The Gang of Six plan, Social Security and other entitlements

Our country is what it is due to our pragmatic innovations! The Tea Party wants to return to the state of nature… Let ‘em — just leave the US alone!

• Link
• Report this comment

The far right and the far left do not care that if you do not turn the ship in time it WILL founder. They are willing to destroy the nation’s credit rating for their principles. I am not willing to go down with them if there’s a way to avoid the rocks, and it looks like this is the way. Churhill said that “you should never stand so high upon a principle that you cannot lower it to meet circumstances.” And he would know.

• Link
• Report this comment

[...] ZerosNPRCounterrevolution: GOP Elite Revolts Against Tea PartyBusiness InsiderNew York Times -Atlanta Journal Constitution (blog) -CBS Newsall 5,320 news [...]

• Link
• Report this comment

It would seem that most of the folks in Washington have lost track of who they server…it is WE THE PEOPLE and not themselves. It really doesn’t matter if they are proclaimed to be Liberal or Conservative (Far Left or Far Right) The folks in so called public office, make programs (retirement and medical plans) for themselves that is far better than what is set asside for WE THE TAX PAYER. The majority of the legal residents of this country are getting the shaft.

• Link
• Report this comment

No Longer Republican

July 20th, 2011
11:17 am
Still no end in sight to the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy

This is a myth. The Bush tax cuts also helped the middle class. I am very middle class and the Bush tax cuts saved me about 5%.

How much of a person’s money is enough for the government? How much of a person’s income should go to the government? I do not think it should be more than 25% for all government services (Federal, state and local).

• Link
• Report this comment

kc

July 20th, 2011
11:22 am

So what is the answer? Is it for the government to get involved and tell a company how to run their business or is it up to like minded individuals to band together and not do business with companies that act this way?

• Link
• Report this comment

Shouldn’t they be called the Deadly Six? Instead of policing these programs for fraud, they want to cut the benifits of these programs. It looks like when they kill off the sick, damaged and elderly, they could balance a budget leaving their inflated salaries for 3 or 4 months work and their and resigned in-strange- circumstances congresspeople’s benefits intact. If Congress really cared about the citizens of this great nation, they would start cutting from the top down of waste and excess; and, leave the services for the American people alone. Common sense has been replaced by greed and power. If a head-person-in-charge isn’t doing the job, get rid of him; don’t promote or transfer him and keep him drawing the company’s assets down with him. We need another Teddie Roosevelt to handle the Robber Barons before this country crumbles like the Roman Empire did from within. All our enemies have to do is be patient and let us self-destruct. Wakeup people; history does repeat itself.

• Link
• Report this comment

I long been against term limits, but I am coming around to the idea. Too much of what’s been going on in DC these past weeks has been about playing to or appeasing a particular base and not about really, truly, fixing our problems.

The states need to get the ball rolling on some constitutional amendments: one to establish term limits for Congress, another to end pensions for federal legislative service, and another to require that all laws they pass will be applicable to members of Congress as well.

But it will have to come from the states, these people are never going to do anything to themselves!

• Link
• Report this comment

When the “Gang of Six” are done, the federal government will have so much of what I make, I will never be able to retire. I will lose the bulk of my 401K deduction, the mortgage interest and taxes on our retirement home, which is our current “second home”, and the charitable deductions we personally sacrifice to make. But, hey, at least, the top 1% of income earners will have their taxes “flattened” by six percent. So glad I could help!

• Link
• Report this comment

As one of Dr. Gingrey’s constituents, it is great to hear support for his continued non-support of the elderly, handicapped, children’s health, environmental issues, and rational needs of the American people. What a great day for corporate America when we elected Dr. Phil to an office which rewards him for daily decisions which, if he were still actively practicing medicine, would immediately open him to litigation and professional censure for repeatedly breaking his vow “to do no harm.”

• Link
• Report this comment

OMG…Really

July 20th, 2011
11:49 am

What about the approach of government getting out of the way and letting job creation happen? Job creation would allow more people to pay taxes and then allow government to spend less money. There are several steps the government can take here:

1: Most small and medium size businesses are saying they will not hire because it is going to cost to much when Obama care is fully implemented. Repeal the law and jobs will be created.

2: Stop the war against domestic oil drilling: Open the gulf back up and off every coast. Allow the exploration of Shale in the middle of the country on public lands (or coarse charge the oil companies to explore on public lands) and open up Alaska. This will raise revenues, put a lot of people back to work, and lower the gas prices so that middle America has more money to spend on consumer goods.

3: There is no reason for 25% of this country to be on Medicaid and Food Stamps. Divert have that money to rebuilding our infrastructure (Bridges, roads, sewers, canals, ports). This will put more people back to work and turn them into tax payers.

4: Take all of these new revenues coming into the government and put them directly into paying off the debt.

5: Saving Social security: Start raising the age by a month for each year for anyone currently under the age of 45. Also, raise the cap from the current $106,000 to unlimited but reduce the % paid for the more money you make. Also, toughen the SSI requirements. It seems we are paying a lot of SSI to able bodied people that can work and that is taking away money for the old.

6: Flatten the tax rate and make ALL citizens have to pay something. The Dems are on here talking about all the deductions the rich get, well fine lets do away with these airplane deductions ect, but lets not forget about the other side. We tax Social security benefits as income but what about child support? Should this not also count as income? How about Food Stamps? Medicaid? Housing assistance? It all should be counted as income and should be taxed as well.

• Link
• Report this comment

Aquagirl

July 20th, 2011
12:34 pm

“Someone please sterilize Adairsville Rob.”

He is not the one that needs to be sterilized. It is all the people that can not take care of the children they have and get government handouts to take care of them, while at the same time, have not learned what put them in the circumstance to start with and continue to have additional children for the government to care for.

• Link
• Report this comment

OMG – Bush tax cuts put money directly into the hands of the people. All of these bailouts and shovel ready nonsense from Obama – who benefited from that? Ironic that Obama’s “aid” has done more to help Wall Street than Main Street. But yet all you can do is harp on a plan that actually returned to you what you earned.

• Link
• Report this comment

Let’s get some things straight here:
1. SS has not caused 1 penny of the deficit. It in fact has a $4.5 trillion surplus from the FICA taxes of millions of Americans.
2. SS will pay at 100% for next 25 yrs. even if there are no changes.
3. Minor modifications only are needed to be sure the program continues to pay at 100% for at least another 75 years after that. In that regard, as Bert Lance once said: “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”
4. Reaching that result should be done in the normal legis. process (hearings, votes, etc.), not at the point of a deficit ceiling gun.
5. Resist the temptation to do a reverse Robin Hood by stealing from the SS Trust Fund to pay for the deficit caused by other programs. This is what the Ryan bill (see Article VIII) does and many other proposals currently being floated do, despite deceptive spin to the contrary. That is exactly why proposals should be calmly deliberated in the normal process. As a Senior, I certainly don’t want to contribute from my SS for the multi-trillion dollar tax cut given by W to the wealthy.

• Link
• Report this comment

Td,

These are good points that you attempt to make but unfortunately some appear to be built upon myths and other completely unrealistic. Taken in order.

1: The health care law creates jobs in and of itself. Good or evil, every study outside of those done by partisan, hate everything D’s do groups back that up. Second, the whole idea that the bill is having this impact on small business is a right wing myth that has come to be seen as fact when viewed through the partisan lens.

2: This one I’m torn on. I’ll agree that more exploration is warranted but here there is more at stake. I’m leery of opening up areas like anwr for the same reason that I am leery of opening up more near-shore drilling: the track record of cost benefit analysis of the companies always seems to come down on the side of cutting corners and damn the consequences. I can agree with you on the exploration of the shale but even if all of those things are done the economic impact is too far off to have any effect on the issues at hand.

3: Here you seem to be arguing against yourself. The rebuilding of infrastructure will mean the expenditure of tax revenues. In order to spend this revenue it must be sufficient to cover the costs and the money clearly isn’t there. Confusing, this position.

4: Where are you seeing new revenue here? I think you are parroting the line “we don’t need more taxes, we need more taxpayers” but I just don’t see how the above three will accomplish that goal on the short term.

5: I am totally with you on SSI. I spend a number of years as a Public Defender and I would say the vast majority of my clients were on SSI for reason I couldn’t understand. I believe the program is valid and necessary but more scrutiny is way past due. I also agree that a raise in the age is valid but I don’t think I follow your plan.

6: In theory I agree with this point. In practice, it’s not possible to achieve this goal as you laid it out. If a person in actually in need of Food Stamps, Medicare, Section 8, etc, from where exactly will the money flow? As for Child Support, the taxes on that money have already been paid by the person earning it. This seems to me, to steal a popular right wing line, to be a little bit of “poor envy”.

Bottom line for me is that it’s time for the screamers and ranters to get out of the way and let some sense come back into the argument. Contrary to what both fringes think, neither represent most Americans and I, for one, am getting a little tired of being governed to satisfy the extremes.

• Link
• Report this comment

Red,

Personally, anything that helps me is great. But the cuts were sold as a way to make things better, to spur job growth, to expand the economy. Yet the result has been nothing but expansion of debt and minimal job creation by the “job creators”.

And to be very clear I am not harping on the Bush tax cuts. I am calling them bad policy, bad economic thinking and abject failures if evaluated against their positive impact on the nation as a whole. I’m not cynical enough yet to buy into the “I’ve got mine, hope you get yours” mindset. I have kids to think about.

• Link
• Report this comment

Bush tax cuts this…Bush tax cuts that…. Please remember this are now the Obama tax cuts. Like I said yesterday, the tax cuts Obama oppossed before he supported them before he opposed them. Not the Obama tax cuts you reply?

Well the Dems controlled the House and the senate last december and Obama signed the extension. Can we all agree now they are the Obama tax cuts?

• Link
• Report this comment

I use the term Bush tax cuts as a descriptor. If it makes you feel better call them moon cheese subsidies. No matter what you call them they were bad policy and bad for the nation as a whole.

• Link
• Report this comment

OMG-

Why can’t you call them what they are, Obama tax cuts. You don’t like the tax cuts? Fine. Blame the right guy, Pres. Obama. Liberals have no problem blaming conservatives, they just have a different standard when one of their own commit the same offense. You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own truth.

• Link
• Report this comment

Because it doesn’t matter except to hacks like you who need a boogie man to blame things on.

It’s the cuts that were wrong headed and they were initiated by GWB. That’s where the description came from. How about we call them the “Obama Cuts that Retired Soldier Hates”. Make you feel better little boy?

Sheez.

• Link
• Report this comment

OMG…Really

July 20th, 2011
1:13 pm

1: We shall disagree on this one. The information I have seen is from the Chamber of commerce and its small business arm.

2: Most of these plans from the right, left or the President do not start for years to come. If these areas are open at least these companies will start to hire the engineers and other white collar people now to do the research. Just the opening will drive down the speculation and drop gas prices.

3: All I am saying is that if you divert these funds from the programs (Not raise any new revenue) and spend it instead on actual projects then the people currently on the programs can become productive tax paying citizens. The bottom line would be less money going out from the government and more coming in due to the increase in tax payers.

4: The new revenues are going to be from the more people taken off the current welfare rolls and put onto the tax payer rolls. The government would not have to outlay as much money and would be able to receive more money. Again this is not short term in the since of 2 to 6 months but I would guess that we could see benefits coming in the next 12 months.

5: If you are currently 45 then you can not start receiving until you are 65 and 1 month, 44 would be 65 and 2 months… If you are currently 25 then you could not receive until 66 and 8 months. This would be a gradual increase in retirement age and allow the younger generation to plan for their retirement.

6: ” As for Child Support, the taxes on that money have already been paid by the person earning it.” We currently make people claim in kind support from individuals or your company (like if a company supplies you a car) as income, is not CS the same? Alimony is counted as income also. CS is not taxed and is not counted as income. There are many custodial parents receiving $20,000 to $50,000 plus per year, not having to report it, work a part time job to show $8,000 to $12,000 a year and claiming the EITC where we are giving them and additional $2000 to $3000 per year. Nice scam isn’t it.

• Link
• Report this comment

OMG-

So name calling is ok, shame on you, maybe I’ll take my ball and go home. I don’t hate the tax cuts so your new name would not be correct. But being correct doesn’t appear to matter.

• Link
• Report this comment

And I’ll gladly shoulder the shame.

• Link
• Report this comment

Well said Red

• Link
• Report this comment

By the way, I pretty much agree with you on “shovel-ready.” That appears to have been mismanaged, with too much red tape and bureacracy. To the extent it helped, it could have been much more efficient.

Bye now.

• Link
• Report this comment

Dan

July 20th, 2011
2:37 pm

Where is the money coming for the corporations to pay all of those taxes? It is either coming from one of two places. They are either passing on those taxes to the consumers or they make less profit and as a result pay less dividends or their stock is worth less. Either way the consumer is paying the taxes in higher prices or their 401K, retirement plan is not worth as much money.

• Link
• Report this comment

How can they CAP Social Security COLA? You can’t get much less than ZERO.

How about cutting out some of the EXTRAVAGANCE of the way folks in Washington live:

Private jets to everywhere, 26 servants for the First Lady (How many does Queen Elizabeth have?)
Getting paid for not showing up when Congress is in session…. Lifetime benefits for one term of service, Endowments to Arts that only a few ever see, Giving away $$ to educate folks that have no business in college anyway, and, Wasting $$ on every turn… (Just to name a few)

Folks in Washington need to come down to the REAL world and see how HONEST folks deal with their budget issues. You 1st look at what comes in, and, when it is Spent it is GONE. Overdrafts at he Bank are expensive…(I learned that when I was a teenager.)

You CUT up the credit cards, and if you” CAN’T Pay For it, You DON’t NEED it”, (Wisdom from my Grandparents) You drive a car that is PAID FOR, live in a home that is WITHIN your means, STAY HOME when you can not afford to take a vacation, and CUT OUT THE FAT from your grocery list because it is better for your health to do without it. You HELP your neighbors in ways you can, but you DON’T butt into their business, and you TRUST GOD to PROVIDE.

I have been unemployed for 2 years and I sleep well at night because I don’t OWE anything to anybody but GOD.

I PRAY that our Leaders can learn to do this also.

• Link
• Report this comment

OMG and the rest of my Dem friends. Below is an article showing point 1. If you want to put people back to work and at the same time raise revenues and collect more taxes then write your Dem. congressmen and the President and tell them to stop the nonsense.

http://thehill.com/special-reports/energy-july-2011/172391-end-moratorium-on-offshore-drilling-now

• Link
• Report this comment

I think all the liberals have been run off by this burst of common sense. Shame on us!

• Link
• Report this comment

Off subject question?Td you mention drilling shale for natural gas.If I understand this involves horizontal drilling, then hydraulic fracturing.If this be the case.Then what are we doing to our ground water?If the fracture liquid is reclaimed how is it treated,and disposed?

• Link
• Report this comment

when they cut all foreign aid first, then start whackin the war mongering budget, then farm welfare, err subsidies, becomes extinct, i might take this bunch of clowns on both sides serious. americans first for a change!!

• Link
• Report this comment

saxby looks good standing with dick durbin. two peas in a pod. looking forward to the day when i can vote against that rino

• Link
• Report this comment

MrLiberty

July 20th, 2011
4:35 pm
If MASSIVE cuts are not made from DAY ONE, no proposal will be worth a damn. No future congress will ever abide by spending limits set by today’s congress – guaranteed (your honor, I would like to introduce the historical record as my evidence).

You are absolutely correct. This is the reason I have said from the beginning spending cuts first and revenue enhancements in the future.

• Link
• Report this comment

can we end/stop some of free trade agreements that result in massive job loss?

seems like even if cuts are made and taxes were lowered other countries will just lower theirs as well….race to the bottom?

any economists in the house?

• Link
• Report this comment

kc

July 20th, 2011
4:56 pm
can we end/stop some of free trade agreements that result in massive job loss?

We can stop the outsourcing of jobs tomorrow if we were not so greedy as a nation. All you have to do in shop for American made only and if enough people did this then these companies would start producing them again in the US.

• Link
• Report this comment

well said Bob

• Link
• Report this comment

Cubby and Ghost Rider–
You have been given inaccurate facts re SS. Our FICA taxes go into the SS Trust Fund which has been receiving more funds than paid out since the beginning of the program until this year for the first time. It has accrued a $4.5 trillion surplus. Now, the money has not just sat there. In order to earn money on its surplus, the SS Trust Fund has invested in US Treasury bonds which have been the world’s safest investment, at least until the recent craziness. Others, like large banks, brokerage houses, rich folks and foreign governments (e.g. China has over $2 trillion worth) also own them. So while the SS Trust Fund may not be primarily composed of liquid cash, it is hardly worthless unless the US govt. decides to welch on its legal obligations to Seniors. Granted, the govt. could choose to pay banks or China first and stiff Seniors, as has been proposed in some legislation by some Republican Congressmen and at least 1 Republican Senator, but it is highly unlikely the American people would stand for this.

As I alluded to briefly above, SS benefits have been paid at 100% and totally from each year’s FICA revenues until this year when there was a small difference which was met by interest income on the US Treasury bonds held by the SS Trust Fund. Projections are that revenues plus interest will be enough to pay 100% benefits for at least another 10 years and that revenues, interest and US Treasury Bond redemptions would pay benefits at 100% for at least another 25 years. With minor modifications the SS Trust Fund will be able to pay benefits at 100% for at least another 75 years after that. There are several proposals for minor legislative modifications which would accomplish this goal. They should be considered in the normal legis. process (hearings, votes, etc.) and not at the point of the debt ceiling gun.

• Link
• Report this comment

There are a lot of things in the Federal Budget that can be cut easily because they never should have been there in the first place. Just to name a few: $445 million for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, $17 million for the International Fund for Ireland, $420 million for Legal Services Corporation. $1.565 billion in Amtrak Subsidies, $4.5 billion for Community Development Fund, $7.5 billion I/2 of the Federal Travel Budget, $76 million for the Appalachian Regional Commission, $1.15 billion for Programs under the National and Community Services Act, $250 million for Economic Assistance to Egypt, $1.2 billion savings if it were prohibited to use taxes to fund union activities by federal employees. $900 million to fund Obamacare administrative costs. These are just a few, there are many, many more.

• Link
• Report this comment

Thanks Bob, it was a pleasure. Wish I was young enough to have the old rucksack on my back.

• Link
• Report this comment

DannyX-

Source of the poll?
Just because a majority of people are in favor of something doesn’t make it right.
I believe I have said this on this blog before, the “tea party” people that helped organize an event where I live were normal every day working class folks fed up with the direction of our government. Crazy? No, well informed, yes.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Source of the poll?
Just because a majority of people are in favor of something doesn’t make it right.”

Source of the poll? Just google “tax poll.” Take your pick, there are plenty of new ones, they all show the same thing, strong support for Obama on the issue, very poor results for Republicans.

Speaking of poor results for Republicans, how is Wisconsin going? Not too good is it? Less than a year in office their governor is at 29% approval. The crazy Tea Party antics created a revolt. Fed up indeed, and doing something about it with recalls.

• Link
• Report this comment

Saxby may be the only Republican in this state who hasn’t sold out the country.

Takes stones to raise revenue – just like Ronald Reagan had a pair.

These House maggots pander – they wouldn’t know how to lead if it sat on their face.

• Link
• Report this comment

[...] on Tuesday, there was Coburn in the members-only briefing of the Senate, endorsing the proposal. military surplus#dd_ajax_float{ background:none repeat scroll 0 0 #FFFFFF; border:1px solid #DDDDDD; float:left; [...]

• Link
• Report this comment

yuzeyurbrane:

Social Security trust fund solvency is a myth
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2011/mar/12/social-security-trust-fund-solvency-myth/
The Fake Social Security Solvency Crisis Is Congress’s Fault!
http://neweconomicperspectives.blogspot.com/2011/04/fake-social-security-solvency-crisis-is.html

• Link
• Report this comment

We voted and put these people in office and the only way to change is to let them know we don’t like the way things are going and the might be out of representing

• Link
• Report this comment

Please don’t call Social security and Medicare entitlement programs .. They are set up as insurance programs much the same way that life insurance is. That’s just a nit with me…

I haven’t read the bill so I can’t comment on that yet but good for some congress folks for working together to get us out of this slog. Who would have thought that unfunded tax cuts, medicare prescriptions plans, education spending and two unfunded wars would have caused such a large deficit.
Federal Taxation is the lowest it has been in sixty years and if it paid for itself we’d be at zero percent unemployment. Not all taxation affects unemployment folks. Talk about class warfare. 40 million earned under 24,000 dollars a year and did not pay federal taxes. What lucky duckies. BTW.. that’s a family of four. Yup..class warfare Let’s tax them 100 dollars a year in federal income tax. I don’t have a problem with that but I bet walmart would.

• Link
• Report this comment

LYNN.. Federal taxes do not pay for defense, social security,veteran benefits, medicare and medicaid. Forget unemployment, after all those folks can beg on the street. President Reagan passed a bill called emtala, look it up.

• Link
• Report this comment

HL:

Bless you – no Social Security and Medicare are “not entitlement programs” – we have paid into this insurance fund – REQUIRED BY LAW – and it is indeed an insurance program – most people will never see what they have paid into it. Good Lord, if someone dies before they reach the age to reap the benefits – well our good ole government just gets to keep it……..

• Link
• Report this comment

At least this tea-bag infection ain’t pretending to be Christian. Like Neil, who doesn’t even try to hide the fact that he’s an ungrateful prick.

• Link
• Report this comment

Lynn, You lost me. I have paid for term life insurance and guess what I didn’t die. Most companies offer term insurance and health insurance and only if you are sick or die do you reap the benefits. Those are private companies. That’s the way it works. Corporate America actual does this all the time. Social security and medicare are only gone if you continue to vote for people who want to get rid of it.
You are definitely right, the war should have been paid for. I would have been glad to buy war bonds. In the old days before Bush, that’s what happened.
I’m still waiting for those Bush tax cuts to create employment. Look at graphs.. Reagan raised taxes eleven times, Clinton raised taxes..did those tax increases create the jobs that were created probably not. Most studies show taxes do little for job creation.
You just keep listening to Boortz and Fox though and someday the magic fairies will appear to save you.
I don’t know you so this comment is not meant for you, but can someone tell me what libertarian country they would live in. Ayn Rand was lucky because while she preached her magic world she was lucky to have her hospital expenses paid for by the good old USA and medicare.

• Link
• Report this comment

@ray – such intelligent commentary on your part. Shows that you’re clearly part of the moocher class that doesn’t contribute to Society. An easy way to spot a low-IQ is resorting to name-calling (which explains your lack of understanding the difference between a conservative & a liberal).

You should avoid attempting to participate in blogs in the future that are clearly above your ability to comprehend.

• Link
• Report this comment

Neil. I will ask again. Please tell us what specific spending items of Obama’s can to directly contribute to the TRILLIONS of increased government spending. Entitlement increases don’t count, war spending doesn’t count, simulus monies were appropriated before he took office, and you know that the Part D GOP plan was much worse of a hit on the budget than the Affordable Healthcare Bill. Which by the way, the “administrative costs” on businesses are more than offset by grants, tax credits, and direct reductions in health care costs.

• Link
• Report this comment

Neil. If you pay high five figures in taxes, your problem is having a sorry tax accountant. Not some working person, especially female, making less than $10 per hour who does not have access to healthcare, and whose only hope for retirement is social security.

• Link
• Report this comment

The Centrist ..most folks don’t realize that the increase to the deficit are programs started under Bush. Although I haven’t read the gang of six proposal, I’m pleased to see the parties working together to pay our debts.
As far as earmarks go, I know in our state they have been lobbying for federal funds for the Savannah port. My feeling is that if a state feels that those funds are important, we should pay for them at the state level. Representatives get reelected by bringing home funds that help states grow. I don’t care what you call those funds. Under Republican house leadership they are no longer called ear marks, though.

• Link
• Report this comment

Neil, We are talking about federal taxation..for example if your gross is 100,000 and you pay 20,000 in federal taxation, that’s 20 percent.. We all pay a lot of taxes. Even those 40 million who have a family of four earning less than 24,000 who don’t pay federal income tax, they pay lots of taxes. Those lucky duckies btw not having to pay federal taxes.

• Link
• Report this comment

Here are some items that the Federal Government is paying for with our tax dollars that should never be in the Federal Budget. $25 million to Save America’s Treasures Program, $167.5 million for the National Endowment for the Arts, $167.5 million for the National Endowment for the Humanities, $250 million for Hope VI Program (What the He….is this)?, $1.3 billion for duplicative education programs, H.R. 2274 (in last Congress), authored by Rep. McKeon, (again, What in the He… is this?)$55 million for U.S. Trade Development Agency (again, What is this?), $20 million for Woodrow Wilson Center Subsidy, $24 million for Heritage Area Grants and Statutory Aid (again, what the He.. is this)?, $95 million for Beach Replenishment, $2 Billion for New Starts Transit. This is a few more of many, many things our tax dollars are going toward that should never be in the Federal Budget. Do we smell PORK BARREL somewhere in all this Federal Spending? All of these and others could be cut out of the Federal Budget entirely, and our illustrious leaders could probably balance the budget by themselves without expert help. The BIG Question is, why are these things in the Federal Budget and being paid for with taxpayer dollars?

• Link
• Report this comment

I didn’t sleep in a Holiday Inn, but I am still confused why some think supply side will help in this particular economy when we obviously have a demand problem. Banks and corporations are sitting on tons of money but not willing to take the risk.

Neil, you willing to get rid of emtala along with obamacare? Just curious because the Reagan bill has raised costs more.

• Link
• Report this comment

neil and pompano are too good for Ronald Reagan…

Yeah, I guess making enough to pay all those taxes is much worse than not making crap and getting your ass blown off in Iraq…

Ungrateful frat-boy silver spooners…go write daddy a thank you note..LOL!

• Link
• Report this comment

The Centrist

July 20th, 2011
8:05 pm

Food stamps. Extended unemployment benefits. Did you happen to read the article in this paper a few weeks ago at what the cost to cover adults between 18 and 65 will cost with expanded medicaid the state will pay? How about covering children until they are 26? Do you want to know how high the classrooms will be when we have to cut an additional $1 to $2 billion per year?

• Link
• Report this comment

@Hi…never doubted CBO, so why can’t I quote them? They are the impartial source from Congress.

@Ray…you love making bad assumptions and bitter stereotypes. I was raised in a 2BR apt in NYC to lower middle class parents. I was never in a frat, and the only silver spoons I’ve ever seen were at Waffle House. Time for a new rant.

• Link
• Report this comment

TD.. Take away unemployment and food stamps and start adding how many layoffs walmart and other stores have. We have a demand problem, if we didn’t corporations, and banks would pump money into the economy. When our economy has slowed it has not always been a supply side or a necessarily a demand problem but this time it is clear.
How many jobs are created by that unemployment check?
BTW..I asked others previously, how do you feel about Reagan’s bill EMTALA?

• Link
• Report this comment

EMTALA is not a government tax but it indirectly it costs those buying health insurance 1200.00 a year and yeah..obamacare is bad.
The funniest thing is to hear Rush saying he’ll move to Chile..hahahahaha…cuz they have universal health care..what?? There are several countries without regulations, without health care mandates and with low taxation. Personally I wouldn’t move to any of them.
I like Ayn Rand’s approach ..write a novel and then use medicare.

• Link
• Report this comment

The Centrist

July 20th, 2011
9:16 pm

Maybe I did not state the article clear enough. We the taxpayers of Georgia will have to pay for 20% of the medicaid cost for covering poor adults between 18 to 65 we will also now have to cover children under Peachcare until they are 26. The estimated cost to the state will be $1 t0 $2 billion per year. That means the Federal cost to the budget for Georgia is going to be $7 to $10 billion a year. The state does not have the revenues for this additional amount so they will have to cut something. Education is the biggest expense so it have to be cut more for this mandated increase in spending.

• Link
• Report this comment

td..how do you feel about emtala? That was a Reagan program.. Wouldn’t it cost me less to pay for clinics than emergency rooms? I wrote my rep about emtala and he never responded but maybe you will. I’d rather my health care insurance be decreased and pay more for state taxes for clinics. IMO…
Somehow, I’d be paying less.

• Link
• Report this comment

hl

July 20th, 2011
9:45 pm

I must admit I do not know much about the law or if it was a Reagan initiative or a Democratic lead effort. I may be mistaken but I think there was a Supreme court case close to 1986 that required hospitals to perform emergency services.

• Link
• Report this comment

Funny that the discussion has turned to how the mean ole Feds are forcing the state to spend money it doesn’t have. I cant feel sorry for Georgia whose state reps. for a decade, have been shifting the stae’s obligations to local governments who cant afford them. Georgia simply doesn’t use it’s money wisely. We are an attractive place to relocate, but our poor support of public education keeps all but the low paying jobs from coming here.
Don’t take my word for it ask a county commissioner or city councilperson. They will confirm the cram down by the state. Ah, the irony.

• Link
• Report this comment

The proposal also calls for the Finance Committee to switch to a territorial tax system, under which U.S. multinational companies wouldn’t face taxes on income they earn outside the country. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business groups have been urging Congress to make such a change.

Senator Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat who has proposed his own bipartisan tax-code overhaul, said yesterday that driving rates down that far would require making big changes to breaks that many taxpayers enjoy. Those include the mortgage interest deduction and the deduction for charitable contributions.

“You would have to cut back very dramatically on some of the middle-class tax incentives,” he said.

Looks like middle america will take it on the chin under the gang of 6 charade.

guess what folks the corporatists are buying the repubs and dems in this act of bad cop, good cop ….don’t think anyone from prez on down can really be trusted by john q citizen.

• Link
• Report this comment

Here is an idea that the American voters should embrace. Why not have every member of Congress and their staff cut their salaries by 50% and share the pain. Most are rich and many are millionaires that are out of touch with America so why pay them to waste the resources of our country. You laugh? Senators, Reps and the Tea bag gang would not be laughing if you trimmed their benefits by 50%a but that is a good place to start looking for reductions in expenditures. Serving the people of America should be an honor not an occupation. Comments, Mr. Cantor, Mr. Coburg??

• Link
• Report this comment

In my opinion Pres. Obama should not have extended the Bush Tax Cuts. But, he could not just check his advisors. The economy would have been in a much better place had he let them expire. Secondly, about this super secret cabal. History teaches me that the last time people met and agreed in private when the details were released to the public: Women could not vote. Blacks were counted as 3-5 of a human beings, and Native Americans did not exist. So, these secrets meetings are not in my opinion the best way to go. What happened to open government?

• Link
• Report this comment

The problem with “mans testing” for SS, Medicare or any other taxpayer funded program is IT IS A REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH FROM THE SUCCESSFUL, HIGH WAGE EARNER AND THOSE WHO SAVE AND INVEST AND ACCUMULATE SOME WEALTH! NOT AMERICAN!!!!!

• Link
• Report this comment

I have a question.Lets see how many can answer it. How much more than the average family of 2 does Obama eat,medicate,use of electricity,pay rent? If he pays the same amount as the average 2 person house hold then why is he getting paid so much just to be a president? Isnt he supposed to be like the rest of us citizens? just a few questions.

• Link
• Report this comment

How can Social Security be an “Entitlement” when you and your employer pay into it????? What school did you go to???? Russian?

• Link
• Report this comment

I’m not a usual commenter, but I’m tired of the words social security and entitlement linked. My mom paid into social security for decades and depends on it now for her existence. I don’t think she’s entitled – she’s earned the benefit because she paid into our federal insurance program. There’s a reason social security and Medicare came into existence. Seniors were eating dog food and dying before their time. Now is the time not to forget why we have such programs. We can be pragmatic and adjust, but be careful. Focus on the billions that military contractors are making off privatized wars.

• Link
• Report this comment

Not every high wage recipient works hard and not every low wage recipient is lazy. There are many factors influencing where one stands in life. That’s why we have programs such as SS and Medicare to ensure folks have dignity in life.

Is it Un-American to have a society where a few reap massive rewards while a majority live hand to mouth. That sounds like a third world nation. Was forced to watch one of those home shows – picking a condo in Central America. The condo compound was beautiful. Outside the compund looked like a massive slum. Is this the kind of America you want?

I have no use for a bum, but, anyone who works hard (no matter the wage scale), plays by the rules, etc. deserves some level of health care and SS in retirement.

• Link
• Report this comment

@Jerome Horwitz….

Jerome, it is not the function of the US Gov’t or the State of Georgia, under either Constitution to “ensure that folks have dignity in life” any more than it is the gov’t who should be responsible for deciding who works hard and who doesn’t. The gov’t should ensure that the playing field of opportunity is level, and then it’s up to individuals to work hard and compete to make their way.

Do you think it’s just luck that some people become successful executives and others are working for minimum wage? Do you think it’s just some fluke of the cosmos? In fact, any time I hear about a person who came from poverty and got great grades in school, earned a scholarship to college (which in GA is very simple to do…just get a B average), and then went on to do great things….I just want to jump up and down for joy. It proves that it can be done. Life isn’t fair, and some people have advantages, but sitting around doesn’t overcome those disadvantages. Only hard work and a positive attitude can.

I cannot stand those people who assume that they are owed “dignity” or owed a living or owed something just for breathing. You earn diginity and respect. You earn what you get….in one way or another. Years ago, you earned a living or you starved. Today, people expect handouts from gov’t, and then they rant and rave about the people whose money they so eagerly take. This country has changed from a bunch of pioneers and explorers who took risks and fended for themselves to a bunch of whining babies who want the nanny gov’t to provide them with everything.

• Link
• Report this comment

Hey KC…the pols are bought and paid for, but it’s the ignorant masses who keep voting them into office. When people understand the issues and act in their own self-interest, instead of doing what some group tells them or based on a 30 sec commercial, then you’ll get better representation.

Until then, people in this country get the gov’t they deserve.

• Link
• Report this comment

Jerome Horwitz

July 21st, 2011
1:44 pm

“There are many factors influencing where one stands in life”

Can you please name some of these factors?

• Link
• Report this comment

Well stated TD.

• Link
• Report this comment

Jerome-

One of the great misunderstandings in the world of politics is republicans/conservatives are all wealthy country clubers whom seldom had to work due to inheirted wealth. That seems to be your view in reference to robber barons, etc. Fact is most conservatives are like me, strictly middle class from a middle class family who happen to believe is less government, lower taxs and more personal freedom.

I suggest you look at the 2008 elections as a guide. Wall street gives the majority of its cash and votes to democrates. Business centers like New York, San Fran and LA are strictly democrat. The “robber barons” of today are alive and well in the party of Obama.

• Link
• Report this comment

RetiredSoldier

July 21st, 2011
4:26 pm

So true. Wall street, hedge fund manager and banks gave overwhelmingly to Democrats and Obama in 2008. This story seems to escape the “main stream media”. Them, trail lawyers, unions and hollywood makes up 80% of all the money the Dems receive. The Republicans are manly funded by corporations, small business owners, the pharmaceutical industry and the oil industry.

Most of the Reps supporters are in middle America and not on the two coast.

• Link
• Report this comment

@yuzeyurbrane…not an “emotional rant” at all. In fact, what that I said wasn’t factual and was emotional? When people start talking about the gov’t upholding “dignity” and things along those lines, those are the subjective and emotional comments. Discussing what the Constitution does and does not provide for, or that people make their own choices in life, and the fact that anyone in GA with a B average in high school can get a scholarship…those are demonstrable facts.

And no…I don’t know anyone from the “silver sperm” club, whatever that means. People I know and work with have worked hard to get where they are, and no one handed them anything.

What really does irk me and get emotional is this neo-socialism that vilifies financial success. This new popularism is trying to make it something to be ashamed of to be financially and otherwise succesful. Somehow it’s now fashionable to be poor or to be uneducated. Those are now the “working people” as if others are laying around watching Oprah reruns.

What also irks me is the resentment that comes from this new popularism. The top 10% of wage earners pay 70% percent of federal income taxes. The bottom 50% pay nothing. That is not an opinion…that is fact. I posted links earlier in the thread. Now…I don’t expect anyone to give me kudos for paying my huge tax bill every year, but I do expect not to be called names and to be vilified, especially by the very same people who are happy to take the money I pay.

When we hear from the President about “shared scarifice” and paying your “fair share”…he is directing that to the evil “rich” people who make more than $250K/yr, not a very large sum in today’s world. The reality is as I stated. People making more than $250K/yr are paying a HUGE share of the federal income taxes, and it’s really the 50% on the low end who are skipping out on their responsibility to share the burden.

• Link
• Report this comment

you fail to mention the top 1% earn 25% income and own 43% of financial wealth….how much should they pay in taxes to protect their ability to earn what many view as highly disparate income…..think hedge fund folks who earn billions should only pay 15%…..i do agree 250K is not wealthy when viewed from net income position….i also agree everyone needs some skin in the game, but wonder what % is fair for minimum wage salary

• Link
• Report this comment

“You fail to mention the top 1% earn 25% income and own 43% of financial wealth.” Yup, I did, but so what? Why is what you stated bad? That is the main point.

What amendment to the US Constitution says that there has to be some even demographic split for income and wealth? Isn’t that the motivator that has built and drives this country and our economy? The fact that one can build wealth and fortune. I think it’s a good thing that more people should aspire to, rather than feeling jealous and envious of what others have.

• Link
• Report this comment

How ’bout this for tax revision…a 5% national sales tax and voluntary contributions to the IRS for the value you feel like you’re receiving from the gov’t. Might just get you to vote a little differently.

• Link
• Report this comment

WOW Neil, You are on a roll. So what amendment IN the US Constitution says that there shouldn’t be some even demographic split for income and wealth? The only time people are jealous and envious of what others have, in this simply debate, is when they figure out how they got there. On both sides.

• Link
• Report this comment

Centrist…thanks for responding. My idea is for Fed only, let the state/local tailor their programs according to needs, resources, etc. Past time for the Fed to stop buying votes with your money. FICA and medicare will continue to be deducted from your pay, and invested separately. I think you’ll see all the Southern states and less populated ones thrive and prosper…I’d worry about NY, CA, MI, and most of New England. Can’t you see that we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem?

• Link
• Report this comment

Enter your comments here

• Link
• Report this comment

VAT tax is just like the fair tax. The only difference is that we still have a income tax. The UK started a VAT tax years ago and said it would only be 5%, guess what it is 23% today. That means you pay a 23% tax on every item you buy. They also have a very high “progressive” income tax.

• Link
• Report this comment

Jerome think you hit nail on head-carpetbaggers+scalawags=republicans of that day.Ready to loot and plunder the defeated south.

• Link
• Report this comment

Neil, lighten up. You know what I meant by silver sperm award previously known as being born with a silver spoon in their mouth. I assumed you are a self-made wealthy man. I also find it hard to believe you do not know anyone born with a silver spoon. But I guess anything is possible. Also, I will stick with rant because you are making emotional arguments based on some truths, some half-truths and some things you are just wrong about. In short you are expressing your opinion. Fine. Others have already dissected some of your statements so I won’t repeat. But you are wrong to say people who are not subject to Federal income taxes pay no taxes and imply that they don’t work as hard as you. They pay plenty of taxes in the form of FICA, sales taxes, telecommunications taxes, “fees” for various govt. services, etc. Studies have shown they pay a higher % of their meager incomes on taxes than most higher income people like you. Surely, you should remember this since you pulled yourself up by your own bootstraps without any govt. largesse at all? And the people who work by the sweat of their brow at minimum wage jobs which no one else will do are less than you? I have a different opinion than you. I am pleased to see people attain financial success through their hard work and in fact admire them. But I believe in an opportunity society where everyone has a level playing field to make it based on their ability and drive alone. That makes a strong society. Would you prefer a banana republic society with the wealthy few esconced behind their gated communities? I hope not. As that great socialist, Warren Buffett, said: “We already have class warfare and my class has won.”

• Link
• Report this comment

“I suggest you look at the 2008 elections as a guide. Wall street gives the majority of its cash and votes to democrates. Business centers like New York, San Fran and LA are strictly democrat. The “robber barons” of today are alive and well in the party of Obama.”

The “robber barons” gave to who it appeared would win — Hands down. Look at the 2004 elections for that evidence.

• Link
• Report this comment

First of all, let’s howbout we stop refering to Social Security as an entitlement…SS is about as much of an entitlement as the proceeds of your stock portfolio, IRAs, and 401Ks. We all paid into these things under the existing “rules of the game”, and under those very same rules, we OWN the proceeds. They’re not gifts, give-aways, or entitlements…they’re OURS. The only entitlements are those enjoyed by the esteemed legislators who have, over the years, raped the Social Security program.

• Link
• Report this comment

Ole Guy

July 22nd, 2011
11:09 am

How about all those people receiving SSI. It is the governments way to strip the money all the hard working people put into the system and to redistribute to others that are to lazy to work (exception being those who are truly disabled and that is about 20% of all SSI recipients)

• Link
• Report this comment

Let’s examine the Senate plan for dealing with the debt crisis?

Well?

Oh yeah…there isn’t one. Once again, Harry Reid and the dems only know how to say no. The democrats have no proposal at all on the table. Talk about a failure to negotiate!

• Link
• Report this comment

RetiredSoldier

July 22nd, 2011
2:56 pm

No RS this is all about Harry Reid trying to maintain power. There are 8 Democrat Senators in red state up for re election next year. Reid does not want them to have to take a vote on any issue that could be used against them in the next election.

• Link
• Report this comment

Ramussen Poll showing Obama 41%- Ron Paul 37%..

• Link
• Report this comment

td you bitch and whine about all the people on ssi.Say only 20% legitmate.How do the excess get approved?Crooked doctors?Lawyers?or by afflilation ? I’m not disagreeing with you.Just wondering how this is accomplished,and if you had given thought.

• Link
• Report this comment

kc

July 22nd, 2011
7:09 pm
is compromise in repub vocabulary

Obama knows that there are 221 Republican and Democratic members of the house that have signed a pledge not to raise taxes and he is insisting on it or no deal. If they give in then he wins reelection because the conservatives will not come out in force to vote next year.

Obama is a socialist and the worst President we have ever had but he is a brilliant politician. He knows if they do HIS “Compromise” then he wins and if they do not then he wins because he runs against congress “tea party” instead of his record.

• Link
• Report this comment

Galloway came breathlessly out from his vacation to endorse the “Gang of 6″ proposal, but is holed up now that it has been blown out of the water. There was NEVER any chance the House of Representatives who were largely elected by “Taxed Enough Already” (TEA) party members were going to accept $1.2 trillion in additional taxes over the next 10 years. They might have accepted the $800 billion in limiting loopholes and deductions that Obama first agreed to, but when he moved the goal posts the negotiations collapsed.

• Link
• Report this comment

President Obama asked of the Republicans today: “‘Can they say yes to anything?”

Republicans have put forward via the House legislation that the Senate narrowly turned down today. There is also the Senate Republican McConnell plan that now looks like the closest thing to be approved next week.

It was “the jello president” Obama who agreed to $800 billion in loophole and deduction changes, only to renege and increase that to $1.2 trillion. Otherwise, they seemed close to an agreement except for accounting differences on proposed spending cuts and the two sides were not able to bridge their differences over the triggers designed to force Congress to enact both tax reform and cuts to Medicare and other benefit programs by early next year.

This has been all about politics (Republicans using the debt ceiling to force spending cuts), and Democrats demonizing Republicans when they won’t accept outlandish tax increases.

• Link
• Report this comment

The axiom in negotiation is that there is no agreement on anything until everything is agreed. Excuses aside, it is evident that the Republicans again ceased to negotiate and purposely delayed communicating that until after the market had closed. Although I suspect that was merely the last gesture for the benefit of their TEA-types, and the debt ceiling will be raised; but should it not be, the adverse consequences for all of us will be far greater than any tax increase that may be envisioned. Then, there will be no bliss in ignorance.

• Link
• Report this comment

td,
I want what you are smoking! Stop drinking the Kool-Aid. My husband and I are business owners, and I can assure you taxes, tax credits and the cost of employee benefits are NEVER consideration when we are thinking of hiring. If business coming in the door calls for hiring, we do it. Simple as that. For the sake of honesty: “ObamaCare” doesn’t mandate small businesses provide health care insurance. If you are blessed and find your company approaching having 50 employees, you can create another corporation, or sub-out services, just call your CPA.

• Link
• Report this comment

Here is the problem:

“— U.S. corporations are expanding overseas, not so much at home. … U.S.-based multinational companies have been focused overseas for years: In the 2000s, they added 2.4 million jobs in foreign countries and cut 2.9 million jobs in the United States, according to the Commerce Department. ” Source AP 7/22/11

There are no legislative fixes for this problem. This is the way it will be for the next 30 to 40 years.

• Link
• Report this comment

jconserv, probably correct, but why do we have legislation that rewards companies for this practice? profits helps business in terms of stock value which helps pension portfolios and 401ks, but it is likley more beneficial to high wealth investors ….if our citizens are destined to job/wage stagnation the middle class will dry up more and more which will reduce domestic demand which feeds the downward cycle….guess the version of expanding the pie is a myth (rising tide) and it is more a zero sum game….as long as we keep importing vast amounts more than export, well…….

and decker you are low on your numbers & duration

• Link
• Report this comment

kc

July 23rd, 2011
10:46 am

One does not get rich or create wealth by working for a company. I have not seen any laws set up to restrict a person from going out there and working for him or herself. If a person chooses to be middle class then they will work 40 hours a week and get paid for their worth. If a person wants to make more then they will take a chance and work for themselves.

• Link
• Report this comment

There was the grand plan Obama scuttled by moving the goal posts, “The Gang of 6″ plan that died, and these shorter term plans outlined here which now seem more likely: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-half-trillion-plan/2011/07/21/gIQA0gnhSI_story.html

• Link
• Report this comment

They suck money from my paycheck every week for my entire working life, and call this an entitlement! FU!

• Link
• Report this comment

td, you are obviously very bright but what are you smoking? Some of your opinions show a lack of actual experience with situations from which many of learn a few things.

Centrist, I often agree with you, and partially agree with what you say about SS. I do disagree that it would be forced confiscation on the earnings of those who earn more than $250,000. Right now, because the SS tax is limited to first $106,000 of earnings, it is extremely regressive with a much lower tax rate on those who earn more. If people want a flat tax on income, they should want one on SS if they want to be consistent. That is the FICA would be paid on full income, not just the first $106,000 that us middle class folks are gouged with. And it shouldn’t be limited to earnings. Hedge fund managers, those who primarily earn interest or dividend income, etc. should have the FICA tax applied to all. What makes that type of income entitle them to exemption from a social obligation? To me, that is the true entitlement. If the cap were removed, SS would be solvent forever and there would then not even be a need to means test, to raise the age, or to use phoney cost of living indexes.

• Link
• Report this comment

@ yuzeyurbrane wrote: “because the SS tax is limited to first $106,000 of earnings, it is extremely regressive with a much lower tax rate on those who earn more.”

Here is an example of the misunderstanding about Social Security. While it is called a FICA “tax”, it is actually a forced contribution for a partial retirement and insurance fund. Collecting contributions and premiums above and beyond the eventual maximum benefit payouts would be a tax with no return – redistribution of income – not a regressive tax. We already have redistribution of income via income progressive income tax rates and phasouts of exemptions and deductions. The idea of taxing incomes above $106K and also means testing benefit payouts from those contributions is confiscation no matter how you look at it.

• Link
• Report this comment

yuzeyurbrane – as you say, the earnings limits for FICA collection have risen dramatically and will probably continue to do so. Maximum benefits have NOT risen nearly as much and only through COLA increases that are being debated to diminish. The insurance part of the program is for survivors and disability cases. Social Security Supplemental Income has broadened in scope along with WIC distributions including for children of illegal aliens. Those people who are not subject to FICA deductions are also not part of the system (investment income) to collect benefits. Are you suggesting they should be taxed without access to benefits?

Social Security FICA receipts have been outpacing benefit payments until recently. To hide the level of the deficit, such positive receipts versus benefits were mixed into the budget numbers. Now that such accounting will now actually hurt instead of help the budget deficit, it is an item in debt ceiling negotiations. THERE IS NO SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST FUND. That term and “lockbox” were political fantasies.

• Link
• Report this comment

don’t you just love repubs looking out for middle america….florida ag fires 2 folks going after foreclosure fraud…http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/bondi/

guess the banks calling shots in florida

• Link
• Report this comment

above post in reference to self employment post @td

• Link
• Report this comment

Soldier, TD…I couldn’t agree with you more. There are far too many fingers in the cookie jar and it’s all a derivative of the pc world around us. I’m all for helping those who NEED help (as opposed to those who WANT help). It seems that the gradual move to a socialistic economy has created more of the later, ie auto executives who traveled to Washington, in their corporate jets, to petition Congress for “help” when they could have/should have chosen a less “expansive” means of travel. This is/was not at all unlike the guy who pulls up to the food stamp office parking lot in a brand new Beemer.

The government, while next-to-ignoring the root problems, makes it far too easy for the constituency to cry “HELP”…it is earier to hold out one’s hand, palm up, than it is to exercise a little discipline. This is precisely why, when visiting the local Social Security Office, I see young couples with a squad of crumb crunchers in tow. I know there must be some true need out there, however, I often wonder just who NEEDS the help vs who WOULD LIKE the help/the easy money which our legislators seem all-too-eager to provide to the voting public.

Soldier, even our retirement $/Tri Care seem to be receiving legislative scrutiny; I often wonder what effects this may have on our future National Defense forces. While there seems to be a bottomless bucket of money for hardware the Services really don’t need (I’ll diplomatically hold off on discussing specifics), troops (I was there) had to beg borrow and steal, in the early days of the current conflict, for personel/vehicular armor, all while the money was available to “stealing” the Rangers’ Beret in the misguided notion of enhanced morale among the Army at large. And let us, the true Warriors of yesteryear, not overlook the ever-changing array of uniforms (PT, Fatigues, BDU, DCU, etc) which become more costly with the passage of time. As the PT uniform has evolved from the simple “modified” duty uniform of the 60’s to the “somewhat” costly ensemble(s) of recent, troops have become fatter and less duty-ready.

I suppose we could go on and on, guys, but the “uncomfortable” bottom line is…with fewer workers funding (by way of Social Security taxes) an ever-increasing demand of my generation (possibly, our generation), we’re going to be called upon to exercise that all-too important axiom we learned early in our careers…ADAPT and ADJUST. I know, Soldier, we can do it; it’s been a part of the temperment we have lived by for a great part of our lives. I just hope that those who have not been as privileged as we can learn this very truism.

Knees to the Breeze!

• Link
• Report this comment

@ Upset at Both -

Good for you that increased taxes won’t change your business plan or spending habits (other than having less to spend or invest). But you are not typical. Increasing taxes will NOT create jobs – it will lose them. Maybe via your business, but most others. As you point out – unemployment creates a loss of tax revenue, along with more government spending on those unemployment benefits. Increasing taxes in a poor economy does not increase revenue, it reduces it.

• Link
• Report this comment

Centrist,

It is a 4000 dollar difference. If the economy is moving like the Clinton Years the revenue brought in to businesses, will mean more people paying taxes and more money for me and others to spend.

• Link
• Report this comment

Left or right doesn’t matter, seems our so-called centrist has taken another partisan side.

Centrist, when are you going to represent a centrist position? You are all over the place.

• Link
• Report this comment

@ DannyX wrote: “Centrist, when are you going to represent a centrist position? You are all over the place.”

Being a centrist does not mean being on the middle of every issue. It usually means being all over the place between left and right issues. I guess you could say I am economically moderate to conservative and socially liberal. Unlike TEA party members and many Republicans, I don’t have a problem with Democrats calling for increased taxes on the (truly) wealthy – but just not until unemployment drops since it would be counterproductive NOW.

I’m not alone. Heard today that in states that require party registration, 65% are now at an all-time high registered as Independents.

• Link
• Report this comment

Other than being an atheist and pro choice where Republicans would call me extreme, what “extreme” views do I express? I don’t condone illegal immigration (not extreme to the vast majority of Americans – just liberal Democrats), don’t agree on tax increases during a weak economy and high unemployment (basic economics), and do not agree on confiscatory means testing policies in regard to the forced contribution system of Social Security. I do advocate a fix to our overly complicated tax system to expand the base of taxpayers to more than 50% of workers which even moderates in the Democratic party agree.

• Link
• Report this comment

I never heard of the Centrist Party. Went to their website and certainly agree with this:

Economy

Secure – Stable – Sustainable: Well reasoned economics, free markets through market transparency, with market regulation structured to achieve the common good. Enable equality of opportunity and fair competition, based on performance and productivity. Checks and balances to ensure that competition and innovation are not squeezed out of the American Dream. Protect and allow for potential to be achieved by the virtue of individual will, rather than subsidy without performance agreements, or due consideration to cost/benefit relationships. Balance between boutique economic systems and national/international systems. Efficient government and debt reduction are primary missions.

• Link
• Report this comment

Be liberal in Giving,
Conservative in living
Is the Christian Way I am taught.

ST

• Link
• Report this comment

double

July 24th, 2011
5:06 pm

COLA’s came to the SS system way after and was never intended in the original law. SS was never intended to be a persons sole source of income for retirement. I do not feel there should be COLA’s in SS or public sector retirement plans. All these do is to draw down accounts faster and make it harder to fund the programs for future generations.

• Link
• Report this comment

Centrist understanding my gibberish is not the only thing you are lacking in.

• Link
• Report this comment

[...] This tweet was sent by a tea partier to Rep. Phil Gingrey after the Gang of Six plan was unveiled: PLEASE run against Saxby Chambliss! Pragmatism is killing the Republic! [...]

• Link
• Report this comment