Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
SMH? Come on. Raise Social Security to 70? Eliminate "entitlement" programs that aid poor and middle-class people? Cut taxes on the rich? Cut EDUCATION? LAY OFF more workers in this economy?!
Under your plan, the rich get richer, the middle class become poor and the poor become destitute. Typical right-wing social-Darwinist capitalism.
I would LOWER the social security age to 55 and increase federal jobs in areas like energy and education.I would also start new programs aimed at increasing infrastructure in this country, including a new air traffic control system, highway modernization and high-speed rail.
SMH? Come on. Raise Social Security to 70? Eliminate "entitlement" programs that aid poor and middle-class people? Cut taxes on the rich? Cut EDUCATION? LAY OFF more workers in this economy?!
Under your plan, the rich get richer, the middle class become poor and the poor become destitute. Typical right-wing capitalism.
I would LOWER the social security age to 55 and increase federal jobs in areas like energy and education.I would also start new programs aimed at increasing infrastructure in this country, including a new air traffic control system, highway modernization and high-speed rail.
Raise Social Security age to 70, why do people need to retire at 62 or whatever it is now when they're living longer and longer? Obviously some people would be grandfathered in and there would have to be age groups sectioned off, like for people who are already approaching the minimum age versus kids who are born like today. It also gives people an incentive to take care of their bodies and not wear them out so they have to be supported by the taxpayer from an early age.
Which entitlement program did I eliminate? Nobody said anything about eliminating anything. I said we need welfare reform, and I think a lot of people would agree with that sentiment. Maybe the "poor and middle class people" should pick up a tool or a pen instead of sticking that hand out for a check on the 1st and 15th.
Yes, I am saying lay people off when we can't afford to pay their salaries to begin with. Gov't is too big and those people can find jobs elsewhere. Just like a business would do when profits are lagging, gov't needs to stop spending more than it can afford on employees and contractors.
I did not cut taxes on the rich, I left the tax cuts in place that are currently enacted. I actually raised taxes on the banks who will then pass along that tax to borrowers, many of whom are the rich.
Where did I cut education? States and municipalities are responsible for raising funds for public education, not the feds.
My plan does not mean the rich get richer. It means they get to keep what they earn and pump it into the economy and save it for their kids, who will of course spend even more. The poor only get poorer due to their own fault, as I have said in many threads here in the past.
Please name one thing wrong with capitalism. Survival of the fittest, if you're not fit or able to get fit, you can't play.
Yeah, let's lower SS benefits to age 55, great idea. My mom is 55 and she works 50 hours a week still. My dad is right behind her and he also works between 40 and 50 hours a week. I can't imagine they would even want to retire if they could right now. They are fully able-bodied and *should* remain at work until they can retire on their own savings and investments.
You do understand that SS is already running a deficit and by 2037, I believe, it will be broke? It'll be cash negative in 5 years. The baby boomers are growing up and starting to cash in and there are not enough of us young folk paying into the system to support the boomers. Medicare will be cash negative in 10 years.
What federal schools are there? We do not need to add funding to education in the federal arena. If we can afford it, I would be okay with more money going to energy research but that will have to wait. The gov't was not put there to make jobs, they were put there to regulate things that can't be regulated by the states, not to turn America into a nanny state.
They are already spending money on repairing infrastructure. High-speed rail might be okay but it depends on cost. In Milwaukee they are building a rail and the majority of the folks here are against it. Do you know how much the feds are pumping into this project? $800M, then paying most operating costs leaving the state to only come up with $700,000 per year. It can't sustain itself on merit alone. A private industry would not have come in and done it this way. The gov't needs to be run more like a business and less like an aristocracy with bottomless pockets.
Raise Social Security age to 70, why do people need to retire at 62 or whatever it is now when they're living longer and longer? Obviously some people would be grandfathered in and there would have to be age groups sectioned off, like for people who are already approaching the minimum age versus kids who are born like today. It also gives people an incentive to take care of their bodies and not wear them out so they have to be supported by the taxpayer from an early age.
So people should work until they die? I guarantee life expectancy will drop if you don't allow people to retire before age 70. Do you have any idea how old 70 is? People that age often have Alzheimer's disease, arthritis and dementia. I think people should be able to enjoy a little of life before they die or get dementia. 55 seems like a fair age (this WAS the typical retirement age).
Quote:
Which entitlement program did I eliminate? Nobody said anything about eliminating anything. I said we need welfare reform, and I think a lot of people would agree with that sentiment. Maybe the "poor and middle class people" should pick up a tool or a pen instead of sticking that hand out for a check on the 1st and 15th.
Your "reforms" would gut the programs so much that they would become completely ineffectual.
THERE ARE NO JOBS IN THIS ECONOMY. Why don't conservatives get that? YOU CANNOT WORK IF YOU CAN'T GET HIRED.
Quote:
Yes, I am saying lay people off when we can't afford to pay their salaries to begin with. Gov't is too big and those people can find jobs elsewhere. Just like a business would do when profits are lagging, gov't needs to stop spending more than it can afford on employees and contractors.
Find other jobs . . . where, exactly? THERE ARE NO JOBS. We are in the middle of a HUGE recession. Laying off people in a recession will make our economy and social climate continue to deteriorate.
Quote:
I did not cut taxes on the rich, I left the tax cuts in place that are currently enacted. I actually raised taxes on the banks who will then pass along that tax to borrowers, many of whom are the rich.
Same same. Taxes on the rich are far, far too low. Even the Clinton-era taxes were too low. The rich need to pay their fair share.
Quote:
Where did I cut education? States and municipalities are responsible for raising funds for public education, not the feds.
State governments get a lot of their education funding from federal aid. Cutting state aid will force them to scale back education.
Quote:
My plan does not mean the rich get richer. It means they get to keep what they earn and pump it into the economy and save it for their kids, who will of course spend even more. The poor only get poorer due to their own fault, as I have said in many threads here in the past.
This is totally false. So, let's feed the trust fund babies so they can not work a day in their lives and buy mansions, fancy cars and yachts, while screwing over poor people who can't find a JOB due to systemic issues. How in the blue heck are the poor poor because of their own fault? The system is stacked against the poor already, and you propose making it worse. Your proposal sounds more like the Indian caste system or Dark Ages English feudalism (serfdom) than anything America was built on.
Quote:
Please name one thing wrong with capitalism. Survival of the fittest, if you're not fit or able to get fit, you can't play.
Ah, Social Darwinism. It didn't work in Germany or Fascist Italy, and it won't work here.
I support a mixed economy, like Norway, Sweden, Canada or the U.K. All-out capitalism is inherently unjust -- it gives too much power to the rich and multinational corporations while robbing the poor and middle class.
Quote:
Yeah, let's lower SS benefits to age 55, great idea. My mom is 55 and she works 50 hours a week still. My dad is right behind her and he also works between 40 and 50 hours a week. I can't imagine they would even want to retire if they could right now. They are fully able-bodied and *should* remain at work until they can retire on their own savings and investments.
If someone gets laid off at 55 years old (happens all the time) and loses their pension, they are screwed. They can't get another job, and they've lost their retirement plan. Why not allow them to exit the workforce and make room for younger workers?
Quote:
You do understand that SS is already running a deficit and by 2037, I believe, it will be broke? It'll be cash negative in 5 years. The baby boomers are growing up and starting to cash in and there are not enough of us young folk paying into the system to support the boomers. Medicare will be cash negative in 10 years.
This is why we should raise taxes on the wealthy and large corporations. Raising taxes on the rich and big businesses and creating a national sales tax will help pay for expanded Social Security benefits.
Quote:
What federal schools are there? We do not need to add funding to education in the federal arena. If we can afford it, I would be okay with more money going to energy research but that will have to wait. The gov't was not put there to make jobs, they were put there to regulate things that can't be regulated by the states, not to turn America into a nanny state.
We can't afford NOT to put money into energy research. The OPEC countries are sucking us dry, and they'll keep sucking us dry until they run out of oil. Energy research would allow us to get off of foreign oil.
Yes, college education should be federally-funded. Make it free for all American high-school graduates.
Who said anything about a nanny state? I don't support taking away freedoms. That's the Republicans, with their unconstitutional PATRIOT Act and out-of-control airport security.
Quote:
They are already spending money on repairing infrastructure. High-speed rail might be okay but it depends on cost. In Milwaukee they are building a rail and the majority of the folks here are against it. Do you know how much the feds are pumping into this project? $800M, then paying most operating costs leaving the state to only come up with $700,000 per year. It can't sustain itself on merit alone. A private industry would not have come in and done it this way. The gov't needs to be run more like a business and less like an aristocracy with bottomless pockets.
A private business would outsource the work to India or China and leave American workers holding the bag.
The NYT has a great little utility that let's you balance the budget by spending cuts or tax increases or any combination there of. What's your solution?
My solution involves 80% spending cuts and 20% tax increases with virtually all of the tax increases on the upper class who has received so many breaks and give aways in the last decade.
Spending cuts: Cut Foreign Aid in half ($17 billion), cut Federal pay by 5% ($17 billion), reduce Federal work force by 10% ($12 billion), cut 250,000 contractor jobs ($17 billion), "other cuts to Federal government" ($30 billion), cut aid to states by 5% ($29 billion), cut nuclear arsenal in half ($19 billion), cut military size to pre-Iraq levels ($25 billion), delay or cancel weapon systems ($19 billion), reduce noncombat military pay and overhead ($23 billion), reduce troops in Iraq & Afghanistan to 60,000 ($51 billion), enact malpractice reform ($8 billion), increase medicare age to 68 ($8 billion), cap medicare growth starting in 2013 ($29 billion), raise SSI to 68 ($13 billion).
Tax increases: The Lincoln-Kyl Proposal for estate taxes ($12 billion), Obama's investment tax proposal ($10 billion), Bush tax cuts expire for incomes over $250,000 ($54 billion), eliminate cap on payroll taxes above $106,000 ($50 billion).
It's a good start, but some of it it's not politically tenable at this time. There should not be any tax increases without spending cuts. Period. Tax increases should be at the minimum be matched by spending cuts.
I agree spending + taxes is a good combo. Revamping, streamlining and increasing effectiveness of DOD and federal agencies is a good thing. Freezing wage increases/decreasing pay is a good move. Firing indiscriminately without a rationale or just for ideological reasons is not helpful because all you end up with is more unemployed people.
Everybody needs to give up something including the higher income brackets. Let the Bush tax cuts expire. People didn't even notice the Obama tax cut; therefore, get rid of it.
People on medicaid need to pay something, sorry. Can you believe they ask doctors to write them a script for ibuprofen because that way "they don't have to pay for it"? Same for every other OTC medication available. Generic, OTC medications are not outrageously expensive. I use them all the time. My physician doesn't right me scripts for ibuprofen, tylenol, PPI's (omeprazole, etc.), aspirin, etc. If it is available OTC, it's on me.
Scrap Medicare part D and redo it. It is a scam devised by Phil Gramm that it's expensive and doesn't do much for medicare recipients. If Walmart can buy in bulk, so can the Federal Government. There are a lot of savings there.
I think we should repeal the Bacon-Davis act. A job that pays 15/hr instead of 21/hr is better than no job at all. Unions might not like it, but the objective has to be to create jobs first so that money starts circulating again.
The EIC is a bit too generous.
What about federal subsidies to agribusiness and the oil industry (45 billion right there)?
I looked up that Lincoln-Kyl Proposal because Kyl is my one of my Senators and I don't think much of his integrity. Sorry, I don't like it. That's still a giveaway. I think the first million should be off limits and the rest should be fully taxable. One million is nothing to sneer at and after you're dead, God will reward you if you're deserving.
Cancel missile defense system-that's been around since Reagan. Stop making/buying planes/parts and other goodies that the Pentagon doesn't want or need.
Eliminate earmarks. Period.
Review military worthiness of bases abroad. Consolidate/realign. Close military bases in US where there is little actual military value and where there is little housing. Move personnel of those bases to bases that have a housing glut in the surrounding areas. Ex: Minot AFB, Cannon AFB. Close them-move ops to places like Nevada, AZ, NC, etc.
Withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan NOW. Enough already. If they keep killing each other, that's their problem. Instability in Iraq will spill over to Iran. They'll start killing each other again until they decide to mature and grow up. What's so bad about that?
Also, the government IS there to create jobs. That should be one of its most important purposes -- to create jobs and move our economy along. The government is supposed to serve the people, not multinational corporations and the fabulously wealthy.
\
Review military worthiness of bases abroad. Consolidate/realign. Close military bases in US where there is little actual military value and where there is little housing. Move personnel of those bases to bases that have a housing glut in the surrounding areas. Ex: Minot AFB, Cannon AFB. Close them-move ops to places like Nevada, AZ, NC, etc.
Just brainstorming
Why would you want to hurt the Midwest any more by sending even more Midwestern jobs to the "Sunbelt states." The Midwest needs something -- forget Arizona, North Carolina, etc. They've more than had their day.
Also, the government IS there to create jobs. That should be one of its most important purposes -- to create jobs and move our economy along. The government is supposed to serve the people, not multinational corporations and the fabulously wealthy.
You can not have a discussion with out the ideas of economic wiz kid John McCain giving his suggestions on what to cut to reduce the deficit. He gave us the classic " the fundamentals of the economy are strong " just a couple of weeks before the crash. If you loved that golden oldie you will appreciate his new advice, HEEEEEEEEERE 'S jOHHHHNY :
Quote:
But he gave the impression that the new class of Republicans, elected with plenty of rhetoric about budget cuts, needed to be pointed in the right direction.
"The earmarks are important," said McCain. "We cut out those earmarks, we can save billions."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
SMH
