President's Debt Panel Proposal

[redrumjuice]

I'd do more with SS, including making it the income of last resort, so you'd have to spend your own money before it kicked in

 

Yet you want us all to pay into it our whole lives.

 

Unreal.

[Ursa Majoris]

Yet you want us all to pay into it our whole lives.

 

Unreal.

 

Moran

 

which would have the happy effect of massively driving down SS tax rates.

[Jimmy Neutron]

It's time.

 

This.

[Square]

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.

Hey, our defense budget was originally intended to support the actual "defense" of our country instead of a 24 hour strike force for anywhere on the entire planet along with 100s of military bases on foreign land. Should we move the defense budget back to what it was originally intended? Or are you cherry picking what you want go "old school" on? All I know is that I'm fine with moving SS back IF the rates go down dramatically.

 

I live on less than I make and always will. I don't plan on SS being their because all the politicians are evil Fers that will rob the SS account and not give 2 chits that someone else down the road will not have any money available despite what the IOU from the government says. They are literally stealing money from the American public, directly in front of them and everyone knows the program is insolvent and nobody is willing to make it a priority enough to fix it. Bush talked about it and proposed some half ass plan that was harpooned and now all the idiots are afraid of "privatization". Hell, I'd be happy if we kept the chitty investment (something like 1-2% we get back on our money thrown into SS) as long as the government couldn't touch the damn account. Let "my money" sit in "my account" and be "held" by the government, but the moment some a hole uses it as a slush fund for some pet project, I'd like to fire everyone involved with capitol hill.

 

Anyway, I've seen some snipits from the proposal and I'll read it more in full when I get a sec.

[Perchoutofwater]

Hey, our defense budget was originally intended to support the actual "defense" of our country instead of a 24 hour strike force for anywhere on the entire planet along with 100s of military bases on foreign land. Should we move the defense budget back to what it was originally intended? Or are you cherry picking what you want go "old school" on? All I know is that I'm fine with moving SS back IF the rates go down dramatically.

 

I live on less than I make and always will. I don't plan on SS being their because all the politicians are evil Fers that will rob the SS account and not give 2 chits that someone else down the road will not have any money available despite what the IOU from the government says. They are literally stealing money from the American public, directly in front of them and everyone knows the program is insolvent and nobody is willing to make it a priority enough to fix it. Bush talked about it and proposed some half ass plan that was harpooned and now all the idiots are afraid of "privatization". Hell, I'd be happy if we kept the chitty investment (something like 1-2% we get back on our money thrown into SS) as long as the government couldn't touch the damn account. Let "my money" sit in "my account" and be "held" by the government, but the moment some a hole uses it as a slush fund for some pet project, I'd like to fire everyone involved with capitol hill.

 

Anyway, I've seen some snipits from the proposal and I'll read it more in full when I get a sec.

 

I agree with you on the military. It needs to be pared back. I'd like to see our foreign bases cut by at least half, and I'd like to see the Pentagon's budget gone over with a fine tooth comb. I'd like to see crappy R&D permanently shelved instead of kept alive because the firm doing it is in a powerful senator's back yard. I do want us to have the strongest military on the planet, but not by the magnitude it currently is.

 

I'd love to see a slow phase out of SS as a retirement account, where we gradually increase the age of qualifying for it up to something much more reasonable, preferably around 75-80. I'd also like to see us keep paying 1/2 into the SS trust fund but make sure it stays in the fund so that it can be used for it's originally intended purpose. I'd also like to see any SS payments be means tested to where you have to be pretty damned insolvent before you can start collecting it. I'd like to see it as a last resort. I'd also like to see the other 1/2 of our current SS tax go to private funds holding treasuries or some other fairly low risk investment that retirees can use when they are over the ages of 65. As this 1/2 would be private there would be no means testing for it, but there would be a minimum age requirement before you can start drawing it, and anything not drawn would go to your estate.

[driveby]

Labor unions and liberal Democrats lit into the preliminary proposal, which the two chairmen touted as the first serious plan to tackle the country’s growing debt.

 

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said it was “simply unacceptable.”

 

“Any final proposal from the commission should do what is right for our children and grandchildren’s economic security as well as for our nation’s fiscal security, and it must do what is right for our seniors, who are counting on the bedrock promises of Social Security and Medicare,” she said in a statement.

 

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said the chairmen had told “working Americans to ‘Drop Dead,’” while Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) faulted the report for cutting Social Security benefits while reducing corporate and upper-income taxes.

 

DOA

[Ursa Majoris]

DOA

Or the Democrats are. It is not going to be sufficient to bleat about seniors hardship and bluster about the "working American".

[Perchoutofwater]

Or the Democrats are. It is not going to be sufficient to bleat about seniors hardship and bluster about the "working American".

 

I tend to agree. Based on what I've read, while it may not go as far as I'd like it to go it is definitely a step in the right direction and something I would support at this point. If the democrats make this a non-starter when their president commissioned the bi-partisan panel then they are DOA in 2012. Now there may be something in it it that is truly objectionable, but that which has been reported all seems reasonable. Does this now make the Democrats the party of NO!?

[bpwallace49]

I tend to agree. Based on what I've read, while it may not go as far as I'd like it to go it is definitely a step in the right direction and something I would support at this point. If the democrats make this a non-starter when their president commissioned the bi-partisan panel then they are DOA in 2012. Now there may be something in it it that is truly objectionable, but that which has been reported all seems reasonable. Does this now make the Democrats the party of NO!?

 

Anytime a political party refuses to work towards a compromise that benefits the entire nation, they should be shot.

 

That is what the Republican Party has done the last two years, and Perch ., . .you COMMENDED them for sticking to their guns and NOT compromising. How quickly you forget . . . SO it was "ok": for the Republicans to not "compromise their principles", but all of a sudden compromise is now valued by you? C'mon Perch . . .

 

The proposal is a good STARTING POINT (and that much was said). But there still have to be some major tweaks from both parties and concessions to be made before this ever sees the light of day. BOTH parties eed to get over their pissing match from the last several years and work together (or in some cases, just freakin WORK at all) if any of these issues are ever going to be addressed. What worries me is that the Dems could use the exact same "scorched earth" policies towards governance that the Repubs have done the last 2 years, as it has proved to work leading up to elections (and that is all the f'ers care about is re-election in DC). If that happens things will stay contentious and the right will get the filibuster thrown on them just as much as it happened the last two years. This is the WORST thing that could happen, and a very poor precedence has now been set.

 

the game of kick the can down the road is getting very, very tiresome from both parties on SS and medicare. Everytime a "proposal" comes out, it gets gutted before becoming a bill, by special interests from both sides of the aisle.

[Perchoutofwater]

Anytime a political party refuses to work towards a compromise that benefits the entire nation, they should be shot.

 

That is what the Republican Party has done the last two years, and Perch ., . .you COMMENDED them for sticking to their guns and NOT compromising. How quickly you forget . . . SO it was "ok": for the Republicans to not "compromise their principles", but all of a sudden compromise is now valued by you? C'mon Perch . . .

 

The proposal is a good STARTING POINT (and that much was said). But there still have to be some major tweaks from both parties and concessions to be made before this ever sees the light of day. BOTH parties eed to get over their pissing match from the last several years and work together (or in some cases, just freakin WORK at all) if any of these issues are ever going to be addressed. What worries me is that the Dems could use the exact same "scorched earth" policies towards governance that the Repubs have done the last 2 years, as it has proved to work leading up to elections (and that is all the f'ers care about is re-election in DC). If that happens things will stay contentious and the right will get the filibuster thrown on them just as much as it happened the last two years. This is the WORST thing that could happen, and a very poor precedence has now been set.

 

the game of kick the can down the road is getting very, very tiresome from both parties on SS and medicare. Everytime a "proposal" comes out, it gets gutted before becoming a bill, by special interests from both sides of the aisle.

 

The big difference I see between the two is when the Republicans were standing on their principles for the most part they were also standing on the side of the majority of the American people. Most people did not want the stimulus passed, but it was passed along party lines, most people did not want Health Care Reform passed in the form that it was passed, but it was passed along party lines, most people oppose Cap and Trade, and yet it was passed in the House along party lines. All of the the above were written in a very partisan manner primarily by democrats and in the cases of health care and cap and trade large portions were written by special interests. I think when the Republicans were standing on their principles with the American people on these issues they were concerned about the long term affects these pieces of legislation would have on our country and did not like what they construed them to be.

 

I may be wrong, but I think most people do want spending in DC brought back into line. I think most people realize that if something isn't done about SS and Medicare / Medicaid it will not be there for the younger generations. It is one thing to stand on principle when you have the majority of the American people standing behind you on those issues, it is quite another when it is only special interests standing behind you. Also this proposal was written in a bipartisan manner rather than being written by left wing special interest groups like the stimulus was. Again I may be wrong about what the American people are willing to stomach in order to get our financial house in order, but I don't think that I am. While doing what has been proposed (or at least what has been published to this point) will cause some short term pain for many I think most people will realize it is in the long term best interest of our country to do these things.

Edited November 11, 2010 by Perchoutofwater

[policyvote]

It is a very good start.

 

Which means it will be bastardized beyond recognition as the politicians look to mollify their constituencies, and will never pass.

 

Or it will, and it will be worse than taking no action.

 

Peace

policy

Edited November 11, 2010 by policyvote

[Ursa Majoris]

The big difference I see between the two is when the Republicans were standing on their principles for the most part they were also standing on the side of the majority of the American people. Most people did not want the stimulus passed, but it was passed along party lines, most people did not want Health Care Reform passed in the form that it was passed, but it was passed along party lines, most people oppose Cap and Trade, and yet it was passed in the House along party lines. All of the the above were written in a very partisan manner primarily by democrats and in the cases of health care and cap and trade large portions were written by special interests. I think when the Republicans were standing on their principles with the American people on these issues they were concerned about the long term affects these pieces of legislation would have on our country and did not like what they construed them to be.

 

I may be wrong, but I think most people do want spending in DC brought back into line. I think most people realize that if something isn't done about SS and Medicare / Medicaid it will not be there for the younger generations. It is one thing to stand on principle when you have the majority of the American people standing behind you on those issues, it is quite another when it is only special interests standing behind you. Also this proposal was written in a bipartisan manner rather than being written by left wing special interest groups like the stimulus was. Again I may be wrong about what the American people are willing to stomach in order to get our financial house in order, but I don't think that I am. While doing what has been proposed (or at least what has been published to this point) will cause some short term pain for many I think most people will realize it is in the long term best interest of our country to do these things.

All I can say to this is that your memory is both extremely selective and extremely short.

[Perchoutofwater]

All I can say to this is that your memory is both extremely selective and extremely short.

 

Obviously the second paragraph is conjecture at this point, and I fully admitted that I might have over estimated the American public in it. What is factually incorrect about he first paragraph?

[gbpfan1231]

Obviously the second paragraph is conjecture at this point, and I fully admitted that I might have over estimated the American public in it. What is factually incorrect about he first paragraph?

The ONLY reason that the PUBLIC was against those things is that the EVIL righties spread FEAR and LIES and that IS what made people against OBAMA's policies. HE was only doing what HE TRULY knew we REALLY wanted.

 

How did I do on my impression of a BP post with the CAPLOCKS?

[caddyman]

The ONLY reason that the PUBLIC was against those things is that the EVIL righties spread FEAR and LIES and that IS what made people against OBAMA's policies. HE was only doing what HE TRULY knew we REALLY wanted.

 

How did I do on my impression of a BP post with the CAPLOCKS?

you need to add some arrogant sarcasm....kind of like....soooooooooooooooooo what your are saying is that you are scaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaared of liberals. proper use of graemlins is important as well.

Edited November 11, 2010 by caddyman

[Ursa Majoris]

All I can say to this is that your memory is both extremely selective and extremely short.

Privatizing Social Security ring any bells? If you're going to claim the stuff that Obama got through or tried to get through was "opposed by the majority of the great Amer.....etc, etc" then you should perhaps explain how it is he got elected in the first place when he campaigned on it (short memory) and how the incredibly unpopular privatizing of SS was nearly foisted upon an opposed public a few years back (selective memory).

[The Irish Doggy]

Oh thank heavens. I misread the title and thought the death panels were on the move.

[Perchoutofwater]

Privatizing Social Security ring any bells? If you're going to claim the stuff that Obama got through or tried to get through was "opposed by the majority of the great Amer.....etc, etc" then you should perhaps explain how it is he got elected in the first place when he campaigned on it (short memory) and how the incredibly unpopular privatizing of SS was nearly foisted upon an opposed public a few years back (selective memory).

 

He got elected because he was articulate, he was black, he wasn't George Bush, and the media failed to look at him with anything close to a critical eye. I'll give you your point on privatizing social security, but I don't see that this plan is calling for that, that is something I've said I'd like to see to a degree.

Edited November 11, 2010 by Perchoutofwater

[driveby]

Surprisingly, Krugman is not on board

 

It seemed obvious, as soon as the commission’s membership was announced, that “bipartisanship” would mean what it so often does in Washington: a compromise between the center-right and the hard-right.

[Duchess Jack]

The big difference I see between the two is when the Republicans were standing on their principles for the most part they were also standing on the side of the majority of the American people. Most people did not want the stimulus passed, but it was passed along party lines, most people did not want Health Care Reform passed in the form that it was passed, but it was passed along party lines, most people oppose Cap and Trade, and yet it was passed in the House along party lines. All of the the above were written in a very partisan manner primarily by democrats and in the cases of health care and cap and trade large portions were written by special interests. I think when the Republicans were standing on their principles with the American people on these issues they were concerned about the long term affects these pieces of legislation would have on our country and did not like what they construed them to be.

 

I may be wrong, but I think most people do want spending in DC brought back into line. I think most people realize that if something isn't done about SS and Medicare / Medicaid it will not be there for the younger generations. It is one thing to stand on principle when you have the majority of the American people standing behind you on those issues, it is quite another when it is only special interests standing behind you. Also this proposal was written in a bipartisan manner rather than being written by left wing special interest groups like the stimulus was. Again I may be wrong about what the American people are willing to stomach in order to get our financial house in order, but I don't think that I am. While doing what has been proposed (or at least what has been published to this point) will cause some short term pain for many I think most people will realize it is in the long term best interest of our country to do these things.

 

You are right. I think everybody (except politicians) want to reign in spending.

 

But... can you really say that the GOP stood together in princible against these items? Can you really say that it mattered what was contained in any proposal? To me it seemed like they were doing what they were doing in hopes of hurting the left first, trying to protect the right, secondly and perhaps looking out for America came in a distant third.

 

As far as the American people go - do you think that there were people playing on their fears? I sure it happened both ways - but it seemed like the GOP won out on that game. Do you feel that all the pundits with hatchets to burry were telling the American public the truth about the pros and cons of this? In this economic atmosphere, do you think it would have been to easy to demonize something? Isn't that what people to in a time like this - manufacture and enemy and place blame on that enemy? With that said - are you a big believe in government by using polls?

[Ursa Majoris]

You are right. I think everybody (except politicians) want to reign in spending.

 

But... can you really say that the GOP stood together in princible against these items? Can you really say that it mattered what was contained in any proposal? To me it seemed like they were doing what they were doing in hopes of hurting the left first, trying to protect the right, secondly and perhaps looking out for America came in a distant third.

 

As far as the American people go - do you think that there were people playing on their fears? I sure it happened both ways - but it seemed like the GOP won out on that game. Do you feel that all the pundits with hatchets to burry were telling the American public the truth about the pros and cons of this? In this economic atmosphere, do you think it would have been to easy to demonize something? Isn't that what people to in a time like this - manufacture and enemy and place blame on that enemy? With that said - are you a big believe in government by using polls?

What I saw in the media was a pure disgrace, IMO. They focused on the elimination of the mortgage deduction, etc and completely ignored the enormous reduction in income tax. The media - and some politicians - immediately went into scaremonger mode. It's like these people thrive on crisis.....oh wait.

[Perchoutofwater]

You are right. I think everybody (except politicians) want to reign in spending.

 

But... can you really say that the GOP stood together in princible against these items? Can you really say that it mattered what was contained in any proposal? To me it seemed like they were doing what they were doing in hopes of hurting the left first, trying to protect the right, secondly and perhaps looking out for America came in a distant third.

 

As far as the American people go - do you think that there were people playing on their fears? I sure it happened both ways - but it seemed like the GOP won out on that game. Do you feel that all the pundits with hatchets to burry were telling the American public the truth about the pros and cons of this? In this economic atmosphere, do you think it would have been to easy to demonize something? Isn't that what people to in a time like this - manufacture and enemy and place blame on that enemy? With that said - are you a big believe in government by using polls?

 

Obviously I can't say for sure what the motives of the GOP were, though I think you are probably right to a point. Having said that I think their opposition to the bills I mentioned was justified, as all would saddle us with more debt (with the possible exception of Cap & Trade) and more restrictions on businesses and thus the economy (with the possible exception of the stimulus). While I'd like to believe their motives were pure as the driven snow, I'm not that naive, and frankly don't care what their motives are as long as they are on the correct side of the issue. I think the long term impact of all three pieces of legislation will be harmful to the overall economy.

 

There is no doubt fear, is a major motivator in politics. It is constantly being used by both sides. Both sides typically exaggerate the benefits and pitfalls of legislation. That is why I typically look try to look at how legislation is going to affect me and my business rather than just listen to what the politicians and their media lap dogs say about the legislation. With the way that the media is now more than ever extensions of the two parties, with Fox and talk radio squarely on the side of the conservatives, and basically all other television media outlets squarely on the side of the progressives, I think it is more important than ever to look at how the legislation will really affect you, your business or place of employment, and your community. In order to do this you often have to listen to both sides of the argument which for me means I have to try to watch MSNBC and the major networks without throwing stuff at the TV along with FOX and local radio hosts (I'm not a big fan of the showmanship and hyperbole of Beck and Limbaugh so I try to stay clear of them). Additionally on major legislation I try to read as much as I can on the legislation in it's purest form. This is another issue I have with the Democrat controlled congress passing these bills. They did not give the opposition party much less the general public time to read the actual legislation prior to voting on it. As a result we had to try to determine what was real and what was spin from the two parties without the benefit of all the facts. As a result you end up having to try to form your opinions on the legislation on partial information that often turns out to be misleading and provides "gotcha" opportunities for both sides of they average populous trying to have a legitimate debate of the issue at hand. I wonder how many fewer Have to agree here posts we would have had here if congress had actually allowed enough time for the legislation to be digested before voting on it. With them ramming it through we had to base many of the arguments for or against the legislation on supposition or stuff that was leaked (with a fair amount of spin) to the two parities extensions in the media.

 

With regard to governing based on polling data, for the most part I'm not a fan. I think it is an important component, and should be considered but should not be strictly followed. Had we governed by the polls the Civil Rights Act of 1964 never would have been passed, or for that matter Lincoln would have let the South go it's own way. I think we need to take polls into consideration where there is deep division on legislation particularly when that legislation has Constitutionally questionable aspects such as the health care bill, or will saddle us with long term debt like stimulus bill. I do not think it should be the main consideration.

[Perchoutofwater]

What I saw in the media was a pure disgrace, IMO. They focused on the elimination of the mortgage deduction, etc and completely ignored the enormous reduction in income tax. The media - and some politicians - immediately went into scaremonger mode. It's like these people thrive on crisis.....oh wait.

 

We no longer have any true journalist, just extension of the two parties. Even when they give you just the facts they often choose which facts to give you leaving out the facts that do not fit that particular organizations political affiliation. Even when the news covered is covered fairly evenly, the stories that an organization chooses to cover and often times the stories they choose to ignore, speak volumes to the bias of the various organizations.

[Azazello1313]

What I saw in the media was a pure disgrace, IMO. They focused on the elimination of the mortgage deduction, etc and completely ignored the enormous reduction in income tax. The media - and some politicians - immediately went into scaremonger mode.

 

and the scales were pulled back from his eyes.

[Azazello1313]

Surprisingly, Krugman is not on board

It seemed obvious, as soon as the commission’s membership was announced, that “bipartisanship” would mean what it so often does in Washington: a compromise between the center-right and the hard-right.

 

 

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

 

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.