"The Democrat and Republican who cochair President Obama's debt commission haven't offered a magic fix for federal deficits, but they've tried to make one point loud and clear: Answers to America's fiscal challenges will involve "shared sacrifice."
Quoted from here.
This is actually promising. Not that they will actually be able to get anything through congress. But at least they are thinking on it. I figure a plan that makes everyone scream is probably a good one.
They'll be fired.
Toyman01 wrote: I figure a plan that makes everyone scream is probably a good one.
I'd need to hear more about he specifics, but I'm inclined to agree.
The final version won't be out until sometime in December. It should be an interesting read.
Osterkraut wrote: They'll be fired.
elected officials most certainly cannot talk in terms of sacrifice.
It hits both sides big money paying constituents and loony partisan activist broadside. It is the sort of thing you would expects adults to suggest, therefore it has no chance. In the last year or so I have found myself spontaneously thinking we should change the national anthem to "we are the children".
I heard about this on television earlier. Not sure it's going to boost Obama's approval ratings any. But certainly is encouraging to hear someone even suggest that we may have to give a little to get out of this hole.
Here's another article that goes a little more in-depth on the proposed cuts. Remember, this is all preliminary:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-10/deficit-reduction-panel-s-plan-would-seek-to-cut-social-security-medicare.html
I am especially a fan of the income tax rate changes. Yeah, it would suck to lose the Mortgage Interest deduction.....but a 10% lower tax rate would be nice as well.
Although in reality I'm for the fairtax.
It still doesn't address the elephant in the room. Social Security needs to die. Any plan that tries to save Social Security is akin to trying to save cancer.
And were they to actually fix the Social Security issue, the rest would be easy.
We can either man up and commit to killing one sacred cow, or we can slowly choke under it's weight.
A guy in my church is a pretty good financial advisor and he says social security is fixable. Medicare is not.
Whatever, we have got to do something and its going to hurt. I doubt anything this commission comes up with will pass, because politicans don't want to give up anything. Pretty much what Dave says ^^^.
z31maniac wrote: I am especially a fan of the income tax rate changes. Yeah, it would suck to lose the Mortgage Interest deduction.....but a 10% lower tax rate would be nice as well. Although in reality I'm for the fairtax.
It will end up being tax neutral for most tax paying people, so in the end, you'll pay about the same amount. The point is to stop some of the excessive deductions people are making. Which I am fine with.
I'd also like to see a ballance of tax for all income. There should not be a way that one can make a significant income and pay much lower taxes. Hope I read that in the paper on Dec 1- the projected submission date.
DILYSI Dave wrote: It still doesn't address the elephant in the room. Social Security needs to die. Any plan that tries to save Social Security is akin to trying to save cancer.
I agree in premise. I don't think SS needs to die, but we talk about cutting spending like there's something to cut. In reality, Military, Social Security, Medicade and Medicare make up such an overwhelming percentage of the budget, it's fooling yourself to think cutting anywhere else will result in any significant change.
fast_eddie_72 wrote:DILYSI Dave wrote: It still doesn't address the elephant in the room. Social Security needs to die. Any plan that tries to save Social Security is akin to trying to save cancer.I agree in premise. I don't think SS needs to die, but we talk about cutting spending like there's something to cut. In reality, Military, Social Security, Medicade and Medicare make up such an overwhelming percentage of the budget, it's fooling yourself to think cutting anywhere else will result in any significant change.
This^^
I may or may not be flamed for this, but I really like the idea of being able to choose to put your required contribution into SS, OOORRRR being allowed to pick from a couple funds...maybe ones uncle sam gets to put together for me or have some sort of say about. But if we are pushing "personal responsibility" how bout giving me some room to make my own choices thankyouverymuch!!!
If both parties don't like it, it must be good.
Most of us will lose a significant tax write-off though. That mortgage interest credit is a big portion of my tax return.
Pumpkin Escobar wrote: This^^ I may or may not be flamed for this, but I really like the idea of being able to choose to put your required contribution into SS, *OOORRRR* being allowed to pick from a couple funds...maybe ones uncle sam gets to put together for me or have some sort of say about. But if we are pushing "personal responsibility" how bout giving me some room to make my own choices thankyouverymuch!!!
I agree 100%, but the problem is that current SS contributions are funding current SS expenditures. There is no SS 'savings account' - everything you put in is spent and you get an IOU in exchange. Take current contributions those out of the system and the current payments cannot be sustained.
I found this at Center on Budget and Policy Priorities - over 70% of the budget is Defense (20%), Social Security (20%), Medicare (et al) (21%) and 'Safety Net' Programs (14%). All political suicide to cut.
I still say to pick a cutoff date (i.e. 1/1/2012). Anyone born after that date will have to pay in to SS but will not receive any or get reduced benefits. As the population ages, the contributions from those excluded can gradually decrease as the population dies off. Painful in the short term, but following generations won't have to support it forever as it is now.
Cone_Junky wrote: If both parties don't like it, it must be good. Most of us will lose a significant tax write-off though. That mortgage interest credit is a big portion of my tax return.
I'm not crazy about that either, especially since we just refinanced and factored a pretty healty deduction into the decision. But my understanding is there are some savings that help offset things.
Shoot, I don't really care if it gets us moving in the right direction. If it costs me a little personally, I'm fine, as long as it's fair.
jeffmx5 wrote: I found this at Center on Budget and Policy Priorities - over 70% of the budget is Defense (20%), Social Security (20%), Medicare (et al) (21%) and 'Safety Net' Programs (14%). All political suicide to cut.
I haven't looked it all up recently, but I believe it's just a little worse than that when you include additional military expenses like veteran’s benefits and such. I typically include interest on the debt in here at some point simply because it's a "non optional" expense. Last time I checked that got us up over 75%.
Point being, for all their outrage over excessive spending over this or that - whatever they want to yell at the TV camera about today to show us how much they care- it's all an act if they're not talking about these things. You could cut everything else in the budget- EVERYTHING- and not offset the trade deficit. If you want significant cuts, these are the places you have to look.
I can't help but wonder if the people demanding tax cuts have looked at any of this information. I'm all for lower taxes, but you have to address the spending first. I never see anyone hoisting a sign that says CUT DEFENSE NOW! at the low tax outings. And anyone who even suggests that they might think about looking at cuts in Social Security will lose their next election in an overwhelming manner.
Holy crap! Do we have concensus here!? IMHO, killing the mortgage interest deduction when people are losing/walking away from their houses left and right is insane, though I do think an increase in the far-too-long-artificially-low prime rate is due (and yes, that would berkeley me, but I think it makes sense economically.)
Phase one of my eVil plan for Social Security: If you don't NEED it, you don't GET it. I've mentioned several times the friends of a friend who use their SS check to make the payments on their Bentley.
Phase one of my eVil plan for Medicaid: Need Medicare/Medicaid? NO PROBLEM! When you apply, a case worker comes to your house. Got cable? Not anymore! Got internet? Not anymore - it's called a library. The rest of us pay for it. Use it! Got a cell phone? Sorry, baby mamma, land-line only for you.
"While I'm here, I'm going to need everyone in the household to pee in a cup." Drugs or alcohol in the system of anyone in the household? Sorry! Go beg your neighbor for food or start cutting their grass for a living.
Need Medicaid for a pregnancy? NO PROBLEM! As soon as we cut the cord, here's your Norplant. We'll remove when you've paid back your debt to your neighbors.
fast eddie: I'm one of those crazy "cut spending in half guys," and I realize this means cuts across the board. Anyone who thinks that a significant chunk of the deficit/spending can be taken out without cutting military and entitlement spending should be kicked in the nuts.
Wow, closer look at that pie chart is pretty amazing. How much have we heard them yack on an on about Eucation spending. Nevermind that the schools don't work, I've heard a fair number of them go on and on about all the money we "waste" on Education.
Look at that- 3%. All that lather over 3%. Not saying 3% doesn't matter, but would be nice to have at least some little chat about the lines that make up 20% or more.
I think this whole thing present two false choices. They are in effect saying that we need to follow two paths - cut spending and increase tax revenue. The real problem is that we need to get control of our monetary system. The entire idea that the Federal Government must borrow money from private banks (who just invent it from nothing at all) and then has to pay it back with interest is insane. The real solution is change our entire monetary system and let the government control it for the people instead of letting the banks control it for themselves.
Classic misdirection. Put together a Commission to present two choices to artificially frame the arguement. This is just to distract us from the real problem that they don't want us thinking about.
poopshovel wrote: Holy crap! Do we have concensus here!? IMHO, killing the mortgage interest deduction when people are losing/walking away from their houses left and right is insane, though I do think an increase in the far-too-long-artificially-low prime rate is due (and yes, that would berkeley me, but I think it makes sense economically.)
I don't think you should just cut it, but over a very long period of time, phasing it out slowly would work. It sucks for me, but I can get behind it.
As for Social Security- the problem here is that I paid in all those years, I want my pay out. (Not me personally, me collectively). So it kind of needs to be the same thing. Phase it out slowly over a very long time.
When SS was passed, how long did people live? I don't know, 60s? 70s? Man, a load of folks living up in to their 80s and 90s now. But we haven't really changed the age for SS in a significant way. It's too bad. If they had done that a year at a time it would have taken care of this. But boat loads of Babby Boomers in their 60s running around in $100k Mobile Homes living off my SS payments are getting to be a pretty heavy load. Got to figure out a way to make SS more like what it was intended to be- a safety net for people who are too old and in too poor health to work. A little something to get them through the last few years of their lives. Not three decades of vacation on the backs of us working stiffs.
alfadriver wrote:z31maniac wrote: I am especially a fan of the income tax rate changes. Yeah, it would suck to lose the Mortgage Interest deduction.....but a 10% lower tax rate would be nice as well. Although in reality I'm for the fairtax.It will end up being tax neutral for most tax paying people, so in the end, you'll pay about the same amount. The point is to stop some of the excessive deductions people are making. Which I am fine with.
I wonder what the income cut-off point is, it'd be interesting to see.
poop, once again I COMPLETELY AGREE with you!
poopshovel wrote: Holy crap! Do we have concensus here!? IMHO, killing the mortgage interest deduction when people are losing/walking away from their houses left and right is insane, though I do think an increase in the far-too-long-artificially-low prime rate is due (and yes, that would berkeley me, but I think it makes sense economically.) Phase one of my eVil plan for Social Security: If you don't NEED it, you don't GET it. I've mentioned several times the friends of a friend who use their SS check to make the payments on their Bentley. Phase one of my eVil plan for Medicaid: Need Medicare/Medicaid? NO PROBLEM! When you apply, a case worker comes to your house. Got cable? Not anymore! Got internet? Not anymore - it's called a library. The rest of us pay for it. Use it! Got a cell phone? Sorry, baby mamma, land-line only for you. "While I'm here, I'm going to need everyone in the household to pee in a cup." Drugs or alcohol in the system of anyone in the household? Sorry! Go beg your neighbor for food or start cutting their grass for a living. Need Medicaid for a pregnancy? NO PROBLEM! As soon as we cut the cord, here's your Norplant. We'll remove when you've paid back your debt to your neighbors.
This. All of it.....
You'll need to log in to post.
