Medikare?? Medikade??

Jerry Rubin would be proud of you.

believer;741137 wrote:
When the Feds make it the law of the land that any type of tax increase (direct or back door) MUST be routed to paying down the nation's debt, then I'll listen to the "we gotta increase taxes to fix the mess" proponents. I don't think I'm in any immediate danger of having to listen though.

Totally agree with that and would stress that my view for the tax increase would be going to the debt, nothing else.
Time for everyone to pony up a little as well as give up some SS and Medicare parts to reduce the debt.

believer;741137 wrote:
When the Feds make it the law of the land that any type of tax increase (direct or back door) MUST be routed to paying down the nation's debt, then I'll listen to the "we gotta increase taxes to fix the mess" proponents. I don't think I'm in any immediate danger of having to listen though.

Totally agree with that and would stress that my view for the tax increase would be going to the debt, nothing else.
Time for everyone to pony up a little as well as give up some SS and Medicare parts to reduce the debt.

When you look at revenues historically as a % of GDP, there are a few outliers but this percentage is pretty consistent between 16-19%. And that includes periods where the highest marginal rates were 90%!!!

It's a time tested and proven dynamic that the more you raise taxes, the more people work to legally avoid and minimize taxes and sometimes illegally evade. Any plan calling for sustained revenues >19% of GDP is a complete fairy tale and non-starter. Obama pushing 23% will result in balanced budgets that become actual deficits when the projected revenues don't materialize.

The govt has to target a budget equaling 18% of GDP and to the extent they can collect a higher percent that should go to paying down the debt. 18% of a projected 15 trillion would equate to a base budget of 2.7 trillion. So, yes, we need massive cuts in spending. While we need to optimize revenues, there isn't nearly as much play there as people believe - history shows you can collect, on average, about 18%.

I'm by no means a FairTax proponent (completely the opposite), but at some point a federal sales tax of some form is going to be needed. It will essentially be an accounting trick that will create a sort of retroactive tax on savings, meaning that as those after-tax savings are spent the govt will get X% of additional revenue. The accounting trick being this debt liability offset by a deferred tax revenue in the form of this sales tax. That is essentially the position and impetus behind Kotlikoff's consumption tax proposal, which was the basis for FairTax before they then ran amok trying to make it progressive and the ridiculous idea that it could replace the entire tax system.

BGFalcons82;740963 wrote:Because, until this week, spending cuts have never occurred. I'm glad you acknowledge they need to happen, but raising taxes only gives the federales more reasons not to cut. Gutless worm-like elitists are so engrained in bringing home the pork they just can't stop themselves.

I'm confused. Are you a fan of the Mexican police or Spiro Agnew?

Either way, your rhetoric is amusing.

stlouiedipalma;743436 wrote:I'm confused. Are you a fan of the Mexican police or Spiro Agnew?

Either way, your rhetoric is amusing.

Just like to use different words at times. Nothing intended on that one, other than to get people to read it Got 'cha! LOL

Agnew...good one! Unfortunately, there have been thousands just like him coming through the halls of the Capitol since his turn.

obama political, class-warfare rhetoric doesn't sit well with S&P

Standard & Poor’s Puts ‘Negative’ Outlook on U.S. AAA
Standard & Poor’s put a “negative” outlook on the AAA credit rating of the U.S., citing a “material risk” the nation’s leaders will fail to deal with rising budget deficits and debt.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-18/standard-poor-s-puts-negative-outlook-on-u-s-aaa-rating.html

QuakerOats;743663 wrote:obama political, class-warfare rhetoric doesn't sit well with S&P

Standard & Poor’s Puts ‘Negative’ Outlook on U.S. AAA
Standard & Poor’s put a “negative” outlook on the AAA credit rating of the U.S., citing a “material risk” the nation’s leaders will fail to deal with rising budget deficits and debt.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-18/standard-poor-s-puts-negative-outlook-on-u-s-aaa-rating.html

Yep, sounds like Paul Ryan is the extremist.

From Friday, the House passed Paul Ryan's plan for the 2012 budget, with 4 Republicans voting no, and every Democrat opposing it:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/264901/house-gop-reunites-andrew-stiles?page=1

Looks like they got things together, after some heated discussion & debate over the 2011 budget. Even though it won't get past the Senate or the President, it's good to see some unity heading into what will surely be a battle over the 2012 budget.

My personal thoughts are, even though the $38 Billion was not enough, and wasn't cuts to mandatory spending, and was loaded with accounting tricks, it exposed many Democrats in Congress for the demagogues that they are. Listening to them, you would've thought the Republicans were canceling Medicare & SS, were sending armies of soldiers thru the streets to take poor people's money to be delivered to the rich, and were sending masses of women before firing squads. If that's how they act with a flimsy $38 Billion, you know what they're going to do with the bigger cuts- so the Republicans may as well stand their ground, go for the big stuff, and forget about political backlash, because it's going to come no matter what they do.

The inability of Congress to act and put together a meaningful plan to reduce debt will cost us, as we can see. If we don't act quickly, it will become more difficult for the US to borrow, and that will only exacerbate the problem.

QuakerOats;743663 wrote:obama political, class-warfare rhetoric doesn't sit well with S&P

Standard & Poor’s Puts ‘Negative’ Outlook on U.S. AAA
Standard & Poor’s put a “negative” outlook on the AAA credit rating of the U.S., citing a “material risk” the nation’s leaders will fail to deal with rising budget deficits and debt.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-18/standard-poor-s-puts-negative-outlook-on-u-s-aaa-rating.html

Most Americans won't hear about or see this -- and certainly the connection won't be made (as it should be) in the media that our debt problems have caused this, and that some very bad inflation could soon be heading our way. Again, if we had a media doing its job, more people might understand the precipice we're standing upon.

Writerbuckeye;743758 wrote:Most Americans won't hear about or see this -- and certainly the connection won't be made (as it should be) in the media that our debt problems have caused this, and that some very bad inflation could soon be heading our way. Again, if we had a media doing its job, more people might understand the precipice we're standing upon.

I think inflation will be a minor worry if we continue down this path. This is a big F'ing deal in the words of Joe Biden. But as long as the welfare checks keep coming who cares, right?

To be honest, I am getting to the point where I don't care whose plan gets adopted as long as something constructive is done. This political posturing is really getting old. If Congress doesn't want the responsibility we owe it to them to vote every incumbent out and start from scratch.

stlouiedipalma;743808 wrote:To be honest, I am getting to the point where I don't care whose plan gets adopted as long as something constructive is done. This political posturing is really getting old. If Congress doesn't want the responsibility we owe it to them to vote every incumbent out and start from scratch.

So you must be in favor of Ryan's proposal -- since that IS doing something constructive -- and I would guess you are most disgusted with the Democrats and Obama right now for their posturing against a proposal that would actually have an impact.

Geitner was on the other day talking about how they agree on the same target, something like $4 trillion over the next 10 years (yeah, maybe that will get us to a balanced budget while the debt continues to balloon over that period)....but disagree on how to get there.

What Obama and the Dems want to do (and not sure the Repubs would be any different if roles were reversed) is rely on accounting tricks, projections and "efficiency savings" to actually cut nothing now and continue passing the buck.

When I hear comments like "this will be too big a burden for retirees", all I can think about is, in the old days, grandpa and grandma moved back in with the kids to care for them and pay the bills. Everyone wants to have their cake and eat it, too. Maybe to the extent that reduced benefits/entitlements or taxes become a burden for some, they'll have to find a way to survive. Maybe the kids will have to wait to leave the nest a bit later, saving a few extra bucks (like that will ever happen) and helping out with the bills.

This country is going down in a spiral of debt. I say fuck the hardship empathy, people will find a way to adjust and survive. Maybe instead of giving handouts we should focus on teaching/forcing people to be more responsible - you can't afford a new car fresh out of college on $30k a year. You can't afford a $300k house if you're making $50k a year. Maybe you should put that $1000 away in the bank for a rainy day instead of getting a smartphone. C'mon!

Not that everyone living modestly is irresponsible, but I'd be willing to bet I could find thousands of dollars of wasted money in budgets of 50% of financial hardship cases. I'm sorry but when you have easy credit or family, friends, even the govt, as a safety net we ALL are at least a little more loose with our money. Simply put these programs and the amounts are far from 100% necessary.

Just instead of giving handouts why not have programs where we help people out of work find employment? Like, we'll give you unemployment if you meet with this person once a week to set up interviews and other things and discuss why you did/didn't succeed at the last one.

The problem with everyone cutting back though is that our economy is built entirely around our spending. So when we all cut back to within our means there is now a shortage of demand and therefore of jobs.

The problem with everyone cutting back though is that our economy is built entirely around our spending. So when we all cut back to within our means there is now a shortage of demand and therefore of jobs.

Yes, initially. Over the long run a nation that saves is a nation that prospers. We can't keep spending beyond our means endlessly and expect good results.

Agreed. Though I doubt our country is intelligent enough to understand that getting on the right path might actually set us back initially. I'm thinking we implement the plans, and then when in 2 years they don't work people say "see, didn't work" and vote in people who will reverse course.

I hate everyone.

sleeper;744041 wrote:Yes, initially. Over the long run a nation that saves is a nation that prospers. We can't keep spending beyond our means endlessly and expect good results.

That's mostly true. Too high of a savings rate (see Japan) can be crippling as well. Really the biggest impact has to do with the average age of the workforce. When your workforce shrinks, inevitably the economy has to go with it as people spend less in retirement. That's the issue facing most developed countries, particularly US, most of W Europe and Japan. China and India on the other hand have much younger and growing workforces. That's a fundamental paradigm shift that I don't think any economist has a solution to.

Now let's put that in perspective of what Washington is trying to do. The workforce (i.e. taxable base) will shrink, and GDP will grow much more modestly, if at all. And they're piling on more entitlements and at least the Dems are vehemently opposed to cutting benefits because "it's too much a burden on retirees". Well, something has to give because structurally the economy CAN NOT support what they are trying to do. It's really dangerous thinking in Washington, particularly from Dems and Obama (but Repubs, too) that we can just grow our way into a balanced budget and, eventually, a surplus. Not ever going to happen given the structural (and natural) changes happening in our economy.

I'd like to see someone ask a very simple question:

"You talk about not cutting benefits and instead want to focus on bringing down costs. Why can't you cut benefits and then focus on bringing down costs so that the negative impact is reduced or eliminated? " That way we don't get, you know, screwed if you don't do what you say you're going to do.

.........
CEO: "Frank, your operation is losing $1M this year. We need you to cut spending"
Frank: "Well, actually I have a plan to reduce those costs in future years"

CEO: "So we'll be spending less in future years?"
Frank: "No, actually we'll still spend more, but our revenues will start growing faster"

CEO: "But we're still going to lose $1M THIS year"
Frank: "Actually, we'll lose $2M, but we'll save $5M over the next 10 years"

CEO: "So, over the next 10 years we'll net a $3M profit?"
Frank: "I project we'll lose $7M, but that's only -$0.7M per year which is way better than -$2M this year!"
CEO "#winner"


Who the fuck would run a business like that?

gut;744080 wrote:Who the fuck would run a business like that?

Harry Reid, Chuckie Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Barry Obama, Barney Frank, etc., etc.

Writerbuckeye;743889 wrote:So you must be in favor of Ryan's proposal -- since that IS doing something constructive -- and I would guess you are most disgusted with the Democrats and Obama right now for their posturing against a proposal that would actually have an impact.

Ryan's proposal, while it seems to be a forward-thinking plan, is just more of the same partisan bullshit the Democrats preach. It just has different targets/priorities/victims. The way I see it, everyone out there is posturing against anything that is not their idea or ideal. It's all politics, don't you see that? None of these assholes give two shits for any of us. It's all about political power, getting it and keeping it. To believe otherwise is simply stupid.

Draconian cuts would take their superhero capes away.... http://www.theblaze.com/stories/14000-the-amount-a-calif-unemployment-office-spent-on-superhero-capes/

Does this expenditure fall under required spending, waste, fraud, or abuse?

stlouiedipalma;744835 wrote:Ryan's proposal, while it seems to be a forward-thinking plan, is just more of the same partisan bullshit the Democrats preach. It just has different targets/priorities/victims. The way I see it, everyone out there is posturing against anything that is not their idea or ideal. It's all politics, don't you see that? None of these assholes give two shits for any of us. It's all about political power, getting it and keeping it. To believe otherwise is simply stupid.

It's the first real proposal to come out that actually begins to address the long-term debt problem. Is that partisan? Yes, it cuts programs that are clearly linked with Democrats, but it's not a coincidence that those are the same programs in greatest need of addressing.

Sounds to me like you don't have any idea what needs to be done and are taking potshots at anything that comes out.

I'm skeptical but not cynical like you appear to be.

stlouiedipalma;744835 wrote:The way I see it, everyone out there is posturing against anything that is not their idea or ideal. It's all politics, don't you see that? None of these assholes give two shits for any of us. It's all about political power, getting it and keeping it. To believe otherwise is simply stupid.

/thread

stlouiedipalma;744835 wrote:Ryan's proposal, while it seems to be a forward-thinking plan, is just more of the same partisan bullshit the Democrats preach. It just has different targets/priorities/victims. The way I see it, everyone out there is posturing against anything that is not their idea or ideal. It's all politics, don't you see that? None of these assholes give two shits for any of us. It's all about political power, getting it and keeping it. To believe otherwise is simply stupid.

WebFire;746013 wrote:/thread

Disagree. Ryan's plan carries far more political risk it today's climate. It's waaay easier to promise free this, free that, unlimited entitlements, handouts for the poor and (insert victimized class here), and then to demagogue and whine when someone says "Umm, we can't sustain this for too much longer", than it is to basically say, "There's no such thing as a free lunch".

And Ryan was the first to come up with a real "plan"; Obama's speech was a reaction, and then everyone else did their posturing.