this post was submitted on 28 Jul 2023
297 points (100.0% liked)

Politics

10167 readers
28 users here now

In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.


Guidelines for submissions:

These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.


Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Senator Dianne Feinstein appeared confused during a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing on Thursday. When asked to vote on a proposal, Feinstein began giving a lengthy speech instead of simply saying "aye" or "nay" as requested. The committee chair, Senator Patty Murray, had to repeatedly tell Feinstein "just say aye" and remind her that it was time for a vote, not speeches. After some delay, Feinstein finally cast her vote. A spokesperson said Feinstein was preoccupied and did not realize a vote had been called. The incident raises further concerns about Feinstein's ability to serve at age 90, as she has made other recent mistakes and often relies on aides.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 116 points 1 year ago (4 children)

If 67 is the age of retirement in this country, then every single politician should be leading by example and retiring by then. I’m so sick of these geriatrics effectively ordering an entire lobster before they leave the restaurant and stick the younger folks with the bill.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (15 children)

I think that would just result in an even bigger push by right-wing politicians to move the retirement age even higher.

Better would be to tie it to the average life expectancy, updated with each census.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Why should we be punished if life expectancy goes up? Nobody should have to work until they're too old to fully enjoy life.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (6 children)

That's literally the opposite of what I said

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's how I interpreted it too. Just because we're living longer doesn't mean our capacity for work is stretching further. My knees are already going out and I'm not near retirement age. I don't want to be stuck working longer, hating every moment of it, knowing that all this means is now I won't actually get to enjoy retirement

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

To play devil's advocate, when Social Security was established (bringing with it the concept of a "retirement age"), the age of eligibility was deliberately set such that less than half of Americans would live long enough to draw on it. The clear expectation was that you would work until you couldn't anymore.

That said, in an era when changes in life expectancy are starting to take on a K-shaped distribution and labor force participation has been on a long steady decline, tying governmental income support to age and employment duration is becoming distributionally regressive. I'd much rather have some sort of UBI system that everyone can benefit from.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago (4 children)

I'm not a fan of this. Moving the retirement age to life expectancy would mean that you only get to retire if you live beyond your expiration date.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago

I think they mean "average life expectancy minus n years" where n is fixed at 15, or whatever. But I disagree with this too. If you work 40 years, you deserve to retire in comfort. If a billionaire needs to have one fewer boats to help cover the cost boohoo to them and their other 5 boats.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think Kerrigor meant that requiring politicians retire at the age of retirement would cause a push for retirement age to get bumped higher, and that it would be better for the maximum age for a politician to be tied to the average life expectancy (e.g. no more than 10 years younger than the average life expectancy, or some such).

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Yep precisely! Sorry, I phrased it poorly. But this is exactly what I meant. If politicians are required to resign at retirement age, it creates a perverse incentive for them to RAISE the retirement age - which would be bad.

If it is tied to life expectancy minus ten years, then it is based on data that adjusts automatically, and it's less about age itself, more about average life expectancy remaining.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

All this talk about "life expectancy" tied to retirement. Am I the only one around here that's blue collar tradesman that's gonna die in there 60's? How is 67 a reasonable retirement age?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

You’re probably right. And it’s not like any of them will ever vote for term limits. Our political system is a joke.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 year ago (9 children)

No the retired need representation as well. You can't right a wrong with another wrong. There needs to be a system in place for health evaluation and once you fail that without having a viable and reasonable path to improvement then you're ineligible to be reelected. This needs multiple, separate, groups of people involved to reduce the risk of being used as a tool to oust undesirables. I can't design such a system but I trust that people more well versed in how government works in the nitty gritty could design a suitable, acceptable system.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

They need representation, they don't need to be the whole representation. In fact, I'd say that 55+ people represent them quite well, since they are aiming to retire in the next decade anyways.

I mean, they can vote, and they are a big sector of the voting base, so even if the politicians are younger, there will be enough of them wanting to please the 67+ sector.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Let's add some babies and teenagers while we're at it. I don't see them represented.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I have no problem with lowering the voting age to 16.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

If they're allowed to work, they should be allowed to vote.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Babies and teenagers are represented by their parents…at least in theory.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Old people can just be considered represented by their adult children then.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

Yeah, it's not a great theory. Plenty of kids have bad/absent/dead parents. Plenty of old people have neglectful/nonexistent children.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Voting is supposed to do all this for us, it is the check/balance.

Problem is that more than half of Americans who should vote, don’t vote.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

They're more than wealthy enough to engage in other activities and hobbies. They got rich in civil service, now it's time for them to GTFO and make room for a younger, ~~progressive~~ leftist generation.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

More likely they'd just raise the retirement age then...

[–] [email protected] 26 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Absolutely disgusting, completely disconnected from not only the nation but reality itself.

just another traitor standing in the way of progress

Just like RBG, too interested in personal power and ego, what else is new I guess

Edit: and naps, who doesn’t love a little power nap

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

I don't think she has enough consistent cognitive functionality to know wtf is going on really.

She's being propped up by Pelosi rather than being allowed to decompose horizontally with dignity.

It's indicative of just how corrupt the political class is in every western country

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago

I don't think she's interested in much besides naps at this point.

This is 1000% on her staff, family, and colleagues.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 1 year ago (4 children)

I'm way past sick of this fucking gerontocracy. The people determining the future should have a stake in it.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Kudos for using the word "gerontocracy".

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

I am proud of my vocabulary, but I don't know that I'm unique in my use of the word. Thanks, in any case!

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago

While I think she's missed too much, she's quite old, and I think she should be replaced (though I'm not in her area so this is a moot point really), did anyone here actually watch the video?

This is a confusion in procedure and happens all the time.

Here is the video, go to 53:40 approximately:

https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/hearings/full-committee-markup-of-fiscal-year-2024-defense-interior-and-environment-labor-health-and-human-services-education-and-homeland-security-appropriations-acts

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago

Just fuckin stooooopp already JFC

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago

People decry most "both sides" arguments for legitimate reasons. But this geriatric pandering takes place on both sides. It is absolutely disgusting to witness.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The GOP is dying for the left to pick up the mantle of putting age limits on serving in congress and the courts. It will help galvanize their base of older folks to vote. Don't fall for it.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago

The GOP is dying for the left to:

  • Protect women's health
  • Do something about health care in general
  • Do something about gun violence
  • Protect the working class
  • Address any of the many systemic issues

It will galvanize their base. Don't fall for it.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

Baphomet help us all!

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

Term limits need to be implemented and a basic mental aptitude test should be required

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

Is this year’s Congress the new Black Adder series?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

My guess is that most politicians just do what their staffers tell them. We're just seeing behind the curtain with Feinstein.

load more comments
view more: next ›