Dems will oppose him at just about every turn. They are obstructionists!
-
Welcome to TalkWeather! We see you lurking around TalkWeather! Take the extra step and join us today to view attachments, see less ads and maybe even join the discussion. CLICK TO JOIN TALKWEATHER
Archive 2017-2019 Political Thread
- Thread starter Bama Ravens
- Start date
- Status
Dems will oppose him at just about every turn. They are obstructionists!
- Admin
- #6,642
Also the largest increase in funding goes to the VA in the Budget. Are those opposed to the budget opposed to this line increase? I hope not.
Kory
Member
I’m against the ever ballooning burden entitlements have become. 60-70% of the budget is that! We need severe reform, but Trump said entitlements (Medicare, social security, etc.) are off limits. It’s going to collapse with the boomers now fully shifting into the demographic relying on entitlements.
- Admin
- #6,644
Entitlements as you call them are not really entitlements. That is money that the Government took from people as a requirement to hold and given back to the people who paid it in. So really that is the Government just giving back the money it forcefully borrowed.
And anything to do with the VA is not an entitlement. Those men and women of our Armed forces earned those benefits.
True. I forgot about that. Let's audit every city that gets federal Funds and see if they can show how the money was spent. If they cannot, no more funds for several years. I wish he would have kept the government shut down and permanently furloughed 300-400K employees.
Kory
Member
Benefits paid out RIGHT NOW are collected from those CURRENTLY in the workforce. With the surge of boomers now getting to the age of collection, we are reaching a tipping point in the coming 5-10 years where the current work force will not be able to sustain the payout. Luckily, the system has run a surplus where they've invested, which is why the program will at least have another 20+ years (from projections I have seen) of supporting those folks.
Evan
Member
You're overstating what was required. By and large, immigration through Ellis Island was primarily focused on checking to see if you had a communicable disease or major health problems, and if you had the ability to earn a living for yourself (asked about occupation, finances, prior work, etc).
A sponsor was absolutely not required. Not sure where you came across that misinformation. It may be that someone is confusing asking for a relative's address with sponsorship, or confusing questions about already having a job lined up with sponsorship. Sponsors were not required. Having a relative already in America, or having a job already lined up simply assured that it would be unlikely you'd be referred for deeper questioning.
Only 2% of immigrants passing through Ellis Island were denied entry, and for most of those it was due to a medical issue or disability.
I also disagree that extensive background information was required. First of all, those in the higher classes of carriage (1st/2nd class) were barely inspected at all. And they did NOT have to go through Ellis Island. Basically, if you were rich or well-off you could come here with basically no questions asked. For all the rest -- those in steerage classes on a ship -- you had to fill out information like where you are from, occupation, relatives already in the US, if you were an anarchist, if you had health problems, etc. It was around 2-3 dozen questions or so depending upon the time in question and where the ship was coming from. Asian immigrants coming through ports on the West Coast faced a MUCH more intense and exclusive process. If you were an immigrant coming through Ellis Island, you had a 98% chance of being admitted. If you had no health issues, your chance of being admitted was in excess of 99%.
I don't disagree that there was a process in place and that some people were rejected. It wasn't a free-for-all. They did "sift" through those attempting to immigrate, but the process wasn't refined or meant to catch anyone with a potential issue. It was meant to only catch those with obvious physical or mental infirmities (although plenty of those people still got through), declared anarchists, avowed criminals, and those extremely destitute and without resources who were likely to become a public charge. Remember, all but 2% got through.
I really don't think Ellis Island is relevant to today's discussion of immigration. I'm sure you agree. We live in a different world and our country has different needs. Ellis Island style immigration would not be a workable solution or good idea for our country today. An "Open Borders" type of immigration policy would be disastrous for our country. That said, some of the changes the Trump admin have made in reference to immigration policy seem to be solely focused on reducing the total number of immigrants admitted each year. Student visa numbers are way down. Processing for many visas are taking much longer. The Muslim ban is in place.
And, just this week, the Trump admin unveiled sweeping changes to the immigration system as it relates to what is a "public charge." I don't believe this has been discussed here yet, but the changes are the most significant made to our immigration system in decades. All done with a pen instead of through the legislative process. I fully expect that most voters will do zero research on this change and thus most Republicans will believe it is a wonderful and positive change and most Democrats will believe it's an implementation of White Supremacy. Neither characterization is accurate. It's not common for legal immigrants to apply for or obtain government benefits (illegal immigrants aren't eligible for government benefits and don't receive them no matter what Trump tries to tell people).
Legal permanent residents have to wait at least five years before being eligible for government assistance. Immigrants here on non-immigrant visas are essentially not eligible for government assistance outside of emergency programs like disaster relief, a few state run Medicaid programs (only for Emergency treatment or pregnancy), and the benefits that their US Citizen children might be eligible for (SNAP, CHIP, etc). One of the only programs anyone can regardless of immigration status is free/reduced price school lunches. Even then, most of the children of non-immigrant parents (or illegal aliens) are citizens. Only small amounts of children lack legal status.
Overview of benefits for immigrants and eligibility
Anyway, what the Trump admin is doing is backdooring a skills-based or "points-based" immigration system to replace our current immigration system. I've said many times we need immigration reform, and we should change our system to be MORE focused on skills or unique abilities. But, such a system should not be setup to exclude the vast majority of family-based applications. We already had rules in place that don't allow "public charges" to immigrate. But, the Trump admin is significantly increasing what is required to prove you're not a public charge.
I'll use a personal example. My wife is a United States citizen and has been one for sometime now. We've been married for 12 years, and she's gained her permanent residency about six months after our marriage (and over 12k in expenses to do so). Her parents had no desire to immigrate to the United States until recently. They have two other children. One is also a US citizen married to a member of law enforcement here in the United States. Their other child is a pilot for a large international airline but still resides overseas. All three of their children have college degrees and have high incomes. My father-in-law retired from the military of a US ally some years ago. He receives a military pension. They own fairly valuable property overseas (200k+ value), and have other assets in savings, vehicles, etc.
We sponsored my wife's parents over a year ago to immigrate here. As part of that process, they had to prove they wouldn't become a public charge. They had to disclose the value of their assets, income (military pension and the small-business my mother-in-law has), etc but we were also required to submit an affidavit of support with the past few years of our tax returns, and make a binding promise to the federal government that we would cover any expenses or charges that my wife's parents might incur in the United States. As mentioned, they are not eligible for any government assistance or welfare, but if they do become eligible and use such assistance MY WIFE AND I ARE required to reimburse the federal government for any benefits paid out or they can sue us and levy our wages.
Additionally, if my wife's parents feel we're not assisting them enough to survive here, they can SUE US and a court will require us to provide them additional financial assistance. This applies until they become a US citizen (which they don't have to do), die, or move out of the country. Even if my wife and were to divorce, I'm still REQUIRED to keep the agreement unless they become citizens, die, or move out of the country. Even if I re-marry!
If you think I'm joking read this site
Last edited:
Evan
Member
The Trump admin has decided this is not enough, and they've changed the rules so that much more is required than just the documentation of income/assets and a binding affidavit of support from sponsors. They consider those things to be "positives" but those items alone will likely NOT qualify most intending immigrants to meet the new standard. Now the Trump admin wants things like a credit score (which they obviously do not have and most immigrants won't have), additional documentation, higher income, more assets, and a host of other things.
I've read over some of the changes (but certainly not all 800+ changes), and I can tell you that it's highly likely my wife's parents would've been rejected under the new standard. In particular, no matter what documentation and information you provide USCIS, the individual officer reviewing your application has total discretion to reject it. They can say "these two applicants are too old and their English skills are poor, I don't think they have enough assets or future income potential, so they're denied." They also consider things like prior earnings history abroad, and if the immigrant has a job offer lined up already in the United States (few immigrants without a college degree or special skills will have a job waiting for them).
And the thousands of dollars you pay to apply? The US government gets to keep it. And, yes, two of the major factors the Trump administration is now using is age and ability to speak English. So, even if you want to bring your widowed mother over to the United States, and you're going to cover her 100%, she will likely be denied unless she has a ton of assets or future income she can prove. Because if she is older, or doesn't speak English at a high-level, both of those are considered negative factors and can result in the immigrant being denied as a "public charge."
It is 100% meant to shutdown most family-based immigration applications, and it puts the decision making into the hands of individual USCIS officers. USCIS is run by the same guy who created controversy with his remarks on CNN about the Statue of Liberty.
I've read over some of the changes (but certainly not all 800+ changes), and I can tell you that it's highly likely my wife's parents would've been rejected under the new standard. In particular, no matter what documentation and information you provide USCIS, the individual officer reviewing your application has total discretion to reject it. They can say "these two applicants are too old and their English skills are poor, I don't think they have enough assets or future income potential, so they're denied." They also consider things like prior earnings history abroad, and if the immigrant has a job offer lined up already in the United States (few immigrants without a college degree or special skills will have a job waiting for them).
And the thousands of dollars you pay to apply? The US government gets to keep it. And, yes, two of the major factors the Trump administration is now using is age and ability to speak English. So, even if you want to bring your widowed mother over to the United States, and you're going to cover her 100%, she will likely be denied unless she has a ton of assets or future income she can prove. Because if she is older, or doesn't speak English at a high-level, both of those are considered negative factors and can result in the immigrant being denied as a "public charge."
It is 100% meant to shutdown most family-based immigration applications, and it puts the decision making into the hands of individual USCIS officers. USCIS is run by the same guy who created controversy with his remarks on CNN about the Statue of Liberty.
- Moderator
- #6,649
I'm not a big economics guy but what's the source for this information? The CBO 2019 report to me seems indicate a different story.
- Admin
- #6,650
Sorry I should have provided the link to where I received my information.I'm not a big economics guy but what's the source for this information? The CBO 2019 report to me seems indicate a different story.
https://www.rollcall.com/news/whitehouse/176258-2
Evan
Member
Here's the problem -- not enough was taken out to cover the amount of money that is going to be needed to pay out the promised benefits. Baby Boomers opposed efforts to increase the FICA tax or increase the retirement age after the 1983 law that made some modest improvements. The retirement age is less than 67 for all but the last four years of the Baby Boomer population. The FICA increases that were implemented were tiny, and those increases along with the very tiny increase in retirement age were not enough to make sure Social Security and Medicare have sufficient funds to pay out the benefits they'll be required to pay.
If the government is just giving money back to the baby boomers then why does Social Security and Medicare face major solvency issues? The whole idea behind Social Security was that retirees would be paid with the monies they contributed along with a monies contributed by the current workforce. Baby Boomers didn't have as many children as their parents did, so the contributions from current workers won't be enough to make up the portion that was expected to be there from current workers.
Social Security themselves says this is true
"Currently, the Social Security Board of Trustees projects program cost to rise by 2035 so that taxes will be enough to pay for only 75 percent of scheduled benefits. This increase in cost results from population aging, not because we are living longer, but because birth rates dropped from three to two children per woman. Importantly, this shortfall is basically stable after 2035; adjustments to taxes or benefits that offset the effects of the lower birth rate may restore solvency for the Social Security program on a sustainable basis for the foreseeable future."
Why should workers of younger generations be on the hook for the mistakes that Baby Boomers and their elected Representatives made? Especially considering how they've long opposed any efforts to fix this issue before they reached retirement age. A FICA increase could've been implemented in the 90s/2000s that would've applied to all of the Baby Boomer generation BEFORE their retirement.
There are only 3 solutions. Increase FICA, cut benefits, or do a mixture of both. What's telling is retirees seem to only be interested in raising taxes on current workers as a solution, or they think the government should just magically cover the shortfall (which obviously just leads to future taxation).
This problem is not the fault of us that have only been voting for a decade or two -- especially since our votes have always been outweighed by those who opposed fixing the problem while they were in the workforce.
- Admin
- #6,652
You do realize that part of the debt payments is payment back into Social Security and Medicare that the Government Borrowed from to pay for its programs. That is why they face insolvency issues. Not because they didn't collect enough.
- Moderator
- #6,653
No problem.
The last three bullet points raise some eyebrows for me.
The assumption of economic growth vs recession is a concerning point. I can only hope that's the case.
#9 The debt getting bigger seems to strike at the heart of conservative concerns. I don't know how debt plays in to the grand scheme of things since it's not a physical thing but more a belief or confidence in assets and outlook. I'm no economist though so I can't speak much to this. I do know that most of my modestly increased tax returns last year went straight to the US corporate economy. The rest went to Mexico as I took the opportunity to vacation there.
#10 I don't know who "Republican appropriators" are but it seems like there's some bipartisan agreement that there's issues and that bipartisan support is necessary to advance the budget plan.
It seems very complicated to say the least. Maybe someone who researches this more can chime in.
Evan
Member
That's not correct. Bonds issued in relation to the Social Security Trust have nothing to do with the solvency of the Trust fund itself except that they've HELPED its overall solvency by paying interest on the cash that would've otherwise sat idle and been eaten away by inflation.
https://www.cbpp.org/research/socia...understanding-the-social-security-trust-funds
https://www.fool.com/pwa/retirement/2017/09/02/how-social-security-invests-its-29-trillion-in-exc.aspx?_gl=1*156trq5*_ga*YW1wLXV6ckFCNXNwVmRQNGdUcE1WZ2MxQXc4MGV4WkNJVmJST0t0RTVuOG93aTk1VGhzOGdBV0tpVGk3ckhqQ1llU3I.
There is a solvency issue because Social Security has always been based on the idea that you pay as you go, and so current benefits are supposed to be paid by current workers. That only changed somewhat because of legislation meant to fix Social Security solvency issues decades ago. I think this has confused people into believing that Social Security collects money from current workers to be used later. That wasn't the case until the surplus in the Social Security Trust fund came into play.
The reason there is a surplus in the first place is because Congress gradually increased the FICA tax with legislation in 1983 and also slowly increased the retirement age. Before that date, the excess funds in the Social Security trust were either minimal or in deficit because the funds were being used to pay current beneficiaries.
Look at chart 2 on the SSA's website where it shows the trust fund in nominal dollars. It was sitting right at 0 around 1980. That's because current payroll tax income was NOT ENOUGH to cover the current payouts to beneficiaries then receiving social security.
Social Security was never about paying in money that built up until you retired. That's not how it was originally designed to function. At time it was created the United States was a much younger country with a fast growing population. It was believed that each generation of workers would be larger than the previous generation. In the late 70s and early 80s it was realized that Social Security was paying out more in benefits than it was receiving in income. So, the current system is a tweak on the original idea, but the original idea really hasn't changed. It's pay as you go.
When they made those changes in the late 70s/early 80s they also realized that birth rates had fallen rather substantially (look at the size of Gen X compared to Baby Boomers) compared to the size of the current workforce. They knew that if they were already struggling to pay benefits with a large workforce (they knew Baby Boomers were a larger generation than previous generations) that it would be even more difficult to cover the large workforce once they retired due to declining birth rates. That's why they sped up FICA tax increases and phased in higher retirement ages.
And, because the tax increases would create additional revenue, they wanted to find a safe way to keep that cash cushion. That's the "surplus" that still exists today in the trust fund. But cash has a funny problem. It goes down in value due to inflation. That's why they started issuing special treasury bonds that are redeemable back into the trust fund once they reach maturity. Anyone remember what interest rates were like in the late 70s through mid-80s? They were insane. Cash sitting idle would've quickly been eaten up by inflation.
It's technically accurate that the government "borrowed" money from the trust when issuing these bonds. Because what is a bond if not an instrument of debt? However, this has nothing to do with solvency of the trust because the bonds have always been paid with interest right back into the trust account. If the bonds had not been issued the surplus would've already been LONG gone because of the effects of inflation.
It's really not that different than how a bank account works. When you deposit money into your checking or savings account that money gets lent out to many different people. Yet your "balance" still shows the same because the bank makes an accounting entry that keeps track of what they owe to YOU (that's what your balance is, it's a number showing what the bank owes you). Your money is not kept separate from other dollars in the bank. It's all comingled together as the bank loans money, pays expenses, etc. But it is accounted for to the penny.
Bank "accounts" are merely that. An accounting of funds. The money is not physically there. The minute you deposit it the bank uses it for something. An hour later when you swipe your debit card the funds used might be from someone's paycheck in California that was deposited a week ago. Your account is still solvent even though the money is used almost immediately once the bank receives it.
The US treasury is no different, and the Social Security Trust fund hasn't been raided or stolen from. Every dollar that is supposed to be there is there. It's just that most of the Social Security Trust fund surplus is held in interest accruing bonds instead of being held in cash. It's a good thing that is done. If it wasn't it would be been insolvent long ago.
Last edited:
Evan
Member
The idea that social security is hording retirement dollars until someone retires versus being pay as you go is one of the primary reasons it has been so difficult for reformers to convince the general public that action is needed. I've seen polling before that shows a majority of Americans believe that Social Security is based on paying in and then later on your dollars are returned to you. It's a fundamental misunderstanding of how the program was designed and setup.
There were beneficiaries of Social Security very shortly after it came into existence. Those beneficiaries certainly didn't pay into the system (or paid very little) so the money had to come from somewhere (it came from current workers at the time).
I think the attempts to fix the system in the 70s/80s really confused most people and led them into thinking that Social Security was meant to store their money for later use. But that's not how it was designed or how it functioned for the vast majority of its history. The reason there's a surplus is because Social Security started to run a deficit and legislation was implemented to fix that and to try to address future solvency concerns due to declining birth rates.
I'll be the first to admit I didn't always understand this or know this. I believed Social Security functioned like a store of retirement dollars for a very long time -- probably most of my adult life I thought it functioned like that. So, I'm not in anyway critical of anyone who still believes that. It can be quite confusing, and it requires a lot of in-depth study to understand the history of Social Security, previous reform efforts, demographics, and the current forecasts and accounting of the Social Security Trust fund.
Unfortunately, because most Americans don't understand this very complex problem it is preventing the issue from being addressed. Most current voters, particularly those 50+, have absolutely zero appetite for making changes to the program. But one day very soon action will be inevitable. Benefits will have to be cut or taxes will have to be increased. Young workers don't vote at a high rate, and few have any understanding of how Social Security works. They just know there's a problem, and they think they're going to be the ones who get screwed to fix it. You'd think that would make them want to vote...
There were beneficiaries of Social Security very shortly after it came into existence. Those beneficiaries certainly didn't pay into the system (or paid very little) so the money had to come from somewhere (it came from current workers at the time).
I think the attempts to fix the system in the 70s/80s really confused most people and led them into thinking that Social Security was meant to store their money for later use. But that's not how it was designed or how it functioned for the vast majority of its history. The reason there's a surplus is because Social Security started to run a deficit and legislation was implemented to fix that and to try to address future solvency concerns due to declining birth rates.
I'll be the first to admit I didn't always understand this or know this. I believed Social Security functioned like a store of retirement dollars for a very long time -- probably most of my adult life I thought it functioned like that. So, I'm not in anyway critical of anyone who still believes that. It can be quite confusing, and it requires a lot of in-depth study to understand the history of Social Security, previous reform efforts, demographics, and the current forecasts and accounting of the Social Security Trust fund.
Unfortunately, because most Americans don't understand this very complex problem it is preventing the issue from being addressed. Most current voters, particularly those 50+, have absolutely zero appetite for making changes to the program. But one day very soon action will be inevitable. Benefits will have to be cut or taxes will have to be increased. Young workers don't vote at a high rate, and few have any understanding of how Social Security works. They just know there's a problem, and they think they're going to be the ones who get screwed to fix it. You'd think that would make them want to vote...
Evan
Member
Did Trump's party have control of both houses of Congress at one time? They sure did. Why didn't they address the deficit and debt at that time?
Because Paul Ryan is a worthless P.O.S. that's why! McConnell is not much better. I said he needed a cooperative Congress.
gangstonc
Member
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">About an hour ago, the WH press secretary Stephanie Grisham put out a statement, saying: “The Israeli government can do what it wants," adding that reports that Trump urged Netanyahu to barr Omar and Tlaib are “inaccurate” <a href="https://t.co/ybJEQbmfYB">https://t.co/ybJEQbmfYB</a></p>— Manu Raju (@mkraju) <a href="">August 15, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Lies Lies Lies
Lies Lies Lies
Evan
Member
For the love of God...WHY???
Kory
Member
Lots of mineral resources and oil. Some of the largest remaining deposits on Earth...that we know of.
- Status