TRUMP 2016

[RandBlade]

In general I've never known anything with insurance in its title where what you get back is what you put in. What you may get back may scale with what you put in but it may be considerably more or less. Who gets more back: a millionaire who paid hundreds of thousands to FICA annually until he drops dead at 45 or a middle income earner who lives to 105?

Considering too that approximately 20% of FICA goes to fund Medicare and as far as I can tell Medicare receipts are based solely on need and eligibility rather than contributions even that tenuous earnings link is broken and it is simply a tax.

[Lewkowski]

Now I'm not really sure I understand his logic about why this system should influence how it's viewed wrt to general revenue. It's true that the money is earmarked (theoretically, again, given issues with the trust fund) and that the tax is very different than typical income taxes (it's a highly regressive combination income/payroll tax), and the size of one's benefits do scale with the size of one's contributions, but at the end of the day it still is money that you don't have to spend on things like rent and food.

The FICA tax is separate in my head from federal tax (which I default as federal income tax) which is why the numbers seemed off. I was explaining here why they are separate in my head. Either way it still comes out of the person's check.

[Lewkowski]

In general I've never known anything with insurance in its title where what you get back is what you put in. What you may get back may scale with what you put in but it may be considerably more or less. Who gets more back: a millionaire who paid hundreds of thousands to FICA anjually until he drops dead at 45 or a middle income earner who lives to 105?

Considering too that approximately 20% of FICA goes to fund Medicare and as far as I can tell Medicare receipts are based solely on need and eligibility rather than contributions even that tenuous earnings link is broken and it is simply a tax.

How long you live is likely the largest factor, clearly someone dropping dead at 45 isn't getting back out their funds. However if you want to group income earners together into an aggregate section of people (say people who annually made between 30-50, 50-70, 70-110, 110+) you collect more benefits based on how much you put in.

[wiggin]

In general I've never known anything with insurance in its title where what you get back is what you put in. What you may get back may scale with what you put in but it may be considerably more or less. Who gets more back: a millionaire who paid hundreds of thousands to FICA annually until he drops dead at 45 or a middle income earner who lives to 105?

Considering too that approximately 20% of FICA goes to fund Medicare and as far as I can tell Medicare receipts are based solely on need and eligibility rather than contributions even that tenuous earnings link is broken and it is simply a tax.

Obviously it's not a dollar-for-dollar match, that would be silly. But it does scale with your contributions.

A few other points: First off, no one pays 'hundreds of thousands' annually to FICA for Social Security. The maximum you'd pay is about $7k; there is a maximum amount of income that is subject to FICA for SS (about $118k currently), which is part of why the tax is so regressive. Secondly, there are two separate taxes that go to two separate revenue streams; a 6.2% tax that funds Social Security and a 1.45% tax that theoretically funds Medicare (it also has no maximum contribution limit, either, so the very wealthy can indeed pay a large amount into this; this is a bit of a red herring, though, since these are payroll taxes and the very wealthy make most of their money through dividends, capital gains, etc.). You are correct, however, that Medicare benefits are not paid out on the basis of how much one put in.

[RandBlade]

I never said "pays hundreds of thousands to FICA for social security". You added the last three words. I stopped with the word FICA as I was including the Medicare portion which is not just uncapped but has a supplementary.

By reckoning someone on an income of $30mn a year (like Indianapolis Colts quarterback Andrew Luck, without accounting for any potential tax deductions) would pay a total FICA tax of $435k per annum. Of which as you say a little over $7k would be Social Security and the rest would be Medicare. So it only scales with your contributions until you hit the cap.

[Loki]

You missed the part about most rich people not making their income from wages.

[wiggin]

RB-

Lewk said this, about SS:

What you pay into SS influences what you get back from SS. The federal income tax should be used to fund the federal budget while social security is a side thing. The fact that politicians have used it as a slush fund is a shame.

You said this:

What you pay you get back? All of it?

Here what you pay has a bare minimum correlation to what you get back.

It does not seem an unreasonable assumption that we were talking about Social Security taxes, which are in fact the large majority (~80%) of FICA taxes and are explicitly what Lewk referred to.

Loki correctly mentions that the vast majority of very high income individuals make most of their income from sources that are not subject to any FICA.

[RandBlade]

RB-

Lewk said this, about SS:

You said this:

It does not seem an unreasonable assumption that we were talking about Social Security taxes, which are in fact the large majority (~80%) of FICA taxes and are explicitly what Lewk referred to.

Loki correctly mentions that the vast majority of very high income individuals make most of their income from sources that are not subject to any FICA.

Yes but that was in response to my post of:

Are you including FICA in your federal tax calculations?

Followed by his reply of:

Oops yeah that makes more sense then. I tend to skip over it since FICA revenue/expenses and federal budget should really be treated completely separately.

So we were talking about FICA (not just Social Security) which I'd brought up but he then named just Social Security I'll agree, but in response to my having brought up FICA as a whole.

Loki is correct that the vast majority of very high income earners do indeed make up most of their income that way, but not all do by any means. There are people like the one I named who [barring tax dodges] do indeed have a salary in the tens of millions which means FICA taxes in the hundreds of thousands.

[Ominous Gamer]

Donald Trump is going to cut Meals on Wheels to pay for Mexican border wall
Meals on Wheels costs less annually than one of Trump's weekend trips.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/apps/...proposal/2179/



So Mexico isn't paying for the wall, Americans are. And not just any Americans, poor and vulnerable Americans. Trump at this point is no different than a cartoon villain.

[Ominous Gamer]

President’s budget proposal to eliminate federal library funding 'counterproductive and short-sighted'

Shawnda Hines
Press Officer
Washington Office
American Library Association
(202) 628-8410
shines@ala.org
WASHINGTON, DC — In response to President Trump's proposal to eliminate the Institute of Museum and Library Services in his FY2018 budget, American Library Association (ALA) President Julie Todaro today issued the following statement:

"The President's proposal to eliminate the Institute of Museum and Library Services in his FY2018 budget just released, and with it effectively all federal funding for libraries of all kinds, is counterproductive and short-sighted. The American Library Association will mobilize its members, Congressional library champions and the millions upon millions of people we serve in every zip code to keep those ill-advised proposed cuts from becoming a Congressional reality. Libraries leverage the tiny amount of federal funds they receive through their states into an incredible range of services for virtually all Americans everywhere to produce what could well be the highest economic and social "ROI" in the entire federal budget.

"America's more than 120,000 public, school, college and university and many other libraries aren't piles of archived books. They're trusted centers for technology, job counseling, retraining, veterans services, entrepreneurship, education, teaching and learning and free inquiry at the core of communities in every state in the country – and in every Congressional district. And they’re staffed by the original search engines: skilled and engaged librarians."

[wiggin]

Donald Trump is going to cut Meals on Wheels to pay for Mexican border wall
Meals on Wheels costs less annually than one of Trump's weekend trips.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/apps/...proposal/2179/



So Mexico isn't paying for the wall, Americans are. And not just any Americans, poor and vulnerable Americans. Trump at this point is no different than a cartoon villain.

OG, while I am violently opposed to the current budget proposal, one could make a reasonable argument for zeroing out at least a few small organizations entirely. There's no particular reason to keep funding things just because we always have. For example, I'm not convinced that the 'US Institute for Peace' does anything that isn't already done by, say, the State Department or academic researchers. I'm also not convinced about the need to keep partially funding one of the highest regarded think tanks in the world (the Woodrow Wilson Center) that even has a published plan for what they'd do if federal funding was cut. Or an organization (the African Development Foundation) that provides a miniscule amount of development aid to sub-Saharan Africa even though much larger and more effective programs already exist.

Obviously this doesn't mean I think we should get rid of PBS, NPR, or libraries. Or slash funding for the NIH and DOE's Office of Science. But that list you posted, while certainly containing some programs of real value, also contains programs of questionable value. I think it's worth it to have that conversation even while we resolutely oppose the idiocy that comprises about 95% of the budget proposal.

[Ominous Gamer]

I'm not opposed to such conversations. I'm not opposed to ending funding for programs that we honestly no longer have a need for.

I'm not comfortable with the current concept of throw it all out and see what sticks. I'm not comfortable with the party that thinks such an idea makes a solid budget proposal being the party in charge of deciding what is and isn't worth while.

I actually included the list like that to see who would be first to miss the forest for the trees.

[Loki]

http://forward.com/news/national/366...orka-as-sworn/

Funny how Nazis keep on being attracted to Trump.

[Loki]

OG, while I am violently opposed to the current budget proposal, one could make a reasonable argument for zeroing out at least a few small organizations entirely. There's no particular reason to keep funding things just because we always have. For example, I'm not convinced that the 'US Institute for Peace' does anything that isn't already done by, say, the State Department or academic researchers. I'm also not convinced about the need to keep partially funding one of the highest regarded think tanks in the world (the Woodrow Wilson Center) that even has a published plan for what they'd do if federal funding was cut. Or an organization (the African Development Foundation) that provides a miniscule amount of development aid to sub-Saharan Africa even though much larger and more effective programs already exist.

Obviously this doesn't mean I think we should get rid of PBS, NPR, or libraries. Or slash funding for the NIH and DOE's Office of Science. But that list you posted, while certainly containing some programs of real value, also contains programs of questionable value. I think it's worth it to have that conversation even while we resolutely oppose the idiocy that comprises about 95% of the budget proposal.

It has a very different mandate and incentive system to academia. They work in teams and spend a lot of time on projects before those are published, for example. They always have access that many academics do not. And it's not like the $40 million will be redirected into other political science research.

[wiggin]

It has a very different mandate and incentive system to academia. They work in teams and spend a lot of time on projects before those are published, for example. They always have access that many academics do not. And it's not like the $40 million will be redirected into other political science research.

I'm open to an argument that the Institute for Peace does something so unique and so critical to national interests that it deserves its own line item on the budget and can't subsist like every other think tank-like outfit out there. But I think that argument needs to be made explicitly; too often institutions that started on a single politician's whim continue on indefinitely without a good case to be made for their contribution.

For the record, I'm not singling out Poli Sci here - though obviously on a different scale, I myself question the value of NIH intramural research being intramural. What does the NIH bring to the table that isn't replicated at top tier research institutions around the US? Certainly an argument can be made in favor of it - especially the NIH Clinical Center, which is unique - but I think it's a discussion worth having.

I also would object to simply zeroing out any program that is important and useful but not necessarily worth its own protected line on the federal budget - obviously funding should be phased out in some manner (likely replaced by block grants that decrease in size while allowing for competitive applications for funding specific projects moving forward). But I don't think you can honestly tell me that every little federal program, no matter how useful, has continued justified existence in the budget. Unless it's truly unique and can't be achieved in other means, it's hard to justify these small programs that look a lot more like pet projects or pork.

[Aimless]

http://www.haaretz.com/us-news/1.777...E7F2C6B81A5CC8

Hilarious if true.

[Loki]

I'm open to an argument that the Institute for Peace does something so unique and so critical to national interests that it deserves its own line item on the budget and can't subsist like every other think tank-like outfit out there. But I think that argument needs to be made explicitly; too often institutions that started on a single politician's whim continue on indefinitely without a good case to be made for their contribution.

For the record, I'm not singling out Poli Sci here - though obviously on a different scale, I myself question the value of NIH intramural research being intramural. What does the NIH bring to the table that isn't replicated at top tier research institutions around the US? Certainly an argument can be made in favor of it - especially the NIH Clinical Center, which is unique - but I think it's a discussion worth having.

I also would object to simply zeroing out any program that is important and useful but not necessarily worth its own protected line on the federal budget - obviously funding should be phased out in some manner (likely replaced by block grants that decrease in size while allowing for competitive applications for funding specific projects moving forward). But I don't think you can honestly tell me that every little federal program, no matter how useful, has continued justified existence in the budget. Unless it's truly unique and can't be achieved in other means, it's hard to justify these small programs that look a lot more like pet projects or pork.

Let's just say I don't trust the Trump administration to use a proper evidence-based analysis to determine which programs are a good bang for the buck and which are not.

[wiggin]

Let's just say I don't trust the Trump administration to use a proper evidence-based analysis to determine which programs are a good bang for the buck and which are not.

Hah, I'm in agreement with you on that one. I do wish that administrations that do have such capability were actually inclined to use it more frequently.

[RandBlade]

Let's just say I don't trust the Trump administration to use a proper evidence-based analysis to determine which programs are a good bang for the buck and which are not.

I don't trust the Trump administration to choose between Coco Pops and Rice Krispies for breakfast in the morning. Switch for US alternatives if they don't exist there.

[Timbuk2]

Meanwhile, in Trumpton ...



... GCHQ is now accused of being behind Obama's wiretapping of Trump Tower ...

Britain's GCHQ agency denies wiretapping Donald Trump

Britain's communications intelligence agency GCHQ has issued a statement denying it wiretapped Donald Trump during the US presidential campaign.

The unusual move by the agency came after White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer cited claims first made on US TV channel Fox News earlier this week.

GCHQ responded by saying the allegations were "nonsense, utterly ridiculous and should be ignored".

Mr Trump has claimed that Trump Tower in New York was under surveillance.
But he has provided no evidence for the claim.

A Senate committee on Thursday concluded that there were "no indications" Trump Tower was under surveillance by the US government before or after the election.

The claims of GCHQ involvement were initially made by former judge Andrew Napolitano.

Mr Spicer quoted Mr Napolitano as saying: "Three intelligence sources have informed Fox News that President Obama went outside the chain of command.
"He didn't use the NSA, he didn't use the CIA, he didn't use the FBI and he didn't use the Department of Justice, he used GCHQ."

A GCHQ spokesman said: "Recent allegations made by media commentator Judge Andrew Napolitano about GCHQ being asked to conduct 'wiretapping' against the then president-elect are nonsense.
"They are utterly ridiculous and should be ignored."

It is unusual for GCHQ to comment directly on a report about its intelligence work, normally preferring to stick to the policy of neither confirming nor denying any activity.

The phrase "utterly ridiculous" is also very unusual for the agency.

But it's a sign of just how seriously they take it. The allegations are so sensitive that the agency clearly felt they could not let them go unchallenged.

Donald Trump's claim that the Obama administration had ordered surveillance on him has generated enormous attention but with so far no evidence to back it up.

And British intelligence is clearly determined to avoid being drawn into what is an increasingly toxic row in Washington.

[Dreadnaught]

Trump's budget seems to be a pretty standard negotiation tactic, in which everyone who falls outside of his broad priorities needs to hector Congress to get back into the house.

It's similar to when noted right-wing firebrand Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) started drafting tax reform legislation with zero deductions and asked all special interest groups to explain why they deserved a deduction.

It makes the room very noisy, but also clarifies the need to prioritize (not necessarily eliminate) when so many interest groups are on the dole in some way or another.

May the budget Jihad continue

[Aimless]

Is Trump's terrorism expert an illegal immigrant, a clown, or both?

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/03/17/...ampaign=buffer

[Loki]

Here's Fox's most popular shows openly voicing white supremacist views (edit: the video is from 2009):

Twitter Link

[RandBlade]

If you keep marrying other species then that's a problem. That sort of crap should only happen in Wales or New Zealand.

[Steely Glint]

Based on the observations that literally anything Republicans accuse Democrats of doing they are, at that very moment most likely, doing themselves I believe Trump is using GCHQ to bug Obama.

[RandBlade]

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/i...20170317124290

[Aimless]

do they serve popcorn at congressional hearings?

[LittleFuzzy]

Nunes: *summarized into one statement for brevity* "Did Russia hack the election count? No? We're done investigating Russia. Let's go shoot some leakers!"

[Aimless]

#fakenunes

[Loki]

They're not even trying anymore.

Twitter Link