Perchoutofwater

President's Debt Panel Proposal

Recommended Posts

:wacko:

 

 

didn't take long for "bipartisan" to become a dirty, dirty word on the left again. :tup:

 

I am dying to see where the obama administration comes down on this. I see it as an absolutely defining moment for his presidency. if he takes it seriously and stands behind some of the more politically distasteful proposals, I think he ends up a successful two-term president. if he guts it and/or ignores it and starts badmouthing republicans for trying to steal food from granny, I think he steers his party off a cliff in '12.

That's a fair observation. I wonder how things might have gone, if the left didn't have such lunitic leaders in Congress these last 2 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:wacko:

 

 

didn't take long for "bipartisan" to become a dirty, dirty word on the left again. :tup:

 

I am dying to see where the obama administration comes down on this. I see it as an absolutely defining moment for his presidency. if he takes it seriously and stands behind some of the more politically distasteful proposals, I think he ends up a successful two-term president. if he guts it and/or ignores it and starts badmouthing republicans for trying to steal food from granny, I think he steers his party off a cliff in '12.

I completely agree with this. Although large swathes of the electorate are self-serving mindless buffoons, there is still a hugh constituency that do get it and would be willing to receive the pain as long as it's equally shared as far as possible. Denial is eventually going to lead to ruination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I completely agree with this. Although large swathes of the electorate are self-serving mindless buffoons, there is still a hugh constituency that do get it and would be willing to receive the pain as long as it's equally shared as far as possible. Denial is eventually going to lead to ruination.

 

This.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The panel's proposal makes more sense than anything that has come out of Washington in the last twenty years. It really doesn't pander to any one particular special interest. For that reason alone it is probably DOA. Too bad, because while it might not go as far as I'd like it is definitely a hell of a lot better than what we have now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am stunned right now that folk are resisting getting rid of earmarks. I can't wait to hear the debate on this. I think that this debate might make and break a lot of politicians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am stunned right now that folk are resisting getting rid of earmarks. I can't wait to hear the debate on this. I think that this debate might make and break a lot of politicians.

 

Well it looks like the GOP has finally got it's ducks in a row on this one, with McConnell finally saying he would support doing away with them. If it is opposed I think it will largely be opposed by the left.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Very well written article.

 

What I love about the proposal, and starting the commision in the FIRST palce, was that it will expose both sides for how truly beholden they are to their consituents.

 

When change happens, it will be because pols on both sides decided to stand up to their respective political bases without considering their own political futures. And that is really what is best for America. people doing what is right versus what it politically expedient.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+1 to all quoted. In the end though, I think driveby is right. I've never seen a national politician so beholden to unions as is the obamessiah. Because of this, I think obamessiah and the senate will try to gut it, and get their asses handed to them in '12. If the obamessiah is actually more than the "empty suit" then he'll try to move these recommendations forward in a bipartisan manner. I just don't see it happening though. Everything he's done so far where a union was involved was to cowtow to the union's wishes. :wacko:

 

:tup:

 

 

didn't take long for "bipartisan" to become a dirty, dirty word on the left again. :tup:

 

I am dying to see where the obama administration comes down on this. I see it as an absolutely defining moment for his presidency. if he takes it seriously and stands behind some of the more politically distasteful proposals, I think he ends up a successful two-term president. if he guts it and/or ignores it and starts badmouthing republicans for trying to steal food from granny, I think he steers his party off a cliff in '12.

 

 

I completely agree with this. Although large swathes of the electorate are self-serving mindless buffoons, there is still a hugh constituency that do get it and would be willing to receive the pain as long as it's equally shared as far as possible. Denial is eventually going to lead to ruination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Did you read what was proposed? It had significant cuts to military spending. Also SS as it was originally intended was a safety net, not a retirement account. Upping the age to where the average person dies puts it back in the realm of a safety net rather than a retirement account. Additionally if trends continue people will continue to live longer and longer. To go from 66 no to 76 based on what I was proposing would take 20 to 30 years depending on whether you increased the age every other or every third year. Either way it basically ensures I'd probably never see a dime, which I'm ok with.

 

Instead of it being everyone's retirement account, it should be given out based on your last few jobs. Retiring from making $150k a year = no SS for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The panel's proposal makes more sense than anything that has come out of Washington in the last twenty years. It really doesn't pander to any one particular special interest. For that reason alone it is probably DOA. Too bad, because while it might not go as far as I'd like it is definitely a hell of a lot better than what we have now.

 

It might just be a political game to get the House to vote for something in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Instead of it being everyone's retirement account, it should be given out based on your last few jobs. Retiring from making $150k a year = no SS for you.

Could you please explain why? Are you saying that if you pay in for 20 years and WORK your way up and you made 175k the last 2 years and you now retire you should not get SS but someone who worked 20 years making 35k should get SS? Why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Could you please explain why? Are you saying that if you pay in for 20 years and WORK your way up and you made 175k the last 2 years and you now retire you should not get SS but someone who worked 20 years making 35k should get SS? Why?

Because we can't afford it? There are a bunch of changes that need to be made:

 

Make SS the last resort, in other words you only get it when your net worth dips below a certain level (exclude primary residence). Right now, any sensible person uses SS first, before any personal savings (and don't forget they are mostly tax-deferred). That is a logical nonsense. It should be a mandatory insurance policy, not an automatic entitlement.

Increase the cap.

Raise the entitlement age level

Reduce the amount payable (currently 12.4% split equally between employer and employee) to reflect the decreased usage of the fund. Given the changes I have described, I believe the tax could be reduced massively, helping both workers and businesses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because we can't afford it? There are a bunch of changes that need to be made:

 

Make SS the last resort, in other words you only get it when your net worth dips below a certain level (exclude primary residence). Right now, any sensible person uses SS first, before any personal savings (and don't forget they are mostly tax-deferred). That is a logical nonsense. It should be a mandatory insurance policy, not an automatic entitlement.

Increase the cap.

Raise the entitlement age level

Reduce the amount payable (currently 12.4% split equally between employer and employee) to reflect the decreased usage of the fund. Given the changes I have described, I believe the tax could be reduced massively, helping both workers and businesses.

 

It's just scary when you make that much sense...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because we can't afford it? There are a bunch of changes that need to be made:

 

Make SS the last resort, in other words you only get it when your net worth dips below a certain level (exclude primary residence). Right now, any sensible person uses SS first, before any personal savings (and don't forget they are mostly tax-deferred). That is a logical nonsense. It should be a mandatory insurance policy, not an automatic entitlement.

Increase the cap.

Raise the entitlement age level

Reduce the amount payable (currently 12.4% split equally between employer and employee) to reflect the decreased usage of the fund. Given the changes I have described, I believe the tax could be reduced massively, helping both workers and businesses.

OK .. Let me add that I am drunk right now and I also don't claim to be as smart as all you other political posters but......

 

Are you seriously saying that people who have paid into SS who now make over 175k last year don't get SS? So in other words - people who have contributed (prob more than others) should not be able to get SS? That is what I thought Waterman was saying?? Maybe I am off base???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OK .. Let me add that I am drunk right now and I also don't claim to be as smart as all you other political posters but......

 

Are you seriously saying that people who have paid into SS who now make over 175k last year don't get SS? So in other words - people who have contributed (prob more than others) should not be able to get SS? That is what I thought Waterman was saying?? Maybe I am off base???

No, it would happen gradually over 10 to 40 years. No-one is going to cancel SS for people just arriving at retirement age. It would be done over a long period and as your entitlement dropped, so would the tax you and your employer pay. Eventually it would become an insurance system, a safety net, instead of the entitlement for all it currently is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, it would happen gradually over 10 to 40 years. No-one is going to cancel SS for people just arriving at retirement age. It would be done over a long period and as your entitlement dropped, so would the tax you and your employer pay. Eventually it would become an insurance system, a safety net, instead of the entitlement for all it currently is.

I seriously thought he meant that if you made over 175k you get zero... I am ok with grandfathering it in but if you paid in then you deserve something back.. I am sick of the - well they can afford to not get it crap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I seriously thought he meant that if you made over 175k you get zero... I am ok with grandfathering it in but if you paid in then you deserve something back.. I am sick of the - well they can afford to not get it crap.

I would base it on total net worth (exempting primary residence), not previous income. So, if you've got above some defined amount you get nothing. Once you fall below that level, you get SS. That's the whole point of a security system - a safety net. It might be necessary to graduate it somewhat but the more graduation that is put into it, the more administratively burdensome it would become.

 

I've heard the argument that people would blow through their savings to get SS but I consider that a ludicrous argument. Who in their right mind would beggar themselves to get SS? I've also heard the argument "Oh, I'll never need it". Well, I hope you're right but you might, therefore you will pay in. Don't forget the reduced taxes this system would involve. If it went down to, say, 3.1% (half the current rate) for employer and employee alike, it's possible the employer might pass on some proportion of their savings to the employee, say 50% of the 3.1% saved. That would be net increase to the employee of 4.65% and 1.55% to the employer. That 4.65% could be saved (good for the employee) or spent (good for the economy).

 

It makes sense to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Could you please explain why? Are you saying that if you pay in for 20 years and WORK your way up and you made 175k the last 2 years and you now retire you should not get SS but someone who worked 20 years making 35k should get SS? Why?

 

As Perch said, SS is not supposed to be everyone's safety net. Can no one save money or invest? SS is a tax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

winners and losers under the simpson-bowles SS plan

 

A complete answer would be fairly complex given the broad array of Social Security’s distributional patterns by income level, sex, longevity, birth year, marital status and other factors. I will instead simplify and focus on three obvious categories of winners:

 

1) Low-income workers;

 

2) Fiscal conservatives concerned with the growth of taxpayer burdens;

 

3) Advocates of bipartisan problem-solving.

 

And, three categories of losers:

 

1) Advocates of a solution based primarily on tax increases;

 

2) Advocates of improving intergenerational equity through funded savings accounts;

 

3) Senior-scaring political opportunists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As Perch said, SS is not supposed to be everyone's safety net. Can no one save money or invest? SS is a tax.

If they grandfather it in, and then dramatically reduce the tax than I'm fine. The biggest BS in the US is that "your employer" pays half of your SS tax. :wacko: If it costs X to employ me than I have to bring in Y. My SS burden is X whether my "employer" pays half of SS or I pay the entire thing. If people saw 12% of their overall check going into the government's slush fund they might have the appropriate amount of anger directed at the government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would base it on total net worth (exempting primary residence), not previous income. So, if you've got above some defined amount you get nothing. Once you fall below that level, you get SS. That's the whole point of a security system - a safety net. It might be necessary to graduate it somewhat but the more graduation that is put into it, the more administratively burdensome it would become.

 

 

Don't like the total net worth thing at all. That does not encourage saving, which should be the primary goal here and it is very easy to hide assets or mis-value them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Majority of debt panel members vote in favore of plan (11), but 14 were required to force vote.

 

I'm very disappointed that this did not get the 14 votes required to force a vote, but it looks like it is at least something that can be worked with, and may eventually come to a vote. I'm extremely disappointed that Paul Ryan voted against it as he is one of the more fiscally conservative GOP congressmen that I really respect a lot. I really want to hear his reasons for voting against it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the folk who aren't for it aren't for it because it doesn't address health care in a meaningful way. another case of my way or the highway and throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.