard. Blame the unions, who sold their members promises that couldn’t be met. Blame the government-owned Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, for charging these plans too little over the years in annual premiums. (Even today, the PBGC charges multiemployer plans just $31 per member per year.) Oh, and blame Congress and state governments, for not intervening years ago.

 

 

 

To bail out these plans, we the taxpayers are writing a check to the PBGC, which insures these pension plans. But the PBGC was never supposed to be supported by taxpayers. Says the 1974 law that created it: The “United States is not liable for any obligation or liability incurred by the corporation.” Oops. The PBGC is supposed to be self-funding, through premiums raised from member plans. Its liabilities are not our liabilities. This isn’t our bill.

 

 

 

Very few of the taxpayers paying for this rescue are lucky enough to have defined-benefit plans at all. We’re all on “defined contribution” plans. If our 401(k)s and IRAs leave us underfunded in retirement, nobody is going to bail us out.

 

 

 

Charles Blahous, an expert at George Mason University’s libertarian-leaning Mercatus Center, tells MarketWatch the bailout is not merely “irresponsible,” but “scandalous.” He accuses companies and unions of using accounting gimmicks to hide the problems for years, and warns that the new law won’t force them to stop, either.

 

 

 

Given this, it’s going to be a much bigger scandal if Congress shafts Social Security beneficiaries harder than it does members of these union pensions. It would be ludicrous to hope that shame or embarrassment would constrain most politicians. But right now Social Security beneficiaries could be looking at a 25% benefit cut in just over a decade.

 

 

 

Joe Biden ran on a platform of protecting benefits, and actually raising them for many.

 

 

 

When the time comes for Congress to address the matter, they’d better give us the same terms as the unions, or we’re going to want to know the reason why.

While no one will bail me out if my 401k shits the bed, I have no issue with directly helping blue collar workers who got fucked by the system.

 

I also find it funny that Trump and the Republicans spent $1.9 billion on tax cuts that overwhelmingly benefitted the rich, and here the Democrats have $86 billion for direct support of blue collar workers, yet the Republicans paint themselves as the working man's party and the Dems as global elitists.

 

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[Mace1647545504]

How did the system screw them? It was the union and the company.

Have both sell off assets and fund the pension as it should have been.

[Mensan]

no one will bail me out if my 401k shits the bed

 

This is the reason for social security. Not to be a retirement plan, but a backup in case private funds get depleted. Implemented after the market crash that led to the great depression.

[Mallard]

This is the reason for social security. Not to be a retirement plan, but a backup in case private funds get depleted. Implemented after the market crash that led to the great depression.

Understood, but also for most people who counted on a pension in retirement, living solely off SS could mean a big lifestyle change, and in most union jobs you're eligible for retirement after 30 years, meaning many retire before they're eligible for SS.

 

When I say "got screwed over by the system" I mean that they worked hard jobs with a promise that they would be taken care of later in life. The failure of their pension was no fault of their own, and they had no control over the funds. My mom was in the teachers union and also gets a pension payment every month, so I am sympathetic to the workers and the effect a total loss would have. I have read nothing about this situation besides the link Mace posted, so the entire situation could be more complicated than I know.

 

While I would not like to see tax dollars ever needed to be spent to bail something out, I also think that ethically making good on a promise made to blue collar workers is a worthy cause, and I wouldn't waste my time trying to attack this as being pork spending or corrupt when there are bigger fish to fry.

 

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[Mensan]

Understood, but also for most people who counted on a pension in retirement, living solely off SS could mean a big lifestyle change, and in most union jobs you're eligible for retirement after 30 years, meaning many retire before they're eligible for SS.

 

When I say "got screwed over by the system" I mean that they worked hard jobs with a promise that they would be taken care of later in life. The failure of their pension was no fault of their own, and they had no control over the funds. My mom was in the teachers union and also gets a pension payment every month, so I am sympathetic to the workers and the effect a total loss would have. I have read nothing about this situation besides the link Mace posted, so the entire situation could be more complicated than I know.

 

While I would not like to see tax dollars ever needed to be spent to bail something out, I also think that ethically making good on a promise made to blue collar workers is a worthy cause, and I wouldn't waste my time trying to attack this as being pork spending or corrupt when there are bigger fish to fry.

 

I wasn't making a point about that either way, just stating something that on retrospect may not even be relevant to the conversation.

 

Carry on.

[10phone2]

first off... your mom deserves a big thank you for her time.

 

the unfortunate thing is that handing any company/gov money for long term retirement is still a risk and a good chance a decent portion will get hosed based on company promises. then add in company bankruptcy to reduce cost from retirements which i do think is bs.

 

does anyone have any suggestions for cities to avoid the pension bubble without blanket increasing taxes?

[Mallard]

first off... your mom deserves a big thank you for her time.

 

 

 

the unfortunate thing is that handing any company/gov money for long term retirement is still a risk and a good chance a decent portion will get hosed based on company promises. then add in company bankruptcy to reduce cost from retirements which i do think is bs.

 

 

 

does anyone have any suggestions for cities to avoid the pension bubble without blanket increasing taxes?

Thanks. Keep in mind too that my parents planned retirement assuming both of their income, my mom's pension and my dad's SS benefit. When my dad died SS gave my mom a one time payment of ~$200. (She's 69, my dad was 73) Now my parents did save up their own money so they weren't solely dependent on this, but I can see how not having that additional cushion saved could completely turn your world upside down, especially if her pension disappeared.

 

(On the flip side if my mom died and my dad lived, her pension has survivor benefits that would have continued to pay her monthly pension to my dad for the rest of his life, on top of his SS)

 

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

Edited March 8, 2021 by Mallard

[10phone2]

thats unreal she got a whole $200 while the company made money off it. the survivor benefits are great. i get that where I work. one of the several reasons it will suck to leave the company when we sell our house to relocate.

[Mallard]

thats unreal she got a whole $200 while the company made money off it. the survivor benefits are great. i get that where I work. one of the several reasons it will suck to leave the company when we sell our house to relocate.

*The one time ~$200 payment was the "survivor benefit" from Social Security, so no company made money off it...but it was a system he paid in to over his lifetime and only started drawing from 3 or 4 years ago.

 

Sorry we're far off the Biden topic now.

 

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk