Wil congressional BS ever stop?

[not2old 0]

It seems to me if our esteemed representatives were serious they would:
#1. adjust social security, pay the tax on ALL the money you make, ya earn 3 million- ya pay on 3 million.
#2. adjust social security, if you are making over $100,000 a year in retirement then I don't think ya "need" that social security check.
and #3...
Line Item Veto ! (yeah, like that will ever happen, but it would sure make a lot of one term presidnets!)

SOS #1314

[airdvr 210]

Quote

It seems to me if our esteemed representatives were serious they would:
#1. adjust social security, pay the tax on ALL the money you make, ya earn 3 million- ya pay on 3 million.

Agreed

#2. adjust social security, if you are making over $100,000 a year in retirement then I don't think ya "need" that social security check.

Hold up there. What about the money I paid in? Don't tell me I can't have it.

and #3...
Line Item Veto ! (yeah, like that will ever happen, but it would sure make a lot of one term presidnets!)

Too much power to the POTUS.

To answer your question...no.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[champu 1]

I think they should get rid of the "OA" and just keep the "SDI" portion of social security.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

It seems to me if our esteemed representatives were serious they would:
#1. adjust social security, pay the tax on ALL the money you make, ya earn 3 million- ya pay on 3 million.
#2. adjust social security, if you are making over $100,000 a year in retirement then I don't think ya "need" that social security check.
and #3...
Line Item Veto ! (yeah, like that will ever happen, but it would sure make a lot of one term presidnets!)

Not sure what any of this has to do with "congressional BS." Can you elaborate.

#1 - your SS benefits are based on your pay in for your top 35 years. If you increase the max pay-in, you increase the benefits to be paid out. And since it only applies to earned income, not options, capital gains, it really more effectively punishes the middle class in the urban areas where the salaries and cost of living are higher. As it stands, the increase in the max level has represented a nearly 100% FICA tax increase over the past 15 years.

#2 - not exactly motivation to save then, is it? I've paid well over 100k into SS - this would represent a considerate portion of my retirement savings.

#3 - line item veto would increase the power of what is already deemed the Imperial Presidency, a branch considerably more powerful than the other 2. It would also eliminate the point of compromise by the minority party - any concessions could simply be veto'd off. In short, you might as well adopt a parliamentary government with a prime minister at the top.

[masterrig 1]

Just a question... Couldn't the line item veto eliminate a lot of the 'pork barrel' spending?


Chuck

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Just a question... Couldn't the line item veto eliminate a lot of the 'pork barrel' spending? Chuck

Potentially. There are pros and cons. Here's a decent Wiki summary:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line-item_veto_in_the_United_States

[not2old 0]

The original intent of social security was to provide a blanket for folks that had nothing when they got old. The unfortunate truth in life is that there will always be people who have nothing and will need help. Back in the "good old days" a community took care of its own, however, it just doesn't work that way anymore, nor can it, there are just too many of us.
I say we should consider all income as a base. After all, the more ya have the less you will miss (heck, if you're making all that much you probably aren't paying taxes anyway, which is why I think a flat tax on everything has merit)

If you have been fortunate enough to be able to position yourself to be able to retire with $10,000 in your pocket each and every month...do you really need an extra $1200..let me amend that...if you make over $25,000 a month. I see no reason for you to collect a social security check. bask in the glow that you are helping folks less fortunate than yourself.

Line item veto-- the original intent, I believe, was that a bill should be able to stand on it's own merits, the purpose of amending it was to refine it, not sneak in pork and butt butter on a otherwise great and necessary bill. Obamacare is a classic example...is there anyone that knows what all is in it? Yes, in the short run it will give unbelievable power to the president, for one term at which time he or she will suddenly learn that each and every time they screw the people the people will know about it and they, and their party will not be reelected.

SOS #1314

[masterrig 1]

Thank you. It just seems to me, there is too much 'pork' spending and mostly, it seems to benefit congressmen or senators to get votes and stay in office. Possibly, limiting terms of office for congress and senate to two terms could help. The president is limited to two terms... why not the others?


Chuck

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Thank you. It just seems to me, there is too much 'pork' spending and mostly, it seems to benefit congressmen or senators to get votes and stay in office. Possibly, limiting terms of office for congress and senate to two terms could help. The president is limited to two terms... why not the others?


Chuck

California has proven quite well, in my opinion, that the term limits contribute little in the ways you suggest. And a line item veto means that only the President's party can put pork in. And as I already wrote, that compromise will tend not to occur.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I say we should consider all income as a base. After all, the more ya have the less you will miss (heck, if you're making all that much you probably aren't paying taxes anyway, which is why I think a flat tax on everything has merit)

Are you a student in real life as well as skydiving? You didn't understand what I wrote. You're proposing a tax increase on the middle class of California, New York, etc. We do pay fucking taxes. And we would miss the money. That money gets invested into something that actually would provide us for in retirement.

Quote

If you have been fortunate enough to be able to position yourself to be able to retire with $10,000 in your pocket each and every month...do you really need an extra $1200..let me amend that...if you make over $25,000 a month. I see no reason for you to collect a social security check. bask in the glow that you are helping folks less fortunate than yourself.

First 100k, now 120k, and finally 300k. So you're onboard with means testing, now it's just about the level. I suspect you won't find many people collecting with incomes of 300k/year (suggests portfolio size of ~10M), so when the cost savings fail to occur, then the threshold will move down until it does. It won't be about who needs it or not, but who can generate the savings.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

a line item veto means that only the President's party can put pork in.

Exactly; that's why, on balance, I'm generally opposed to it.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

And a line item veto means that only the President's party can put pork in. And as I already wrote, that compromise will tend not to occur.

Now there's talk being floated about giving the WH transfer authority between funds - seems like that would do much the same thing.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[masterrig 1]

Quote

Quote

Thank you. It just seems to me, there is too much 'pork' spending and mostly, it seems to benefit congressmen or senators to get votes and stay in office. Possibly, limiting terms of office for congress and senate to two terms could help. The president is limited to two terms... why not the others?


Chuck

California has proven quite well, in my opinion, that the term limits contribute little in the ways you suggest. And a line item veto means that only the President's party can put pork in. And as I already wrote, that compromise will tend not to occur.

In the long run... we're still screwed.


Chuck