• Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, the built environment, planning adjacent topics, and anything else that comes to mind. No ads, no spam, and it's free. It's easy to join!

NEVERENDING ♾️ The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

giff57 said:
I heard a good theory for a fix, that would have been doable a decade ago when both sides of the aisle could work together. Reduce the medicare eligible age down to 55 or even 50. This takes the sickest group out of the private pool making its premiums lower and bring younger healthier people into the Medicare pool. Charge the new group in Medicare a premium that reduces each year until 65. This brings statistically healthier people into both pools and should lower premiums. But if such a plan is proposed by one side it will be opposed by the other.
Click to expand...

An added benefit is that it would encourage timely retirements. My dad worked longer than he really needed to or wanted to because he wanted to hit his Medicare eligibility. That, in turn, would improve opportunities deeper into the workforce as more people get promoted to fill those more senior positions. Suddenly you've got seniors being better taken care of, and you've got a more financially healthy younger workforce as well.
 
Suburb Repairman said:
An added benefit is that it would encourage timely retirements. My dad worked longer than he really needed to or wanted to because he wanted to hit his Medicare eligibility. That, in turn, would improve opportunities deeper into the workforce as more people get promoted to fill those more senior positions. Suddenly you've got seniors being better taken care of, and you've got a more financially healthy younger workforce as well.
Click to expand...

I think that is a ton better than what we have now. The only other question is how to we control corporate greed from insurance companies, hospitals, and pharmaceutical companies?
 
michaelskis said:
I think that is a ton better than what we have now. The only other question is how to we control corporate greed from insurance companies, hospitals, and pharmaceutical companies?
Click to expand...

Transparency would be really helpful. If everyone was covered, there wouldn't be a need for price discrimination based on payment method, right? So if facilities were required to provide pricing information that was publicly available, that would help a lot. Procedure X costs $3500...

I think even with everyone covered by insurance, there would still be a good basis for that kind of system. Depending on coverage, your out of pocket deductible could vary, so there would still be an incentive for consumers to "shop around" if they know they are in need of certain procedures.
 
gtpeach said:
Transparency would be really helpful. If everyone was covered, there wouldn't be a need for price discrimination based on payment method, right? So if facilities were required to provide pricing information that was publicly available, that would help a lot. Procedure X costs $3500...

I think even with everyone covered by insurance, there would still be a good basis for that kind of system. Depending on coverage, your out of pocket deductible could vary, so there would still be an incentive for consumers to "shop around" if they know they are in need of certain procedures.
Click to expand...

Very true, health care is the only consumer good for which we can price shop. The fees and charges are so, hidden, complicated and variable consumers have no idea. A regulation that providers quote or the price of services, would help immensely. The people that argue against single payer or a mixed system like I mentioned because we need to "let the market work" is ridiculous, there is no free market when consumers cannot shop based upon prices. .
 
gtpeach said:
Y'all see this yet? http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/24/politics/jeff-flake-retirement-speech-full-text/index.html

I wish people that weren't retiring were saying these things, but I guess there's a certain reality that once they speak out, they'll lose the party's support and likely have a hard time being re-elected.
Click to expand...

I'll take any Anti-Trump speech these days, especially from other Republicans. And I love hearing Trump make a total fool of himself on Twitter, but his Tweet storms are now so frequent, that people are becoming desensitized. The scary truth is, Flake's chances of re-election were pretty slim anyway, because of yet another Tea-Party challenger in a deep-red state. That doesn't bode well for the mid-term elections because you know that the vomitous Trump supporters will be coming out their little holes in droves.

If you think this year is ugly, just wait for what's in store for next year as more tea-party hardliners replace the rank and file. and this country careens ever closer to being a fascist, authoritarian dictatorship and First Amendment rights are extinguished.
 
So what's the big news today other than Sen. Jeff Flake's address yesterday?

pResident tRump asks Alaska Senators if they would like him to kill President Obama's renaming of Mount McKinnely. REALLY?!?!?!? This is a pressing issue??!?!?!? C'mon man.:-c8-!:not:
 
Super Amputee Cat said:
I'll take any Anti-Trump speech these days, especially from other Republicans. And I love hearing Trump make a total fool of himself on Twitter, but his Tweet storms are now so frequent, that people are becoming desensitized. The scary truth is, Flake's chances of re-election were pretty slim anyway, because of yet another Tea-Party challenger in a deep-red state. That doesn't bode well for the mid-term elections because you know that the vomitous Trump supporters will be coming out their little holes in droves.

If you think this year is ugly, just wait for what's in store for next year as more tea-party hardliners replace the rank and file. and this country careens ever closer to being a fascist, authoritarian dictatorship and First Amendment rights are extinguished.
Click to expand...

From what I've been reading, Flake was definitely going to have a tough primary against Kelli Ward but the Democratic candidate, current U.S. Rep Krysten Sinema, has been polling near or ahead of both Ward and Flake (and significantly further ahead of Ward as opposed to Flake). While Trump beat Clinton there in '16, Clinton out-performed Obama's 2008 and 2012 results. I think Arizona may be the one state where the changing demographics and the voting trends in the state might make it the best chance for the Dems to flip a seat in the senate race next year.
 
Yep, Chemtrail Kelli is the person you want. Technically she doesn't believe in the conspiracy, she just wastes everyone's time by allowing her constituents to constantly bring it up. Let's hope Arizona goes blue or at least purple. There's a chance. The bulk of the population is Phoenix area, conservative, but not entirely stupid. The stupid part is the number of out of state retirees that vote for Arpaio. The rest of the population tends to be Tucson area which is fairly blue and a scattering of smaller towns that can't outweigh Phoenix's influence.
 
I keep watching everything going on, including watching my own parents... I'm beginning to conclude that this generalization is increasingly looking more fair & accurate:

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/may/17/generation-sociopaths-review-trump-baby-boomers-ruined-world

No, not all of them obviously, but it is interesting to me that so many of the issues point to a single generation as the source.

A couple of quotes:

His essential point is that by refusing to make the most basic (and fairly minimal) sacrifices to manage infrastructure, address climate change and provide decent education and healthcare, the boomers have bequeathed their children a mess of daunting proportions. Through such government programmes as social security and other entitlements, they have run up huge debts that the US government cannot pay except by, eventually, soaking the young.

as someone with plenty of boomer friends who have done the same, I would like to let myself off the hook, but Gibney points out that while “not all Boomers directly participated, almost all benefited; they are, as the law would have it, jointly and severally liable”.

He doesn't go into the "why" very deeply and he also doesn't delve into racial variability in these tendencies. But you can't help but think there is something to it. Issues like disregard for facts adverse to beliefs, utter selfishness, hostility, etc. are hallmarks of this.
 
Suburb Repairman said:
I keep watching everything going on, including watching my own parents... I'm beginning to conclude that this generalization is increasingly looking more fair & accurate:

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/may/17/generation-sociopaths-review-trump-baby-boomers-ruined-world

No, not all of them obviously, but it is interesting to me that so many of the issues point to a single generation as the source.

A couple of quotes:

His essential point is that by refusing to make the most basic (and fairly minimal) sacrifices to manage infrastructure, address climate change and provide decent education and healthcare, the boomers have bequeathed their children a mess of daunting proportions. Through such government programmes as social security and other entitlements, they have run up huge debts that the US government cannot pay except by, eventually, soaking the young.

as someone with plenty of boomer friends who have done the same, I would like to let myself off the hook, but Gibney points out that while “not all Boomers directly participated, almost all benefited; they are, as the law would have it, jointly and severally liable”.

He doesn't go into the "why" very deeply and he also doesn't delve into racial variability in these tendencies. But you can't help but think there is something to it. Issues like disregard for facts adverse to beliefs, utter selfishness, hostility, etc. are hallmarks of this.
Click to expand...

Yeah Boomers by and large have some pretty sh***y tendencies. Of course there are many exceptions to this rule - like Jeremy Corbyn and Jello Biafra to name a few cool af boomers of the top of my head, but at the same time I dont have much hope for our Gen either.
 
By a show of hands........


How many of us think pResident tRump already has Manafort's pardon written and ready to be signed as soon as the sentencing happens?
 
Planit said:
By a show of hands........


How many of us think pResident tRump already has Manafort's pardon written and ready to be signed as soon as the sentencing happens?
Click to expand...

I don't really like this indictment. It says to me that that the special counsel doesn't really have enough and are hoping Manafort offers something up in exchange for a plea.
 
AG74683 said:
I don't really like this indictment. It says to me that that the special counsel doesn't really have enough and are hoping Manafort offers something up in exchange for a plea.
Click to expand...

Isn't that the goal, plea until you get the top guy.
 
I was really hoping the indictments today would have come down on Jared & Don Jr. along with Manafort.
 
Planit said:
I was really hoping the indictments today would have come down on Jared & Don Jr. along with Manafort.
Click to expand...

I just keep think Mueller does a complete investigation to the point the case is a slam dunk. He's just now getting enough he can start whacking people and if those people give up some others it just makes the next indictment better.
 
That Papadopolis guy plead guilty to lying to the FBI about meeting with Russians on behalf of the Trump campaign to seek access to Hillary's emails. So finally someone has now been indicted for Hillary's emails.
 
imaplanner said:
That Papadopolis guy plead guilty to lying to the FBI about meeting with Russians on behalf of the Trump campaign to seek access to Hillary's emails. So finally someone has now been indicted for Hillary's emails.
Click to expand...

I'm surprised Fox&Friends hadn't come up with that one. :D
 
Planit said:
I was really hoping the indictments today would have come down on Jared & Don Jr. along with Manafort.
Click to expand...

dvdneal said:
I just keep think Mueller does a complete investigation to the point the case is a slam dunk. He's just now getting enough he can start whacking people and if those people give up some others it just makes the next indictment better.
Click to expand...

I think to DVD's point, this is exactly why Manafort didn't get Jared and Don Jr. in this round. If he moves to indict either of them, Trump will do whatever it takes to remove Manafort. I think he wants to leave a slam dunk case against the two before he moves to nail them both.
 
AG74683 said:
I think to DVD's point, this is exactly why [STRIKEOUT]Manafort [/STRIKEOUT]Mueller didn't get Jared and Don Jr. in this round. If he moves to indict either of them, Trump will do whatever it takes to remove [STRIKEOUT]Manafort[/STRIKEOUT]Mueller. I think he wants to leave a slam dunk case against the two before he moves to nail them both.
Click to expand...

There I fixed that for you.
 
AG74683 said:
I don't really like this indictment. It says to me that that the special counsel doesn't really have enough and are hoping Manafort offers something up in exchange for a plea.
Click to expand...

I've read that some of this timing was related to potential statute of limitations issues. Plus, I suspect Mueller wants to rattle cages a bit to cause more folks to come out of the woodwork or to cause the administration to make mistakes. Nothing wrong with generating MORE evidence by causing panicked errors by the suspect.
 
Suburb Repairman said:
I've read that some of this timing was related to potential statute of limitations issues. Plus, I suspect Mueller wants to rattle cages a bit to cause more folks to come out of the woodwork or to cause the administration to make mistakes. Nothing wrong with generating MORE evidence by causing panicked errors by the suspect.
Click to expand...

I am also curious what the long term effect of this will be. Could it be enough to actually impeach Trump or is it just further proof that the entire system is corrupt and will never change?
 
michaelskis said:
I am also curious what the long term effect of this will be. Could it be enough to actually impeach Trump or is it just further proof that the entire system is corrupt and will never change?
Click to expand...

The system is just fine and is in fact doing what it was intended and designed to do. These little rascals have been caught with their hands in the cookie jar and are now about to face the music.

++
Yes, General Kelly, two-thirds of the country refused to compromise and leave their countrymen in bondage and so took up arms, and many laid down their lives, in support of their nation. Those are the honorable men. Sir!
 
Gedunker said:
The system is just fine and is in fact doing what it was intended and designed to do. These little rascals have been caught with their hands in the cookie jar and are now about to face the music.
Click to expand...

I am thrilled that they got caught. You know I have no love for the Trump administration. As for the idea that the system is just find an doing what it is intended... that is a load of crap and the fact that Trump is in the WH is proof of it. We did not elect the best candidate, we (the american people... I didn't vote for him) voted against Hillary in places where it mattered. Hillary still won the popular vote.

There is way too much money and lobbyists in politics right now.
 
How will the proposed tax plan change what you pay?

From what I could tell, I would end up paying slightly less than I did last year, but not enough to be excited about the plan. As I have said in the past, the plan should be simple enough that a my 3rd grader could do my taxes for me.
 
Tough to tell. As someone who typically takes standard deductions, I would probably come out ahead, however I plan an purchasing a home with my mom next year and move her to where I live. From that point on I would be itemizing deductions. And let me tell you, I will pay more in taxes as a single parent. The biggest issue would be the loss of the mortgage credit (capped at 500K, which is a huge problem for me would be home buyers in my market), loss of deducting state income taxes, loss of deducting student loan interest are huge impacts to me.

The proposed tax plan doesn't help middle income, single income earns. It fucks us. End of story.
 
Kudos to the Twitter employee how shut down Trump, even if it was only 11 minutes. That's 11 minutes free of his unintelligible vomitous spew. Some should set up a Gofundme account for him.
 
michaelskis said:
How will the proposed tax plan change what you pay?

From what I could tell, I would end up paying slightly less than I did last year, but not enough to be excited about the plan. As I have said in the past, the plan should be simple enough that a my 3rd grader could do my taxes for me.
Click to expand...

I'm in the same boat as far as I can tell. My biggest concern is what this will do to the overall revenue collected through taxes. I get that they want to reduce the rates and limit deductions/close loopholes. But I'm concerned that we'll end up with a huge revenue loss over all since it takes a while to figure out and close all the loopholes.
 
michaelskis said:
How will the proposed tax plan change what you pay?

From what I could tell, I would end up paying slightly less than I did last year, but not enough to be excited about the plan. As I have said in the past, the plan should be simple enough that a my 3rd grader could do my taxes for me.
Click to expand...

From what I have seen, we would lose a bit of deductions on student loans interest (I just hit the 10-years with a qualified public employer so have no more payments in 2018 anyway) and we would max out the property tax deduction, but only just barely. However, the majority of our household income comes from interest and dividends (entirely from my trust fund baby wife) and I haven't yet been able to figure out definitively how the proposed plan would change that. I've seen a few write-ups that show we would save quite a bit and some other write-ups that say there isn't much of a change to that. I'll wait until something actually passes to worry about it.

The proposal to start phasing out the estate tax would potentially save us quite a bit of money down the road.

FWIW, I understand that, thanks to my FIL and his wise investmenting, we are very fortunate and while the greedy part of me (and my wife) would love to see the estate tax wiped away we both know that wasn't money that we worked for or earned in any way and after marrying my wife and slowly combining our accounts I really got a firsthand education in how compound interest and dividends actually work and how the rich really do get richer. As much as it's against my own self interest, I don't think it should be eliminated completely. Instead, maybe just increase the point at where it kicks in from the current $5.3 million (or whatever the exact point is) to $7.5 million or $10 million. In the end, the estate tax already hits soooo few people each year that raising the level where it kicks in would be a small sop to the anti-estate tax crowd, still allow the government to capture some of the revenue, and (what I think is the most important part of the estate tax) stop family dynasties like the Vanderbilts or Rockefellers (or Trumps?) from continuing into perpetuity. It's still possible to pass on a lot of money tax-free to family members through trusts, generation skipping trusts, and other sheltered vehicles but I cannot see a good reason to allow somebody to just hand over $50 million or hundreds of millions of dollars to their kids tax free.

I think those who are in favor of keeping the estate tax around need to do a lot better job of talking about how few people it actually hits.
 
Failed Presidential candidate and now totally unqualified Dept. of Energy Secretary Rick Perry has indicated that fossil fuels prevent rape. His reasoning is that when the lights are on, it deters rapists.

...and Jeff Sessions did knowingly lie to Congress, but oh well he's still a good guy.

I don't know about you, but every day there's something on a new level of bat-sh!t crazy stupid out of this admin.
 
^ Everyday the Trump Administration works to prove how stupid the people who voted for them were for believing that Trump, being a "successful" businessman, would surround himself with the best and brightest managers - the most competent and least corrupt.
 
Planit said:
I don't know about you, but every day there's something on a new level of bat-sh!t crazy stupid out of this admin.
Click to expand...

There was plenty of bat-shit crazy stupid out of previous administrations before too. Please don't forget Eric Holder saying that we couldn't throw people in jail because some banks were "just too big too prosecute." What was the outrage from the left on that one? Feeble at best. Now, don't get me wrong. I did not vote for Trump and think he's a complete buffoon but I don't like the use of the alleged Russian involvement as an excuse for the D.C. establishment and MSM to hammer a POTUS that neither of them wanted. They are both sending a clear message to the electorate, i.e. "Vote for who we tell you to vote for, you ignorant peasant. We're running this show, not you.".

I'm also troubled by the incessant anti-Russian talk coming from so many people. Putin is a big goof (and maybe legitimately crazy) but so is our fearless leader. But I'd way rather have a solid relationship with Russia than Mexico. Whatever the hell it is we get out of Mexico isn't nearly an even trade. We send them our manufacturing jobs and they take a big crap over immigration laws and our borders. But yet the last POTUS spent 8 years brown-nosing the Mexican president. I'm still pissed thinking about how that asshat stood in the freaking Rose Garden lecturing our president about how the US should handle the millions of illegals he steered our way. And our guy just stood there and took it. That was sickening.

And by the way, we've been interfering with other countries' elections for years. IF it did happen the only way to handle it is to shut up about it and do your work unseen to make sure it does't happen again. My money is on "it didn't happen" with respect to colluding with Russian to rig the election. I'm sure laws were broken during the campaign because I'm sure they're always broken. And if laws are not broken, it's probably because something that should be illegal is not yet. Where was the hue and cry about how the Democrats rigged the election against Bernie Sanders? You don't hear squat about that. The only investigation that the Dems should be concerned about is how in the hell can they not come up with a decent candidate to beat someone like Trump? That's the whole problem with the party, out of touch with a hell of a lot of their former, traditional base.
 
pResident tRump tells the Japanese auto industry to try and build their cars in 'Mericah!

Speaking to a group of business leaders in Tokyo, Trump reportedly said: “Try building your cars in the United States instead of shipping them over. That’s not too much to ask. Is that rude to ask?”

Excuse me, but they've been doing this already for a number of years. They have 13 plants (with a 14th planned either in TX or NC) in 9 states.









...and MD, I agree that Obummer wasn't the best & the dems have as many problems facing them right now. Neither party has merit right now.
 
Hink said:
Local Election Day! 8-!
Click to expand...

I have two whole races to vote for, one of which is for my city councilwoman. Considering that I've lived in my fair city for all of two months and two days now and don't know a darn thing about the issues yet, I intend to vote for the woman who lives five houses down from me in the hopes I'll just be ale to stroll down the street and yell at her if I ever have issues with the city government. :p
 
Last edited:
Hink said:
Local Election Day! 8-!
Click to expand...

Here too. Nothing on the ballot for me this time around but my daughter's school is closed because it's a polling station and the city her school is in is electing new city council members.

I think the biggest thing on the ballot in Michigan is the mayoral election in Detroit. The current mayor, Mike Duggan, is facing off against Coleman Young Jr. Duggan is a pretty heavy favorite I believe.


Edit:

I forgot that one of the neighboring cities (the biggest in the county) has an initiative on the ballot that would require the city to get voter approval before they sell and/or develop any city-owned property.

This came about because the city is going through a bit of a development boom, especially along the busy, divided boulevard that serves as their downtown. The boulevard ranges from 3 to 5 lanes in each direction and is lined with mid-rise office buildings and a few shopping centers and all the accompanying acres of parking lot. A few years ago the city changed the zoning to encourage development within those parking lots and closer to the road in general. People were skeptical but there was an immediate boom in development - retail, commercial, and even some residential.

The city owns a large deep parcel along the main road where they have the library, community rec center, police/fire, and city hall but they have probably 100+ acres of undeveloped land there. It's a nice piece of green space but there is no actual park or trails or anything. The city has decided they'd like to put out an RFP and attract a developer to come in and build a mixed-use development with multi-family housing, high-end senior housing, and more retail (all of which are in high demand in that area right now) and turn it into an actual downtown... and generate some more tax revenue.

Personally, I think it's a very nicely put together plan and based on the demographics of the community, they are bound to attract quality developers. But there is a vocal group in the community who don't want to see the parcel developed and want to keep it as green space. FWIW, the parcel in question is basically right next to an interstate interchange on one side and a large urgent care and medical clinic on the other so it's not like it's particularly quiet but I can see how they'd like to keep some sort of green space along this booming stretch of road in a nearly built-out community.

Regardless of whether this parcel gets developed or not, I don't like the idea of every use of city-owned property needing to go to the voters. I hope this initiative fails.
 
Last edited:
Election day here too. We have a mayor and 5 aldermen. One of the aldermen is running against the mayor and two others aren't running at all so we're guaranteed a majority new board. The mayoral race seems close.
 
We have 9 people running for 3 Council seats. Two are incumbents and the 3rd incumbent isn't running. It looks like only 1 incumbent will be re-elected. The other that is running has done very little campaigning and has been out-of-town working for awhile. Of the remaining 7 candidates; 1 has done nothing (no signs, no forum appearances, etc.), 4 have worked really hard, and the remaining 2 have been working a little bit.

The funny thing is there is no real huge issue where the citizens are upset. The scary part is the single shot voters and the pure number of people running could spread out the votes. In a down year, a rainy election Tuesday, & no big issue, voter turnout will be low.
 
Election day! We have a hot school board election over the last board firing the superintendent for allegedly having an affair with another woman. Each candidate promises that finding the best superintendent is their top priority. We also have 3 city commissioners. The big argument, should the chamber be supported by the city more? So the chamber is running their board members for city commission.
 
Our big election here is the governor's race. And then several of the local elections are pretty contentious. The one in the county I just left is really bad. There were letters to the editor about it almost every day for the past month. It'll be interesting to see how much of that actually plays out when people vote, though. The one where I work now is a little contentious. Mostly it can be attributed to activists that are upset about the pipeline that's basically already been approved to run through the county.

I would like some turnover, but there's always risk in the unknown. So we'll just see what happens. I'm on fairly good terms with all of the candidates that are running that I've met, so I feel good about that at least.
 
Big flip day in our local election:

Current Mayor retiring, current councilmember running unopposed will take the Mayor's gavel

Two places normally up for grabs both have retiring councilmembers not seeking reelection. One new person is getting in unopposed (I like him--he's been inquisitive & imaginative about planning), and the other will either be a current P&Z commission member or a newbie.

We then have a special election to fill the councilmember's position that is becoming mayor. Kudos to him on resigning to match the timing to have a special election with the regular. It will either be a new person or a former councilmember that lost a few years ago. I'm ambivalent about the two.

I do have a general concern about this election locally... it is entirely possible that our Mayor & Council end up being all white men. That's not good, even though I don't think most of them harbor any ill will toward women, minorities or other underrepresented groups. It just doesn't look good though, and that lack of diversity means perspectives will be missed in the decision-making process.


------------


Unrelated: it appears shoes are about to start dropping on the Harry Weinstein's of the Texas Legislature

https://www.thedailybeast.com/women-in-texas-politics-started-their-own-shtty-men-list-a-year-ago
 
I see a cyburbian posted something about sexual assaults in TX politics. I think it is horrible what goes on in these places, but I fear that it is not isolated to entertainment or politics.

On a side note, there are 5 people running for 3 seats. One of the three who are running for reelection is a professional lobbyist and the other two are really cool and have personally took the time to shake my hand. One of the other two candidates was on the council years ago and did 10 years on the planning board. The other has never expressed his platform to me.

I am comfortable with the bubbles that I shaded this morning.
 
Suburb Repairman said:
Big flip day in our local election:

it is entirely possible that our Mayor & Council end up being all white men. That's not good, even though I don't think most of them harbor any ill will toward women, minorities or other underrepresented groups. It just doesn't look good though, and that lack of diversity means perspectives will be missed in the decision-making process.
Click to expand...

I understand where you're coming from but if folks that don't look like the current crop of elected officials don't even run, then tough noogies. They're called elections. You HAVE to run and get votes. That's how it works. Democracy is tough. You have to want it. And that means getting on the ballot and working your ass off to get elected. And just because groups that some consider under-represented don't have someone elected doesn't mean that their perspective will be missed in the decision making process as long as they participate where they can.
 
Back
Top