Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Kerry has said he plans to raise pay and standards of living in general, both for troops and for their families at home, which I would imagine means increasing not just pay, but also improving housing and providing for additional family support.

My impression is that ALL of Kerry's plans involve huge expenditures.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
I think you only read the edited quote that so many of the big papers and sites put out. If you read the actual transcript (including before and after what they all quoted), I think you'll agree with me.

The transcript itself was edited, as I recall.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
(who, with his wife, chose not to terminate a pregnancy after she had contracted Ruella in the first trimester and consequently had a blind child)

Let this be a lesson to all you breeders to get your titers checked if you are trying to get pregnant. There are reported cases of infections in vaccinated women because the immunity conferred by vaccination wanes over time.

eta - just googled it, and there are reported cases of rubella reinfection in women who have had a natural infection, too, so either way, get your titers checked.

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
They found that abortion rates, which had been falling steadily in the 1990s began to increase (in Colorado, dramatically) since Bush went into office. They cite a few reasons for this: decline in income, increase in unemployment, lack of health insurance, and lack of social services. Ultimately, they conclude that economic factors are heavily tied to abortion rates and people who care about abortion should not consider it separately from other domestic issues.

I doubt it has to do with income. It has to do with social acceptance of abortion.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by bilmore
Okay, I'll predict that women married to rich older men fake more orgasms than anybody else.

I agree, but is the woman in that relationship more likely to be a Dem or a Rep. The man is more likely to be a Rep, but I don't think the woman is and she is the one doing the faking.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Not Me
They should have broken it down along gender lines within the party affiliation groups. Men don't fake orgasms. Men are more likely to be Reps and Women are more likely to be Dems. So, duh, does it come as any surprise that Dems fake orgasms more often? All that tells you is the women are more likely to be Dems.

They should have broken it up according to income, too, because I think that would explain some of the results. Dems as a group have lower average incomes. If you are male in particular, how much money you have can affect your satisfaction with your sex life. You can buy access to women who you are more sexually interested in if you have the money. Take Trump for example. So some of the results just confirm what we already know - men with money can buy access to better looking women and men on average are more satisfied with sex with better looking women. Take Tiger Woods for example.

I would have like to have seen it broken down further as well. The poll shows that Republicans are far more likely than Democrats to have "worn something sexy to enhance their sex life." Now, I know for Bill O'Reilly that this means a loofah mitt, but what does this mean for W, Ashcroft, or Mary Cheney (who is a lesbian)?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by bilmore
I think there are some large period-of-transition cash requirements that would need to be faced, but that's really the only true cost inherent in the idea.

My problem with it is, yeah, we'll get great retirements in a boom economy. But, when our private SS investments trash in another bubble burst, and the basic SS benefit isn't enough to sustain life (because it's predicated on an additional bump from the private investment portion), are all the oldies then gonna go on welfare for the gap?

Well, in a rational world, a large portion of retirees will have invested in a balanced portfolio of both debt and equity, and will be fine, if not as well of as they might have been otherwise.

Those who can meet the means test will in fact wind up getting some public subsidy. However, my estimation is that the total governmental outlays will still be less than the cost of raising taxes or going further into debt to repay the trust fund, plus pay in any additional amounts needed to fund the shortfall for the retiring boomers.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by bilmore
I think you only read the edited quote that so many of the big papers and sites put out. If you read the actual transcript (including before and after what they all quoted), I think you'll agree with me.

I read the transcript after you posted a link to it and argued that Cheney was taken out of context. After reading the transcript, I felt my original interpretation had been reinforced.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Kerry has said he plans to raise pay and standards of living in general, both for troops and for their families at home, which I would imagine means increasing not just pay, but also improving housing and providing for additional family support.

He's also talking about respecting service rotations and eliminating the "back door draft". One thing that apparently is killing recruiting is the fact that no one knows the scope of their commitment.

There are a lot of people who are willing to give a certain period of time, even with the risk to life, but who just can't envision an unlimited commitment. As soon as people start getting let out of the reserves, you'll likely see a huge outflow because of this policy and this war - people willing to be called up for a year are ending up overseas with their life on hold for a year and a half or longer.

I have one relative who did a 1 year stint during Iraq I and is now commanding an outfit in Afghanistan, and being held over. His wife is very clear about the fact that it's time to end this reserve stuff, he's not going to miss the last few years he has with the kids before they leave home.

Frankly, it's going to be an uphill battle to undo the damage that has been done to the armed forces, and a tall order for Kerry as well.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Not Me
I agree, but is the woman in that relationship more likely to be a Dem or a Rep. The man is more likely to be a Rep, but I don't think the woman is and she is the one doing the faking.

Well, I'm a Republican, and if some woman is going to be faking an orgasm with me, she damn well better be a Republican, too.

Or, I guess, a Democrat. Or an Independent. Or a commie . . .

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I would have like to have seen it broken down further as well. The poll shows that Republicans are far more likely than Democrats to have "worn something sexy to enhance their sex life." Now, I know for Bill O'Reilly that this means a loofah mitt, but what does this mean for W, Ashcroft, or Mary Cheney (who is a lesbian)?

I thought that was an odd one, too, since women are more likely to wear something sexy to attract their partner than a guy is. I have never been with a guy who tried to wear something sexy for me. What would that be anyhow (other than a loofah mit)?

I think that one can be explained by income, too. Rep women are more likely to have the money to buy sexy clothing.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I would have like to have seen it broken down further as well. The poll shows that Republicans are far more likely than Democrats to have "worn something sexy to enhance their sex life." Now, I know for Bill O'Reilly that this means a loofah mitt, but what does this mean for W, Ashcroft, or Mary Cheney (who is a lesbian)?

Cf. J. Edgar Hoover.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Well, in a rational world, a large portion of retirees will have invested in a balanced portfolio of both debt and equity, and will be fine, if not as well of as they might have been otherwise.

Those who can meet the means test will in fact wind up getting some public subsidy. However, my estimation is that the total governmental outlays will still be less than the cost of raising taxes or going further into debt to repay the trust fund, plus pay in any additional amounts needed to fund the shortfall for the retiring boomers.

The world of individually directed retirement accounts is far from rational, and I would think you would be aware of this. How do the comparative costs come out if a bunch of people keep their SS-replacement accounts in CDs or money market or stable value funds?

Also, if the system ends up with one group of people living off their accounts and another (poorer) group getting $ from their accounts and directly from the gov't, it's really identifiable as welfare (instead of being disguised, like it is now) and that will cause issues.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Speak for yourself.

How the hell would that work?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
The world of individually directed retirement accounts is far from rational, and I would think you would be aware of this. How do the comparative costs come out if a bunch of people keep their SS-replacement accounts in CDs or money market or stable value funds?

Also, if the system ends up with one group of people living off their accounts and another (poorer) group getting $ from their accounts and directly from the gov't, it's really identifiable as welfare (instead of being disguised, like it is now) and that will cause issues.

My research tends to show that over a thirty-year cycle, short-term cash-equivalents, money-market funds, bonds, and equities all tend to return about 3-4% real income. So, unless you have some assclowns trying to time the market for thirty years, or writing naked calls with their retirement accounts, on balance most people will be okay.

And I'm advocating going to a true welfare system, regardless of the issues. Social security is little more than inadequate welfare for poor retirees and ridiculous welfare for wealthy retirees now.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
you are a moron

Next time I want to engage in civilized discussion and witty reparte, I'll be sure not to look your way.