General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAt first blush, the SOTU sounds great -- until you start delving into the substance
The President sounded some good themes last night. Unfortunately, when it came to the issue of raising the minimum wage, he swung not for the bleachers, but rather for the dugout. Once again, his opening volley in what will surely be a back-and-forth negotiation with (or capitulation to) Republicans, of $10.10 per hour probably means we'll be lucky if we see $9/hr when it is all said and done.
The MyRA proposal strikes me as a distraction from the more pressing issue of addressing Social Security (i.e., raising the cap). As a reader on Alternet observes:
< . . . . >
What I've heard no one discuss is the president's shocking planned end-run around Social Security which he calls "MyRA". An individualized private investment plan that supplements, (i.e., supplants and circumvents the existing SS retirement plan). Instead of removing the cap and extending the viability of SS well into the future, MyRA does nothing to address future SS problems and instead lays the groundwork for its competition, in which citizens are 'encouraged', (wink-wink) to manage their own retirement.
< . . . . >
In addition, I fail to see how these MyRAs will make it any easier for working people to save for retirement. The 'problems' the MyRAs appear to address are those of (1) risk to principal investment, and (2) uncertain return. But the reason working people haven't been saving for retirement is not because standard IRAs are too risky or their returns too uncertain. The reason people haven't been saving money for retirement is that their real wages have been flat for the last two decades, thus they don't have any money left over, after meeting basic living expenses, to save. The proposed MyRAs do nothing to address that fundamental problem.
I was encouraged by much of what the President said about the environment. But then he went on to tout continued fracking. And then, in a final contradiction, he proceeded to champion his beloved trade agreements -- particularly the TPP, which works at cross-purposes of both environmental protection and income inequality.
On the surface, it sounded like a great speech, and he certainly did an impressive job of delivering it. But sadly, like so many things with this Administration, when you begin delving into the substance of it, you find it's a hot, muddled mess.
vi5
(13,305 posts)Great speech, poor substance, minimal action (except on the bad, Republican things).
DonViejo
(60,536 posts)You might be correct but, isn't it better to have the proof in the pudding before creating your own distraction and leading folks off a cliff?
markpkessinger
(8,401 posts). . . Sorry my impressions were not all sunshine and lollipops, but this IS a discussion board. I'm not leading anybody "off a cliff."
DonViejo
(60,536 posts)sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)are code: conservative policy wrapped in progressive rhetoric. Wall Street knows that and so should you. If you wait for the pudding you discover it's been concocted to feed rich people and you might get a chance to lip up the crumbs if your lucky.
tridim
(45,358 posts)The President said nothing about "further fracking". Zero.
markpkessinger
(8,401 posts). . . even if he didn't specifically call for more of it:
One of the reasons why is natural gas if extracted safely, its the bridge fuel that can power our economy with less of the carbon pollution that causes climate change.
The problem, of course, is that there is very little evidence that fracking can be done safely.
tridim
(45,358 posts)"If extracted safely".
Most natural gas is NOT extracted via fracking.
You posted the quote, you really don't see the difference? Weird.
markpkessinger
(8,401 posts)The new supplies of natural gas -- the ones that have led to us now being exporters -- are virtually all from the Marcellus Shale region -- and that IS fracked gas.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)you dont think you or I get to decide. The oil companies will produce tons of "experts" that will testify that fracking is safe.
It would have been easy for him to exclude fracking, but he didnt.
MyNameGoesHere
(7,638 posts)or any commitment to making sure it is extracted safely. Sometimes, especially in the political realm, what is NOT in a speech is very important. I think he just gave the natural gas industry a pass on safety concerns from fracking. We won't regulate you any more than you are now. Remember these speeches also take into account what NOT to say.
markpkessinger
(8,401 posts). . . by way of making it easier for people to save for retirement isn't really a matter of optimism or pessimism. It's empirical.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)It makes up things out of whole cloth that were not said and then develops unfavorable opinions from made up things.
markpkessinger
(8,401 posts). . . What, exactly, did I "make up?"
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)The MyRA plan doesn't supplant or circumvent the existing SS retirement plan ... it SUPPLEMENTS it, as evidenced by this introductory line:
http://theweek.com/article/index/255674/how-will-obamas-new-myra-retirement-plan-work
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)on that one.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)It was not all bad ...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4408143
markpkessinger
(8,401 posts). . . and I'll grant you, saying that it is intended to supplant or circumvent Social Security was a leap. But it does represent an effort to further push people into managing their own retirement savings, which in turn feeds into the agenda of those who would like to see Social Security drastically reduced or eliminated. But it wasn't my central point in any case. I was simply pointing out that, to me at least, by touting these instruments as an answer to the problem of retirement savings, while not addressing at all the issue of Social Security, it looks to me as if the President was trying to distract from the Social Security problem -- which is, and remains, the most pressingaspect of the question that needs to be addressed.
Also, other than the convenience of auto-enrollment at work, these MyRAs aren't really any different from an IRA anyone can already open at a local bank. Again, touting this as a solution to inadequate retirement savings completely ignores the fact that most working people have not been able to save even if they had wanted to.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)you posted what someone else saying that MyRA is a plan to cut social security; but it had nothing to do with your concurring opinion. But then you write here:
You can't have it both ways ... you either believe it "a leap" or it "feeds into the agenda of those who would like to see SS drastically reduced or eliminated.
And then further, do you have/want to have an IRA (or another retirement savings vehicle)? Does that mean you are one of those who would like to see SS drastically reduced or eliminated, because you have/want self-managed retirement savings?
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
LuvNewcastle
(16,856 posts)The rest of it can go into the trash. But I doubt they'll even get that one little thing done. They'll probably give us privatization of Social Security and passage of the TPP and they'll all brag about how they can work together. Anytime they get a chance to fuck us, we get bi-partisanship.
Niceguy1
(2,467 posts)Havent intentionally listened to one in years.
Myrina
(12,296 posts)I was aghast to hear Amy Klobuchar on MSNBC post-speech last night talking about the cuts to SNAP in the Farm Bill (paraphrasing) "The GOP wanted $40B in cuts, we wanted $4B, so $8B is a good compromise. Besides, it will only affect targeted groups in 16 states - it doesn't affect my constituents so I'm ok with it."
WTF??? NO CUTS are acceptable. NONE. ZERO.
Regardless of who's constituents they affect.
WTF DEMS??
markpkessinger
(8,401 posts)LuvNewcastle
(16,856 posts)knowing all the time that the Democrats would be dying to negotiate with them. The GOP probably wanted 10 billion in actuality, so they got it pretty close to where they wanted it. The GOP knows how to negotiate, and they always seem to have the Dems on the defensive. Funny how it always seems to end up that way.
Myrina
(12,296 posts)n/t
stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)Both parties work together to deliver results to TPTB.
It's so freaking obvious at this point.
LuvNewcastle
(16,856 posts)ananda
(28,876 posts)..
sunnystarr
(2,638 posts)that the "targeted groups in 16 states" won't qualify for SNAP anymore once the minimum wage is raised to $10.10/hour.
RC
(25,592 posts)Kind of surprising for Minnesota.
geardaddy
(24,931 posts)NV Whino
(20,886 posts)People are so enamored with the rhetoric that they fail to see it lacks substance.
jsr
(7,712 posts)TheMathieu
(456 posts)They are vocal, mostly insignificant, but collectively part of what's wrong with our country.
We need to start ignoring them and stop rewarding their petulance with attention.
And no, they are not concentrated on just one end of the political spectrum.
markpkessinger
(8,401 posts). . . but I do have some serious policy disagreements with him in certain areas. I'm sorry if your thinking isn't nuanced enough to be able to discern the difference.
tridim
(45,358 posts)It comes across as ODS and blind hate because it is a lie.
You still have a chance to retract, but I'm guessing you wont.
markpkessinger
(8,401 posts)If you are still on the fracking point, note that I did edit the language of my post. It now reads "tout continued fracking." And I stand by that claim. The President was proudly boasting of America's near energy independence. That has come largely from the vast new supplies of natural gas, most of which have come from the Marcellus Shale region and are extracted, contrary to your assertion, by fracking. You can't have it both ways: if the President is going to reference natural gas as a significant part of that energy independence, he is at least clearly supporting the fracking that is already occurring (even if he isn't specifically calling for more).
The other observations I made were about the MyRAs and his reference to trade agreements. He may not have referenced the TPP by name, but when he spoke of "new trade partnerships with Europe and the Asia-Pacific," at a time when his administration is actively seeking to push the TPP through Congress, to deny that he was indirectly referencing the TPP is to engage in a level of denial that approaches the pathological.
So tell me again where I "lied" in my OP?
tridim
(45,358 posts)Later.
markpkessinger
(8,401 posts)adirondacker
(2,921 posts)"Dean's brother Jim Dean, chairman of the liberal advocacy group Democracy for America, offered a harsher tone: "The speech's bold message is a strong first step, but the country and progressives expect the president to deliver on his promises."
Back in Tauber's living room, there was no applause and few smiles after Obama finished his address.
"It was a typical mainstream centrist speech," Deborah Shah, who leads the group Progressive Massachusetts, said as she headed for the door. "I'm generally underwhelmed.""
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/obama-state-of-the-union-democrats
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)appears encouraged.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024407391
Oh no ... whom to side with? Wait ... aren't/weren't they on the same side?
adirondacker
(2,921 posts)party includes the likes of a past crazy uncle's McCarthyite political beliefs. To be quite honest, I like Barack Obama as a person, but the appeasement of the center right and wealthy has worn thin on my admiration of him as president. Perhaps he'll take off the gloves at some point, but I highly doubt someone, that is this pragmatic, will.
I wasn't sitting at the edge of my seat cheering last night during the SOTU, but then again I wasn't wanting to throw a rock through it and turning it off, like the previous occupier.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)You indicate "Pragmatic", i.e., prag·mat·ic adjective \prag-ˈma-tik\
: dealing with the problems that exist in a specific situation in a reasonable and logical way instead of depending on ideas and theories,
as if that's a bad thing in a President, with a divided government with an uncompromising opposition and divided electorate.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Yes, there were a perpetually bitter fringe that never liked Dubya. Here around the DU we call them "Ten Percenters" because they were only ten percent of the population when C Plus Augustus was at the peak of his popularity, a negligible portion of the population.
Oddly enough it was the ten percenters who turned out to be correct in the long run.
Imagine that.
madokie
(51,076 posts)Man o man
f* f* f*
ProSense
(116,464 posts)I don't think that's a reason to scrap it.
"The reason people haven't been saving money for retirement is that their real wages have been flat for the last two decades, thus they don't have any money left over, after meeting basic living expenses, to save. "
He's increasing the minimum wage for hundreds of thousands, pushing to increase it overall and to create jobs with higher wages, and offering an alternative to the existing and restrictive retirement savings vehicles.
Why is that bad?
markpkessinger
(8,401 posts). . . can't wait to see how fast those MyRA balances add up!
Look, there's nothing wrong with raising the minimum wage. The problem is $10.10 isn't nearly enough of a raise to lift people out of poverty. Will it help? Of course. But it remains woefully inadequate.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Look, there's nothing wrong with raising the minimum wage. The problem is $10.10 isn't nearly enough of a raise to lift people out of poverty. Will it help? Of course. But it remains woefully inadequate."
...that's beyond inaccurate. It will have a significant impact.
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/dean-baker/53892/president-obamas-inequality-story
by Lawrence Mishel
A higher minimum wage is an important way to address wage inequality, as the erosion of the minimum wage is the main reason for the increase in inequality between low-and middle-wage workers (in particular the 50/10 wage gap, that between the median and the 10th percentile earner). This is particularly true among women, the group for whom the wage gap in the bottom half grew the most. As the figure below shows, two-thirds of the increase in the 50-10 wage gap can be attributed to the erosion of the real value of the minimum wage. [The 50/10 wage gap grew 25.2 (log) percentage points between 1979 and 2009 and that two-thirds of this increase (16.5 percentage points, or 65 percent of the total) can be attributed to the erosion of the minimum wage.] The paper this figure draws on usefully and appropriately captures the spillover impact of the minimum wagethe impact on those earning above the legislated rate. This finding makes sense, since it was in the 1980s that the minimum wage eroded the most, and that was the same time period when the 50/10 wage gap among women expanded greatly. The erosion of the minimum wage explains over a tenth (11.3 percent) of the smaller 5.3 (log) percentage point expansion of the 50/10 wage gap among men. For workers overall more than half (57 percent) of the increase in the 50/10 wage gap was accounted for by the erosion of the minimum wage.
- more -
http://www.epi.org/blog/tight-link-minimum-wage-wage-inequality/
markpkessinger
(8,401 posts). . . I said that raising it to a paltry $10.10 isn't nearly enough of a raise to accomplish that goal. Will it be a significant help to the recipients? Of course -- I never suggested otherwise. It's just way too small an increase.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)markpkessinger
(8,401 posts). . . then a single, full time worker, even at the current $7.25, is already above the poverty threshhold ($11,490 is the threshhold for a single adult). But I think we can both agree that the federal threshhold is obscenely low. I would argue that anything less than about $20-$22K for a single adult still constitutes effective poverty in most areas of this country.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021247600
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)the minimum wage worker; but rather the middleclass ... as evidenced by this introductory sentence:
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)I think it should be a minimum of 25 dollars. I did express my thoughts on this last week and was criticized on this site no less. It was rather disappointing to say the least.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)Non-existant. Can't save anything if there isn't enough money to play the bills in the first place.
Until about 4 years ago I worked mostly as an executive assistant for some prominent people/companies. I was well compensated. I was lucky enough to have a 401k, but when it came to putting money away, there was a mortgage, car payment and basic living expenses. I didn't live lavishly at all, bought (and still do) all my decor 2nd hand, lived in a modest neighborhood in a small house
I never could afford to put money away, to invest etc. Then a divorce, a layoff, and a husband who was taking credit cards out in my name and taking cash advances landed me destitute, the 401k liquidated and i am STILL living hand to mouth.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)Myrina
(12,296 posts).... would I really want to be investing it with the same crooks and creeps who live by insider trading, ponzi schemes and book cooking?
Sounds like a guaranteed way to kiss more of my own money goodbye - I'd be better off lighting it on fire, at least I could benefit temporarily from the heat.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)After hearing the SOTU Address, my hopes for winning DU Response Bingo looked pretty dim, as I had:
on every one of my 6 cards.
But thanks ... you filled my square ... and all before 9:00a.m.!
The MyRA plan is NOT an attempt to supplant or circumvent the existing SS retirement plan; but rather a plan to SUPPLEMENT the existing SS retirement plan.
http://theweek.com/article/index/255674/how-will-obamas-new-myra-retirement-plan-work
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)screaming about the looming retirement catastrophe. They will be handled by the bankers, so another sweet kiss to that group. Unfortunately, as you say, people have no extra money to save anyway, so this will affect a small percentage of Americans. Obama knows that. He just wants that difficult woman to stop making it hurt.
markpkessinger
(8,401 posts). . . I wonder if it will work!
Common Sense Party
(14,139 posts)IRA plans already exist, and you can get a much better yield on other types of savings vehicles and investments.
Then, the President attacked the tax benefits of 401(k)'s, which is just foolish and short-sighted.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)But IRA Plans, while likely to yield more than the MyRA plan; they are also subject to loss of premium, unlike the Treasury Bond based MyRA plan.
Common Sense Party
(14,139 posts)You can put your money in a CD, in muni bonds, in annuities and have the same basic protection of premium. And you can put your IRA in Treasuries.
This doesn't really solve anything.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)it was to "solve", so much as provide an alternative.
Common Sense Party
(14,139 posts)But with so many real problems that need solving--big, hairy problems--I don't know why he's wasting time with these alternatives.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)the perceived lack of safe retirement plans alternatives is a big, hairy problem, for those that perceived lack of safe retirement plans alternatives.
I guess one speech can't please everyone.
markpkessinger
(8,401 posts). . . Potential loss of premium is not, and has not been, the primary barrier to people saving for retirement.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)But it DOES distinguish between the MyRA plans and other IRA plans (which was my purpose).
lostincalifornia
(3,639 posts)to minimum wage?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)issue an Executive Order requiring new federal contractors to pay a minimum wage of $10.10/hr.
lostincalifornia
(3,639 posts)Needs congress