Politics

10186 readers

560 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:

Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
Social media should be a source of last resort.

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

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

Socialism

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

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

311

A confused Dianne Feinstein tried to give a speech in the middle of a Senate hearing vote and was told to 'just say aye' instead (www.businessinsider.com)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

115 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago (3 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?

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

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.

This would also incentivise politicians to try and increase average life expectancy, which is probably most easily accomplished with universal healthcare. So that would be a win as well

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

To be fair, the user you replied to suggested it be tied to life expectancy, not set exactly at it. Things like "set it at life expectancy minus x years" or "life expectancy times x", where x is some value less than one like 0.8 or something, would be situations where the retirement age is tied to life expectancy but where one doesn't have to live longer than expected to get one.

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

Problem with all of this is, life expectancy is going down, and we know they're not just going to kindly lower it to accommodate us. Look at what happened in France this year just to keep it at the same age