Displaying 1 - 10 of 290 Forum Posts1 2 3 4 5 Next
  • Aug 29, 2019 03:18 PM
    Last: 4d

    I agree on the four but would add Buttigieg to the running. I don't think he will win necessarily, but I think he can hang on to the same polling results or close to that Harris gets, enough to make the final primaries and be on the state ballots. That's my guess is if it does come down to more than 3 on the ballots next year, it'll be Harris and Buttigieg as the other two.

    I don't think Booker or O'Rourke will have the support to qualify for the debates down the road.

  • Aug 14, 2019 07:54 PM
    Last: 1mo

    Makes a lot of sense given how ridiculously expensive it is to live in most parts of Cali these days. Nevada is an interesting one. They only get 6 electoral points in the electoral college system for the presidential elections. That's a far cry from California's 55. But given this development its almost like California now has closer to 61.

    Nevada is also now one of the 15 states that are part of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. So we are inching closer to one person = one vote, regardless of state lines.

  • Aug 07, 2019 06:14 PM
    Last: 6d
    Seems like just another attempt to suppress certain votes in the name of fraud. When its been widely understood by most that voter fraud is negligible at best; hardly ever happens. Voting in general should be made easier for all, not harder. We already have a problem with voter turnout so this just smacks of gamesmanship to me.
  • Jul 05, 2018 04:26 PM
    Last: 1mo
    Kuya Wrote: Greetings! I find this a fascinating as well as pertinent discussion. I am a 60- year- old US citizen and serve as a missionary here in The Philippines. I was wondering--since hitting the six decade mark in March-- what the earliest possible age is to begin receiving even the bare minimum amount(whatever that is).The cost of living is much cheaper here,of course.The US Dollar goes far here.One USD is about 50 pesos.For that reason,it may not be such a bad idea to collect early.In the old days the minimum age was 65. I am a bit out of touch now,but in looking at the entries which precede mine it seems that the retirement age is now 70. Is that correct? Is sixty-too young to initiate the process? I think it was 62 before. I only found this website and registered today.It is a big help.This is very timely.Good forums and information. Thank you for any advice!

    Glad to have you on the site!

    This should help:

    Full Retirement Age

    It shows the full retirement age based on when you were born. Generally speaking you can start taking early Social Security at 62. And full retirement age is now between 65-67 depending on when you were born.

    Given that you are 60 now, if you are exactly 60, that would put your birth year at 1959? In that case your full retirement age is 66 years and 10 months. If your birth year is 1958, full retirement would be 66 years and 8 months. And for anybody born in 1960 or later, full retirement age is 67.

    Breaks it down too on the site for how much your benefits would be reduced if you take it early vs full. For example, if you take it as early as possible, 62, your benefits would be reduced by 30% of whatever you would have received if you waited until 67. And for every year you wait, it's less a reduction.

    Of course on the flip side, if you wait to 68-70, your payments would actually go up. So its all about circumstance.

    Your payouts will be less if you take them 5 years early, but then again you'll get 5 years of payments now vs none.

  • Jul 23, 2019 09:36 AM
    Last: 20d
    JFoster Wrote:

    I think this will only allow this same trouble to carry over into the 2020 election. Anyone else agree? Or would pushing a new system into action lead to unknown vulnerabilities in the next election?

    Same system with no improvements is just asking for repeat controversy. Definitely agree with you here. It always amazes me at how difficult states claim it is to update their voting systems. I honestly don't get it. There must be way more involved in the process than I would guess. Either that, or they just don't want to do it.
  • Jul 15, 2019 06:19 PM
    Last: 2mo
    Wow, I didn't know that was even a thing. This is a great way to bypass the electoral college system altogether. I'm not a fan of the electoral college, so I am all for this. 15 states, that's really good momentum for this. Interesting. Do you know when they all started doing this?
  • Jul 03, 2019 11:22 AM
    Last: 1mo

    Good info. I'll contribute by providing the link to your local Social Security office:

    Social Security Office Locator

    Online is the easiest way to apply but sometimes it helps to talk to someone in person. All you have to do from that link is provide your zip code and it'll show you all the offices in your area, with phone numbers and addresses.

  • Jul 01, 2019 12:47 PM
    Last: 2mo

    One thing I expect to see from this is each side catering to these changes in demographics. For example, the Democrats will double down on Hispanic support while the Republicans very likely will pivot their overall messaging to be more inclusive.

    Of course perception could still take a long time to set in. So you're right, it is possible for a traditionally red state to turn blue in the short to medium term.

    At least when it comes to the presidential election, as 48/50 states award electoral college points based on the popular vote in the state. For other elections that are done by districts, it will become a very contentious issue of where the lines are drawn.

  • May 14, 2019 11:48 AM
    Last: 20d

    We do have our first candidate of the top 20 to officially drop out - Eric Swalwell.

    Eric Swalwell drops out of 2020 presidential race, becoming first prominent Democrat to do so

  • Jun 25, 2019 04:38 PM
    Last: 3mo

    I am a fan of Andrew Yang's idea of giving everyone a baseline of $1000/month that's 18 or older, minus any money they are already receiving from the govt. The Freedom Dividend. I think he has a fairly sound idea of coming up with the funds in order to make it happen (VAT tax, could be a better idea but its sound enough).

    And I also buy into the idea of a 'trickle up' situation if we were to do that.

    But Yang didn't impress in his first showing to the public and I unfortunately think that will result in his campaign being over.

    Interestingly though, Kamala Harris' idea of a tax break on the middle class is something like a universal basic income, though not, as Vox points out. Here's the gist:

    The latest volley in the competition is the LIFT the Middle Class Act from Harris. As the Atlantic’s Annie Lowrey explains, the bill would offer a sizable cash payment to most middle-class households. Single people would get $250 per month or $3,000 a year, married couples would get $500 per month or $6,000 a year, and it would phase out for singles without kids making $50,000 or more, and for married couples or single people with kids making $100,000 or more. It costs about $200 billion in the first year or $2 trillion over 10, roughly in the range of the price tag for the 2017 tax cuts.

    Vox points out, I think correctly, the issue with it not being a perfect plan is who it excludes - the poorest and children.

    Also I am unclear on how it will be funded. Anyone know?

    Contrast that with Elizabeth Warren's idea - Accountable Capitalism Act. This would redistribute the wealth generated from the biggest corporations, funneling a good amount back into the workers hands. I am not super familiar but on the face of it, I like the idea.

    So they both have legislation proposed. Broad strokes I think Warren is getting to the root of the issue far better. Yet to be seen how realistic either of their proposals are though.