tmarine253 0 #1 January 21, 2011 Has anyone seen this, I would like to hear peoples opinions on it, personally I think it is a crock of shit. http://www.usnews.com/news/washington-whispers/articles/2011/01/20/house-gop-lists-25-trillion-in-spending-cuts Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NWFlyer 2 #2 January 21, 2011 We have a place to discuss this stuff. It's not Bonfire . Now don't go ruining my self-imposed vacation from Speaker's Corner by bringing politics in here. "There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tmarine253 0 #3 January 21, 2011 Apologies I thought I put it in the speakers corner. Can someone move it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #4 January 21, 2011 The end result will be that politicians will talk and talk and talk, yet the spending will increase. It takes both sides to accomplish this and they both view the PEOPLE as the enemy. They always harp on the PEOPLE needing to sacrifice, yet they all enrich themselves. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tmarine253 0 #5 January 21, 2011 Totally agree, not to mention they want to decrease unemployment but cut federal employment by 15%, they want to cut funding to the DC Metro and Amtrak (which takes thousands to work everyday in that area) honestly makes no sense to me what these people draft up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #6 January 21, 2011 $250 billion per year over 10 years? $2.5 trillion sounds like some amazing savings, and it is. But seeing as how that is enough to balance the budget for a year and a half. Cutting a deficit from $1.3 trillion per year to $1.05 trillion per year is progress but really - it doesn't mean that the drain isn't being circled. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,998 #7 January 21, 2011 Good start. Now cut the GOP's favorite programs (defense, homeland security, veteran entitlement programs) and you'd have something. Come to think of it, that might work. Have each legislature propose cuts. Either side can add, neither side can veto. Both sides would scream bloody murder of course ("but . . . but . . . WHAT ABOUT THE TROOPS?") but you could make some significant cuts that way. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rstanley0312 1 #8 January 21, 2011 QuoteGood start. Now cut the GOP's favorite programs (defense, homeland security, veteran entitlement programs) and you'd have something. Come to think of it, that might work. Have each legislature propose cuts. Either side can add, neither side can veto. Both sides would scream bloody murder of course ("but . . . but . . . WHAT ABOUT THE TROOPS?") but you could make some significant cuts that way. I'm with you Bill..... on everything but the troops beneefits unless congress and the rest of the govt. workers take the cut too.... actually I think they should all take the cut and sacrifice for those who have served in the military.Life is all about ass....either you're kicking it, kissing it, working it off, or trying to get a piece of it. Muff Brother #4382 Dudeist Skydiver #000 www.fundraiseadventure.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,998 #9 January 21, 2011 > on everything but the troops beneefits . . . Nope, everything. If one side can save their favorites, so can the other side. And you end up with no significant cuts at all - which is how we got here in the first place. > unless congress and the rest of the govt. workers take the cut too.... Sounds good. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #10 January 21, 2011 QuoteNope, everything. If one side can save their favorites, so can the other side. And you end up with no significant cuts at all - which is how we got here in the first place. Right. Which means to do anything of any real significance, they must attack: (1) Social Security; (2) Defense; (3) Unemployment/Welfare/Mandatory Spending (4) Medicare; and (5) Medicaid Those are 75% of the budget right there. Another 5% is interest on National debt. Homeland Security is about 2.5% of the budget - significant but peanuts compared to the nearly 20% that is Social Security. And since Medicare will be growing in the next few years to the largest single portion of the budget, something has to be done about it. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #11 January 21, 2011 How could they cut beach replenishment?? Bastards. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Channman 2 #12 January 21, 2011 >..."cut federal employment by 15%..." My understanding is the 15% would come from natural attrition and if government wanted to hire, the ratio would be 2 to 1, 2 government jobs lost could only be replaced with 1 hired. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jimmytavino 16 #13 January 21, 2011 as long as tax cuts for the wealthiest remain... maybe eliminating Soc Security checks to those elderly with HUGE portfolios, extensive stock holdings, and /or properties should be considered... I KNOW that this is a touchy subject... but The true intention of Soc. Sec. was a 'retirement plan' for workers,, back when it was established. and i have NO problem with that.... For middle class and lower middle class folks who DID work, and worked hard, all their lives... But to give it to those OVER a certain age.. when those folks already HAVE a fair degree of wealth,,, seems like adding a cherry to to the top of their "Sundae with ALL the trimmings"!!!! while so many others have Not even a "spoonful of ice cream".. The Real measure of a society is how they treat the down trodden and suffering members of the community...especially IF those members HAVE worked all their lives.. The "haves" should be pleased to think, that they ARE helping others,,, through acceptance of a plan which limits THEIR Soc Security,,, once they have, Say... Two Million bucks... in their piggy banks.. right?? or Wrong??? i stand ready to be blasted...... jt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #14 January 21, 2011 The problem with means testing is the "moral hazard" it creates in that it is a disincentive to participate in your own retirement planning. The problem with SS and Medicare is that neither are funded by the people who take from it. It's only funded by people presently working. Kallend himself has lauded the 7-1 return SS pays. Because it's a Ponzi scheme. And we all know what ultimately happens with a Ponzi scheme. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Channman 2 #15 January 21, 2011 > But to give it to those OVER a certain age.. when those folks already HAVE a fair degree of wealth... "Probably the greatest harm done by vast wealth is the harm that we of moderate means do ourselves when we let the vices of envy and hatred enter deep into our own natures." Theodore Roosevelt "If an American is to amount to anything he must rely upon himself, and not upon the State; he must take pride in his own work, instead of sitting idle to envy the luck of others. He must face life with resolute courage, win victory if he can, and accept defeat if he must, without seeking to place on his fellow man a responsibility which is not theirs." Theodore Roosevelt "I don't pity any man who does hard work worth doing. I admire him. I pity the creature who does not work, at whichever end of the social scale he may regard himself as being." Theodore Roosevelt Just my .02 cents Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #16 January 21, 2011 QuoteThe problem with means testing is the "moral hazard" it creates in that it is a disincentive to participate in your own retirement planning. The problem with SS and Medicare is that neither are funded by the people who take from it. It's only funded by people presently working. Kallend himself has lauded the 7-1 return SS pays. Because it's a Ponzi scheme. And we all know what ultimately happens with a Ponzi scheme. All insurance and annuities work in a similar manner. There's no significant difference between a private retirement annuity and SS.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jimmytavino 16 #17 January 21, 2011 NO envy NO hatred... at ALLLLLLi have been a hard working person for over 40 years Now.... and i Have amounted to something, thanks to that.I place No responsibility for ME... on Anyone... Nor do i wish to be asked to Provide for others.. through my mandated taxes and contributions... can you say F I C A ??? Had i been given the option to put every Dollar and every Matching dollar from Employer,, ( which in My case is one and the same.. since i am self employed ) into a secure, sound, retirement system for Me,, which gains a modest interest rate. i would have chosen that...in a heart beat Instead i had zero choice and HAD to endure payroll taxes, just like every one else... ( We NOW seeeee where THAT has gotten us. ) In an effort to follow "conventional wisdom" I bought into the IRA concept. back in the 80s' and '90s. which basically just allowed my hard earned $$$$ to get mixed into a stock system, money market account system,,, which became like a Huge Cookie jar.. into which, many of Those in the Know, regarding such things, were able to Reach, and to remove, said dollars... Granted.. i did have a say about what "vehicles" i'd choose to put those dollars, but history has shown that the majority of "money managers" did much better than the "general public" regarding such accounts. Lots of folks, thinking they WERE on track.. got simply sideswiped.. (with an emphasis on SWIPED ), by "downturns" in the Market.. Too Bad.. So Sad...I DO work. and have since i'm 14 years of age.. I've never collected unemployment,,, nor disability, nor received ANY type of Social services $$$$.. (rent subsidies, food stamps, medical assistance, etc...) i don't begrudge ANYone who has earned their way to Wealth.. I applaud them. I strive to BE them... I do have issue however, with those who enjoy wealth simply through their geneology, and prospering only because 2 or 3 generations Before them,,, did all the work...( the proverbial Silver Spoon concept).. Surely some dose of empathy and concern for the down trodden,, would allow for the Uber Wealthy to forego social security, since.. 1. they really will NOt suffer any sort of "diminished Lifestyle" 2. they May enjoy a sense of civic contribution. 3. they can help a tenuous system last just a bit longer 4. they can help many members of our national "family" to improve their lot in life.. The last quote from T. R. alludes to those whom i target in my thoughts.......The creature who does not work.... but IS at the UPPER end of the social scale... the so called Jet setters, many "Artists" " Actors" "Professional Athletes" "musicians" etc.... These folks while maybe appearing to work hard.... just seem to me to be financially compensated waaaay beyond what is proportionate to the Real Importance of their contributions... What ever happened to the concept of the "starving artist"?? Teachers, Miltary Personnel, Civic Servants, even Garbage Collectors , have much more of My respect, than say, some Infielder, or Running Back. or Guitarist, or Movie Star.... since the former REALLY Do add to the well being of our citizenry.. and the latter do NOT... imo j Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TriGirl 319 #18 January 21, 2011 I've had enough time in my working life (read: all) knowing that the SS system is broken, and I'll likely see very little if anything back from it. Knowing this, I'm taking steps to be sure (as I can) that I'll be fine without it. I just see my contributions to the system going toward those who aren't as fortunate as I've been, and to the eligible beneficiaries who will never get to contibute. We sometimes forget that not all who benefit have contributed. As for the OP: interesting to see the itemized list.See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus Shut Up & Jump! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Channman 2 #19 January 21, 2011 Quote I've had enough time in my working life (read: all) knowing that the SS system is broken, and I'll likely see very little if anything back from it. Knowing this, I'm taking steps to be sure (as I can) that I'll be fine without it. I just see my contributions to the system going toward those who aren't as fortunate as I've been, and to the eligible beneficiaries who will never get to contibute. We sometimes forget that not all who benefit have contributed. As for the OP: interesting to see the itemized list. http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/ba514.pdf I was thinking, Galveston County in the 1980's were able to OP OUT of SS. The link above has the story, if only I knew how to link it properly Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #20 January 21, 2011 QuoteI've had enough time in my working life (read: all) knowing that the SS system is broken, and I'll likely see very little if anything back from it. Knowing this, I'm taking steps to be sure (as I can) that I'll be fine without it. I just see my contributions to the system going toward those who aren't as fortunate as I've been, and to the eligible beneficiaries who will never get to contibute. We sometimes forget that not all who benefit have contributed. And not all who've contributed get to benefit. My late wife comes to mind. Rather like private insurance.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #21 January 21, 2011 QuoteHow could they cut beach replenishment?? Bastards. Or mohair subsidies? Mostly this is a list of insignificant cuts designed as a PR exercise. Cutting corporate welfare to defense contractors seems to have escaped the GOP's attention.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jimmytavino 16 #22 January 21, 2011 yes depending on age, many workers may not see any benefits. You're displaying the sort of civic concern which i ask for, from some of TODAY's recipients... and Only of the recipients who already HAVE a fair degree of investment income...I Did not mean to zero in on S Sec.. and i have more closely read the O.P. and looked at the list more carefully... Many items Do seem to be needed and important and it would be tough to lose them. Community grants and educational programs would all be missed.. But a death Gratuity??? for Congress....Federal Travel Budget,, and Agency for International Development??? some of which spend a Thousand Million a YEAR!!! lets develop This country First.. or at least TRY to fix it...Remember the "artists" and Athletes i mentioned earlier>>> Can't we establish a Tax system which differentiates HOW huge amounts of income are generated and then taxes accordingly... Revenue generated in such a way Could then be specifically earmarked for many of the items here, slated to be Cut.. Use taxes from Pro athletes Sizable taxes!!! to provide Sports and Athletics,, On the LOCAL levels,, by funding programs in exisiting High Schools. whereby all members of the community could use the facilties, say at night and when students are not there, for excersize, Organized leagues and sports programs etc.. Likewise taxes from those in the Arts industries, Music TV Movies, can be used to promote and encourage arts and cinema , in our community by financing museums, and theaters and even subsidizing the cost of a 10 dollar Movie ticket... Certain revenue streams for certain programs.... As for cuts...Maybe i waaay underestimate the need for the HUGE Military Complex that is our defense department, but there is no disputing that money is Roaring!!!! out of The Treasury because of it...'Just an Idea'... If the USA played a Lot LESS Offense.. running here and running there, all over the world... and concentrated on Defending us... by staying @ Home, and reinforcing our borders, and "Guarding the Nation"... wouldn't we save?? a Lot of Money...Isolationism has a wide range from total lockdown, to well monitored movement among and between countries.... some level of retraction of our forces from places where we are unwanted, ANYway,,, and a hunkering down of sorts.. might be a cost saving and sensible idea...given that "We Are Broke"..( in SO many ways) The idea of a 'world order' with trade and expansion may have sounded OK 30 years ago, or else we Just bought into it ..... Sadly the reality of it is lost jobs, increased costs, manufacturing companies forced to close , high quality goods no longer available and local , state and federal economies, crippled.. On top of this, we Never seem to hesitate to send Money supplied by Hard working taxpayes... alll over the world.. in Humanitarian Aid about 1/4 of which actually GETS to where it was intended... the rest it has been shown, winds up in someones' pocket... How about This??? Maybe let's try something else.....signed, a disheartened US citizen Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #23 January 22, 2011 Quote The true intention of Soc. Sec. was a 'retirement plan' for workers,, back when it was established. and i have NO problem with that.... For middle class and lower middle class folks who DID work, and worked hard, all their lives... But to give it to those OVER a certain age.. when those folks already HAVE a fair degree of wealth,,, seems like adding a cherry to to the top of their "Sundae with ALL the trimmings"!!!! It's the government fulfilling its promises. They take up to $13,000 a year (and increasing) now from workers now in return for a pension replacing as little as 25% of pre-retirement income up to the cap with nothing going to workers' heirs when private investments of the same amount could replace 75-100% of pre-retirement income with the left overs helping descendants with their retirement. Otherwise Social Security is just a sleazy way to justify a 40% Federal marginal tax rate on the middle class (25%, + 12.4% for both halves of Social Security, + 2.9% for both halves of Medicare) . Quote The "haves" should be pleased to think, that they ARE helping others,,, As a some one who had investments totaling a few million dollars because I set aside at least $16,500 a year in 2011 dollars in retirement accounts which required decades of living in a smaller home, driving older cars, taking fewer less extravagant vacations, and buying fewer toys I'd be pissed supporting people who decided they'd rather live large for fifty years than invest in a better future for themselves. Quote through acceptance of a plan which limits THEIR Soc Security,,, once they have, Say... Two Million bucks... in their piggy banks.. Two million bucks is only enough to safely draw $80,000 a year in retirement which isn't sufficient to continue a decent middle class lifestyle in places which are pleasant to live. If we knew up front (like 50 years before retirement when we were starting our careers) we could have planned for Social Security's absence and made more sacrifices like putting our children in day care instead of having one stay at home parent, having them mortgage their future for higher education instead of getting gifts from us, living in even smaller homes, driving even older cars, etc. Getting that sprung on us would be rotten. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
