Debt commission puts out preliminary proposals - Nov. 10, 2010 (http://money.cnn.com/2010/11/10/news/economy/fiscal_commission_prelim_report/index.htm?hpt=T2)

I'm sure the actual amounts saved is a load of crap, but a couple items stuck me as interesting...

"Set targets for revenue and spending: The report caps taxes at 21% of gross domestic product. It would limit federal spending initially to 22% of the economy and eventually to 21%."

and...

"Reform tax code: The report would lower income tax rates and simplify the tax code. It would also abolish the Alternative Minimum Tax and and reduce tax breaks."

The latter is one that I've mentioned a few times on here "simplify the tax code". A hope (and I'm sure a far fetched one) is that they simplify the way people pay taxes, get rid of some of the more easily abused tax deductions and eliminate that ridiculous Alternative Minimum. An ideal world would be a nice flat tax, but that'll never occur.

Making it easier for people to pay their taxes should, in theory, make it easier for tax collection. My hope is that more clarity will reduce the need for as many audits and reduce the cost per case that comes with them, thus resulting in fewer IRS agents to be on the government dime.

These appear on the surface like obtainable goals. The only thing missing is a referencing money wasted on unnecessary and overly-exploited social services.
-----------------------

I know a constructive discussion about the above is impossible and it will quickly tailspin into a thread about the ridiculous spending, Obama's a socialist and whatnot as every other thread spirals into, but it's worth a try.

Great news. Will common sense prevail.

another Blue Ribbon Farce...we will be belly up as a nation long before anything from this gets implemented...hopefully Bro Versus The Volcano will return soon to save the day with his brilliance :rotf2:


Bowles and Simpson also are proposing a fundamental rewrite of the tax code, though they didn't offer a specific plan.

But the goal is to lower overall tax rates, simplify the code and broaden the taxpayer base. One option proposed is to completely eliminate so-called tax expenditures — including popular deductions like the mortgage interest tax break and a deduction taken by companies that provide health insurance to their employees.

I dont know Scott, I think there is some momentum right now. People are listening. We cant keep going on this path.

I dont know Scott, I think there is some momentum right now. People are listening. We cant keep going on this path.

I like the proposal to raise the retirement age to 68 by 2050 and 69 by 2075...that should help right away :uhuh:

I like the proposal to raise the retirement age to 68 by 2050 and 69 by 2075...that should help right away :uhuh:

The thing that is really killing us is the retirement age for Public Employees, we need to move that from 38 to 68 like the rest of the world.....

Deficit panel leaders propose curbs on Social Security, major cuts in spending, tax breaks (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/10/AR2010111004029.html)

The mortgage deduction will hurt alot.

The thing that is really killing us is the retirement age for Public Employees, we need to move that from 38 to 68 like the rest of the world.....

in parts of Europe, New Jersey, Texas the people have recognized the urgency of the problem and elected executives that will immediately address the problem which is the size of and spending by government at every level despite the backlash and mobs in the streets , elsewhere you have electorates that are esssentially crack addicts who will elect only those that will continue to give them a little crack once in a while and who, as elected public servants will also continue to grow the crack addict base in every way possible to keep them in elected office (RI, Mass, California, NY). Taking the house may help in choking some of the spending, as Jimmy said, there seems to be momentum....but momentum shifts quickly when all of a sudden it's your crack dealer that they are putting out of business. The Crack Dealer in Chief is the biggest pusher of them all, this is a panel "bi-partisan:rotf2:" panel put together by our Nation's worst offender when it comes to government growth spending and defense of every bloated social program...we might make some strides with this new Congress but I think the collapse is coming long before any implemented solution occurs...if great strides are made in the New Jersey's and Texas' they will only be off-set by the rampant crack abuse in California and RI....those that are trying to acutually make changes that will matter will be under relentless assault from the addicts, the pimps in the media and the dealers at the state and federal level and most of all, from Obama who has no intention of reducing government...he's "making government cool again"...remember?

Federal government workers have notoriously earned more than — in many cases more than double — their private sector counterparts for a while. But a new analysis from USA Today sheds light on the shocking size and scope of pay increases for federal workers, most notably in recent years. According to USA Today, the number of federal workers earning salaries of $150,000 or more has increased tenfold over the past five years and doubled since President Obama took office in January 2009.


Graph: USA Today
While the rest of the U.S. economy remains stagnant, the fast-growing pay of federal employees has raised eyebrows

...............................

"In the end, the president is going to have to decide whether to incorporate some of this into the 2012 budget," said David Walker, a former U.S. comptroller general and an advocate for deficit reduction. "He's going to have to lead, because if the president doesn't lead on this, it goes nowhere fast."Mr. Obama avoided any comment on the specifics, as did Congressional leaders. Both said they'd wait for a final product.

Lawmaker reaction was mixed, suggesting any final plan will be weaker than the one released Wednesday. Sen. Judd Gregg (R., N.H.), the top Republican on the Budget Committee and a panel member, called it "a genuine product that deserves very serious attention."

But liberal panel members were less enthusiastic. Sen. Richard Durbin (D., Ill.) said he wouldn't vote for it, saying that "there are things in there that I hate like the devil hates holy water." he'd know:devil2:
View Full Image

Associated Press

Erskine Bowles, co-chairman of the deficit commission, outlined proposals Wednesday.
.Some important interest groups were sharply critical, particularly over curbs on entitlement spending. The plans authors "just told working Americans to 'Drop Dead,"' said AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka. "Especially in these tough economic times, it is unconscionable to be proposing cuts to the critical economic lifelines for working people, Social Security and Medicare."

The conservative Americans for Tax Reform also blasted the plan. "It confirms what everyone has known—this commission is merely an excuse to raise net taxes on the American people," the group said in a written statement. Supporting the plan would violate the group's no-new-taxes pledge, which many Republicans and some Democrats in Congress have signed, it warned.

I cannot believe they are seriously considering eliminating the deduction for mortgage interest. That would cause housing values to plummet...

I also agree on unions. Don't get me started on municipal employee unions. They are absolutely disgusting, they are literally a bunch of parasites who have no bounds on the burden they are willing to place on our shoulders.

If you ever wonder how many government workers there are,drive to work on a Federal holiday. Beautiful commute this morning!

I cannot believe they are seriously considering eliminating the deduction for mortgage interest. That would cause housing values to plummet...

I also agree on unions. Don't get me started on municipal employee unions. They are absolutely disgusting, they are literally a bunch of parasites who have no bounds on the burden they are willing to place on our shoulders.

Jim - allow me to play devils advocate. Why is it the govt. business if you buy a house? Why should homeowners get a benfit others do not? Isnt the mortage deductions just a payoff from the govt to the banks? You dont really "benefit", tax money in the form of a deduction gets funneled to the banks to pay for outrageous interest. If housing prices plummet, wont they reflect the real market value and not an inflated price due to government intervention. I know it would be painful, but I'm for across the board cuts. Maybe if there is no deduction, people will save up for for down payment, borrow less and in the long run, provide a more stable housing market?
I think there has to be some pain spread across the board.

Jim - allow me to play devils advocate. Why is it the govt. business if you buy a house? Why should homeowners get a benfit others do not? Isnt the mortage deductions just a payoff from the govt to the banks? You dont really "benefit", tax money in the form of a deduction gets funneled to the banks to pay for outrageous interest. If housing prices plummet, wont they reflect the real market value and not an inflated price due to government intervention. I know it would be painful, but I'm for across the board cuts. Maybe if there is no deduction, people will save up for for down payment, borrow less and in the long run, provide a more stable housing market?
I think there has to be some pain spread across the board.

RIJIMMY, you definitely raise some good and interesting points...

"Why is it the govt. business if you buy a house?"

A few things come to mind. First, at least here in CT, town governments (and schools, police, etc) are funded by property taxes, so the more people who own homes, the larger the tax base, which is a good thing.

Second, the government has a keen interest in keeping the economy from genuinely collapsing. Eliminating this deduction will (1) immediately reduce the net income of millions of folks, and (2) it will have a catastrophic effect on housing values, which impacts many other things like ability to retire, ability to pay for kids' education, etc... Just the shock value of eliminating a long-standing deduction bothers me.

"Why should homeowners get a benfit others do not?"

Because I pay property taxes, and renters do not. Government, particularly municipal government, benefits from increased homeownership. Renters use the same services i do (send their kids to public school, etc) but pay no taxes to fund those things. Maybe that entitles me to some relief?

"You dont really "benefit", tax money in the form of a deduction gets funneled to the banks "

I believe I do benefit, as I realize some real, tangible tax savings. The tax savings from that deduction goes right in my pocket. If that deduction is eliminated, I pay more taxes, that's a "real" impact. My current mortgage is 3.75%, hardly outrageous.

"If housing prices plummet, wont they reflect the real market value and not an inflated price due to government intervention."

If housing prices drop, they will reflect the value of the house, EXCLUDING the benefit of the tax break. Problem is, when I bought my house, like most people, the value at that time reflected the tax benefit.

It would sort of be like buying a house in a nice area, and 5 years later the town decides to put a landfill adjacent to my property. I get hurt because of something I could not have foreseen.

"I'm for across the board cuts"

I know my taxes are going up (unless I move to New Hampshire). But as someone else pointed out, the number of federal employees making over $150k has DOUBLED IN THE LAST 2 YEARS. There are a lot of places where there is an awful lot of fat. Let's cut the fat before we cut a vital organ.

"I think there has to be some pain spread across the board"

OK, when ALL municipal employees have 401 (k)s instead of pensions (like the rest of us), if we still need more tax revenue, I'll pony up.

Jim, dont forget - renters live in houses owned by someone. Those property taxes still get paid.

If the deduction went away, banks may be forced to revise their mortgage policies. The payoff - interest first process to me is pure roberry.

Just discussing both sides. I dont really have a stong opinion on it and it would hurt my $$$ too.

Jim, dont forget - .renters live in houses owned by someone. Those property taxes still get paid

If the deduction went away, banks may be forced to revise their mortgage policies. The payoff - interest first process to me is pure roberry.

Just discussing both sides. I dont really have a stong opinion on it and it would hurt my $$$ too.

"renters live in houses owned by someone. Those property taxes still get paid"

But not as much tax revenue is collected. If you have an apt building with 100 apartments, the guy that owns the building pays taxes. But if all those people move out and buy 100 homes, much more tax is collected. A home generates more property tax revenue than an apartment.

RIJIMMY, I was in the USMC, and as such, I was on the public dole. SO I see the value in everyone paying their fair share. But before we discuss tax increases, THERE IS SO MUCH WASTE that could be eliminated. I believe that if we were smart with efficiencies, we could LOWER taxes further, but still have enough revenue to pay for public costs. Just a hunch, I have nothing to base that on.

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;810173RIJIMMY, I was in the USMC, and as such, I was on the public dole. SO I see the value in everyone paying their fair share. But before we discuss tax increases, THERE IS SO MUCH WASTE that could be eliminated. I believe that if we were smart with efficiencies, we could LOWER taxes further, but still have enough revenue to pay for public costs. Just a hunch, I have nothing to base that on.[/QUOTE]

im with you. There is also the component of lowering the tax rate so that may offset the home interest deduction, dont forget that.
and happy vets day too!
My Dad was a Marine 1959-64. Stationed in Borneo, Okinawa and Japan.

Jim, I'm shocked. It's your damn money. The less they steal from you the better. Deductions are just a way of them brainwashing you into thinking they are doing you a favor.

im with you. There is also the component of lowering the tax rate so that may offset the home interest deduction, dont forget that.
and happy vets day too!
My Dad was a Marine 1959-64. Stationed in Borneo, Okinawa and Japan.

Every Fed. employee got a raise this year. But the people on SSI have not had a cost of living increase in the 2 years Obama has been in office. AARP should be marching all over Washington.

Jim, I'm shocked. It's your damn money. The less they steal from you the better. Deductions are just a way of them brainwashing you into thinking they are doing you a favor.

im looking at the proposal as a whole. If they're reducing my tax rate by 10%, thats a lot more than my mortgage deduction.
The proposal also contains big cuts in spending.

Jim, I'm shocked. It's your damn money. .

it's the government's money...we are all socialists now...:gh:

im looking at the proposal as a whole. If they're reducing my tax rate by 10%, thats a lot more than my mortgage deduction.
The proposal also contains big cuts in spending.

Taxes will go up. They always do. I'm still seathing at the way the DEMS pushed that sham"porkulas" bill through.Now we will hear these same crooks asking for sacrifice to lower the debt. Imagine if the last election never happened... Unless your from Ma., and then it didn't change anything.:fury: Time for a freaking revolution!!!:soon:

man, Im trying to be upbeat and you're bringing me down!

have you spent any time reading about QE2?

have you spent any time reading about QE2?

The Queen Elizabeth 2? Do we get a free cruise with our 2010 tax filings!

Where Is The Love For QE2? - Intelligent Investing - Ideas from Forbes Investor Team - Forbes (http://blogs.forbes.com/investor/2010/11/11/where-is-the-love-for-qe2/)

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2010/11/03/qa-on-qe2-what-a-fed-move-would-mean/

http://money.cnn.com/2010/11/03/news/economy/fed_decision/index.htm

like feeding a fat kid a candy bar.

If housing prices ever dropped more than they have in many areas you'd have bigger problems on your hands. Many more people would be upside down and foreclosed on.

My town seems to have spared alot of the drops most others have. Taxes suck and they're about to get worse with a new high school rammed through this year.

People shouldn't be taxed on paying someone else to borrow money. Eliminating the deduction means $10k or more in taxable income to many homeowners. Self employed 35% bracket? ha. Bend over

Up yours to all the people who thought this jackass wasn't going to raise every tax he could.



RIJIMMY, you definitely raise some good and interesting points...

"Why is it the govt. business if you buy a house?"

A few things come to mind. First, at least here in CT, town governments (and schools, police, etc) are funded by property taxes, so the more people who own homes, the larger the tax base, which is a good thing.

Second, the government has a keen interest in keeping the economy from genuinely collapsing. Eliminating this deduction will (1) immediately reduce the net income of millions of folks, and (2) it will have a catastrophic effect on housing values, which impacts many other things like ability to retire, ability to pay for kids' education, etc... Just the shock value of eliminating a long-standing deduction bothers me.

"Why should homeowners get a benfit others do not?"

Because I pay property taxes, and renters do not. Government, particularly municipal government, benefits from increased homeownership. Renters use the same services i do (send their kids to public school, etc) but pay no taxes to fund those things. Maybe that entitles me to some relief?

"You dont really "benefit", tax money in the form of a deduction gets funneled to the banks "

I believe I do benefit, as I realize some real, tangible tax savings. The tax savings from that deduction goes right in my pocket. If that deduction is eliminated, I pay more taxes, that's a "real" impact. My current mortgage is 3.75%, hardly outrageous.

"If housing prices plummet, wont they reflect the real market value and not an inflated price due to government intervention."

If housing prices drop, they will reflect the value of the house, EXCLUDING the benefit of the tax break. Problem is, when I bought my house, like most people, the value at that time reflected the tax benefit.

It would sort of be like buying a house in a nice area, and 5 years later the town decides to put a landfill adjacent to my property. I get hurt because of something I could not have foreseen.

"I'm for across the board cuts"

I know my taxes are going up (unless I move to New Hampshire). But as someone else pointed out, the number of federal employees making over $150k has DOUBLED IN THE LAST 2 YEARS. There are a lot of places where there is an awful lot of fat. Let's cut the fat before we cut a vital organ.

"I think there has to be some pain spread across the board"

OK, when ALL municipal employees have 401 (k)s instead of pensions (like the rest of us), if we still need more tax revenue, I'll pony up.

I dont think you guys are getting the point on all of this and truthfully, you're intial responses are the same as Nancy Pelosi's!

This is just a study to see what we can do to lower the deficit. Its not ALL taxes, theres a lot of cuts and some good ideas.
As a conservative, you're all sounding like the party of "no". I want to see what my man Rand Paul has to say about this!

I want to see what my man Rand Paul has to say about this!

He is consulting Aqua-Buddha, he'll get back to you :biglaugh:

As far as this report, the whole point was to go get, out of office, independent people from both sides of the aisle to contribute, and they came up with a reasonable plan. But of course, as RIJ pointed out, it came out of the current administration, so NO,NO, NO

He is consulting Aqua-Buddha, he'll get back to you :biglaugh:

As far as this report, the whole point was to go get, out of office, independent people from both sides of the aisle to contribute, and they came up with a reasonable plan. But of course, as RIJ pointed out, it came out of the current administration, so NO,NO, NO

We just know what parts the current administration will drool over.:drool:

We just know what parts the current administration will drool over.:drool:

Thats fine, but the suggests are being attacked by BOTH sides, which leads me to believe it is getting closer to some small solutions!

higher net tax burden, increased fees wherever they can stick it to you, higher health care costs, dollar declining in value, flat wages, inflation, higher interest rates, have you seen the price of oil ?

not going to be pretty...hey...maybe we need more stimulus?

We just know what parts the current administration will drool over.:drool:

Thats fine, but the suggests are being attacked by BOTH sides, which leads me to believe it is getting closer to some small solutions!

RIRockhound, it's like I said in my initial post:
"I know a constructive discussion about the above is impossible and it will quickly tailspin into a thread about the ridiculous spending, Obama's a socialist and whatnot as every other thread spirals into, but it's worth a try."

Some are incapable of being objective.


im looking at the proposal as a whole. If they're reducing my tax rate by 10%, thats a lot more than my mortgage deduction.
The proposal also contains big cuts in spending.
Jim, I'm right there with you. As a business owner, I could get hit pretty hard depending on some of the deductions that will be lost. The proposals are far from perfect and then they'll get screwed with further as politicians from both sides mess with them.

no mention of Obamacare in this report? probably won't have any effect on government spending in the future :rotf2:

hey, this will make JD happy in the next couple of years when his dollar is worth zip thanks to Bernanke and prices are soaring...he can refer back to this for talking points

blame it on the tea party and SP...

Will Sarah Palin and the Tea Party Cause Hyper-Inflation? - The Curious Capitalist - TIME.com (http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2010/11/10/will-sarah-palin-and-the-tea-party-cause-hyper-inflation/)

we need more GREEN JOBS!!!!!


ABC7 FREMONT, Calif. (KGO) -- New competition from China is causing layoffs at Fremont's Solyndra, a solar panel maker that received a stimulus loan last year to build a new factory.


Solyndra was the epitome of what the government envisioned to be our green tech future.

President Obama, Gov. Schwarzenegger and Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-CA, toured the solar panel production line. Confidence was so high that Solyndra got a $535 million stimulus program loan to build a new factory along I-880 in Fremont.


Related Content
Story: Obama touts alternative energy at plant in Fremont

Now there is word it will shut down its older plant down the street -- 40 employees will be laid off and 150 contract workers won't be renewed. The reason is price competition from lower cost Chinese solar panel makers, and Solyndra says it needs to cut its expenses so it can drop its prices.

"Today we would be somewhere in a $3 to $4 per watt basis. We need to be at a $2 per watt basis all-in, which is fully installed on the roof with panels and mounts on the rooftop," Solyndra spokesperson David Miller said.

Suddenly, the future isn't as bright as it was a year ago and taxpayer money is on the line.

Solyndra's shiny new plant cost $733 million -- $535 million came from federal funds. Only $198 million is for private financing, so the government's stake is 73 percent.

According to a filing by Solyndra with the Securities and Exchange Commission, if it were to default on the $535 million loan, the Dept. of Energy would end up owning that brand new fabrication plant as well as the land underneath.

Public records show that about $402 million of the loan proceeds have been dispersed. The lion's share, $262 million went to the contractor and smaller amounts to a design firm, a developer and to the county for taxes. So a lot of public money is riding on Solyndra to succeed.

"It's not going to be worth anything if you have to foreclose. If you want to loan me money on my house, you can do that. If I don't pay, you can take the house back. And if there's equity in the property, you resell it and you won't lose a penny. But with a property like this, it'll be vacant for who knows how long?" real estate attorney Ron Rossi said

RIRockhound, it's like I said in my initial post: "I know a constructive discussion about the above is impossible and it will quickly tailspin into a thread about the ridiculous spending, Obama's a socialist and whatnot as every other thread spirals into, but it's worth a try."Some are incapable of being objective.


Of course. But I'll repeat. criticism from both sides leads me to put more credence in this.

Of course. But I'll repeat. criticism from both sides leads me to put more credence in this.

I completely agree and it's part of what I found so interesting. Like stated above, if both sides have issues with it, then the recommendations are probably on the right track.

Some are incapable of being objective.




some people, those people, these people, you people....

some people are becoming quite snobby...

I'm offended for Jimmy and Buckman having their objectivity questioned by people like JD.....:shocked:

"I know a constructive discussion about the above is impossible and it will quickly tailspin into a thread about the ridiculous spending, Obama's a socialist and whatnot as every other thread spirals into, but it's worth a try."

Some are incapable of being objective.

.

Johnny, I'm 100% objective.

In my objective view, Obama has taken deficit spending to levels NEVER seen before in this country (in terms of absolute dollars). You cannot deny that, I'm not making that up because I'm secretly a racist and hate Obama (I do hate him, but not because of his race). If I bring up the possible ramifications of this level of spending, in your opinion, I'm not being objective?

As for whether or not he's a socialist? Obviously, Obama is not a totalitarian communist like Stalin. But I think it's absolutely fair to compare him to the western european socialists. Do you deny that Obama's view of what America should be, is similar to the western european socialist nations? If you do deny that, please tell me what the difference is? It's clear to me that Obama favors a federal government that looks like a western european (i.e., socialist) model. I don't know WHY he favors that, since we are currently witnessing what that leads to, but clearly that's his ideal.

It seems to me that you're suggesting that calling Obama a socialist, or worrying about debt, is what conservatives do to distract attention away frrom valid issues. In my opinion, those are valid issues.

this is pretty funny...


Tales of 57 States: The Deficit Wizards Speak
Lee Cary

Now it came to pass that while His Obamaness was touring the Far East with his entourage of many man and maidservants, including those who attended him from among the corpse {not a typo}of the White Palace Town Criers, a nearly important event happened back in the 57 States.


The insignificant thing came to pass when those who had been appointed by the ruling class to be Deficit Wizards, and asked to apply their knowledge of coin, commerce and Congress to the Realm's deficit problem, finally spoke to the serfs and peasants.


Earlier, they had been summoned to the capital because four of every ten sheep that the ruling class sacrificed each year to the gods of assorted causes were borrowed from those in faraway lands, including the Land of the Panda, and Sushiland. As this borrowing went on year-after-year, even small children, just learning to speak, were heard to say, "This debt is unsustainable!" A mouthful for a small one who had just mastered the word "potty." Even toddlers knew the debt would be part of their inheritance. Yet, the spending continued.


While His Obamaness was, conveniently for Hisownself, absent the Realm, the Deficit Wizards, led by Alan "The Entertainer" Simpson (no kin to a prominent clan called The Simpsons) and Erskine "The Academic" Bowles, delivered their report to those among the Town Criers who had not been invited to attend to His Obamaness on his journey to the Far East.


Alan the Entertainer, a tall yellow-tusked elder bull of the Elephant Clan, had once been a member of the Senate representing the land where the buffalo roamed. Or used to, anyway. He was known for his colorful faux frank language. For example, he said that the actions the Deficit Wizards were recommending were like "cuddling a bear cub in the presence of the she bear," or, like "talking a bull elk out its winter coat," or, like "smearing peanut butter on your land, sticking it into a wolverine den, and tweaking the creature's nose." Alan the Entertainer had an endless supply of witticisms he learned as a young man while on probation for shooting mailboxes.


Erskine the Academic had once been a principle aide to a former Donkey Clan POTUS called Slick Willy because of the duplicitous lucidity and amorous dexterity of his tongue, and other appendages. The Academic, who played the straight man to The Entertainer, heralded from an academy of moderately higher learning in the state adjoining South Carolina to the north.


The Deficit Wizards said that, to reduce the Realm's debt, the people should pay more taxes to the regime and receive fewer gifts. All these things, the Wizards said, would erase most, but not all, of the deficit incurred by the His Obamaness' regime during his reign as POTUS.


Upon hearing the Wizards speak, the people of the Realm looked at each other and, in the spirit of Alan the Entertainer, said, "I guess these clowns think this is our first rodeo." Others asked, "So do we look like turnips?" And, a few even said, "These two give real wizards a bad name!"


So it was that the wisdom offered by the Deficit Wizards was not well-received by the people of Realm.

Wizard Alan the Entertainer was heard to say, "I feel a little like the girl who got all dressed up and went to the prom alone, and, when the music started playin', no one would dance with her except the nerdy guy." Eyes glanced toward The Academic to see if he had taken offense.


Wizard Erskine the Academic said, "I have a faculty meeting to attend. Keep me posted."


Alan responded, "He's goin' home with more than tar on his heel." And smiled, like a twelve-point white tail buck that caught a glimpse of the sun reflecting off a distant scope concealed by a ghillie suit, and thought ‘Shoulda stayed home on the range'."

It seems to me that you're suggesting that calling Obama a socialist, or worrying about debt, is what conservatives do to distract attention away frrom valid issues. In my opinion, those are valid issues.
If that is how it seems to you, then you've completely missed the point of my initial comment, while also confirming that point in the process. I'm suggesting that objective, constructive discussion on the bipartisan Debt Commission's proposals is impossible because some of those in here are blinded by their disdain for Democrats and Obama.

Some are incapable of being objective.




Sorry JD, I never liked or trusted a Bull Sh#tter. You understand right?

I'm suggesting that objective, constructive discussion on the bipartisan Debt Commission's proposals is impossible because some of those in here are blinded by their disdain for Democrats and Obama.

I thought it was because they were mostly fishermen..huh? :wall:

Johnny, I still maintain that talking about controlling federal spending, is not necessarily a distraction to the conversation you would like to have.

I liked a lot of the commission's ideas. I'd just like to see deeper cuts before we talk about raising tax rates. Since Obama has been in the oval office, the number of federal employees making > $150,000 has DOUBLED. That is so insane as to defy description.

Social security, medicare, medicaid have to be cut. There is no earthly reason why at least a portion of social security can't be privatized. Let me put my contributions into an S&P 500 Index fund, I'll have 5 times the nest egg that I'd have if you put it in t-bills. I cannot see the liberal argument against this, other than it came out of Bush's mouth, and therefore deranged liberals must oppose it...

Entitlement programs have to be cut. No one, and I mean NO ONE who is healthy, should just get a welfare or unemployment check in the mail. Have 'em pick up garbage at playgrounds, paint walls in city schools, have them dig up Mt McKinley and move it three inches to the right for all I care...but if people are physically able to work, and they want my tax dollars for welfare, then they can put down the beer and get off the goddamn couch.

At the state and local level, SOMEBODY NEEDS TO HAVE THE COURAGE TO SAY "NO MORE!!" to municipal unions.

After all those cuts are made, if we're still in debt, then raise taxes...

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;810458] Let me put my contributions into an S&P 500 Index fund, I'll have 5 times the nest egg that I'd have if you put it in t-bills. At the state and local level, SOMEBODY NEEDS TO HAVE THE COURAGE TO SAY "NO MORE!!" to municipal unions.

QUOTE]

Im in an uncomfortable place here, I hope you guys dont think im turning lefty. I agree with alot of what Jim said,,,,,,except the comment above. Why?
If the above happened, I would never work again for the rest of my life.
Why?

If an SP 500 index fund was offered as an option for SS investments. The stocks in the SP 500 would go through the roof, guaranteed! I would take out every loan I could and put it all in an SP index fund and after a few months that the program was open, sell it all and make a fortune. Understand?
Markets are supply and demand and having that volume of cash pumped into the stock market would make prices soar

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;810458] Let me put my contributions into an S&P 500 Index fund, I'll have 5 times the nest egg that I'd have if you put it in t-bills. At the state and local level, SOMEBODY NEEDS TO HAVE THE COURAGE TO SAY "NO MORE!!" to municipal unions.

QUOTE]

Im in an uncomfortable place here, I hope you guys dont think im turning lefty. I agree with alot of what Jim said,,,,,,except the comment above. Why?
If the above happened, I would never work again for the rest of my life.
Why?

If an SP 500 index fund was offered as an option for SS investments. The stocks in the SP 500 would go through the roof, guaranteed! I would take out every loan I could and put it all in an SP index fund and after a few months that the program was open, sell it all and make a fortune. Understand?
Markets are supply and demand and having that volume of cash pumped into the stock market would make prices soar

I'm pretty sure that the head of SEIU suggested recently that the govt. begin to use ss reciepts to purchase stocks...talk about picking winners and losers...

I forgot that Andy Stern was on the debt commission, another reason that it's a joke...


http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/07/01/andy-stern-proposes-partial-investment-of-social-security-trust-fund-in-stock-market/

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;810458] Let me put my contributions into an S&P 500 Index fund, I'll have 5 times the nest egg that I'd have if you put it in t-bills. At the state and local level, SOMEBODY NEEDS TO HAVE THE COURAGE TO SAY "NO MORE!!" to municipal unions.

QUOTE]

Im in an uncomfortable place here, I hope you guys dont think im turning lefty. I agree with alot of what Jim said,,,,,,except the comment above. Why?
If the above happened, I would never work again for the rest of my life.
Why?

If an SP 500 index fund was offered as an option for SS investments. The stocks in the SP 500 would go through the roof, guaranteed! I would take out every loan I could and put it all in an SP index fund and after a few months that the program was open, sell it all and make a fortune. Understand?
Markets are supply and demand and having that volume of cash pumped into the stock market would make prices soar

OK, you absolutely have a point there. So I'll modify my suggestion and say you spread the investments into something even broader than the S&P 500. But my point is (and I htink it has a lot of validity) that is we want to pretend that we care about the viability of social security, we need to get a decent return on the money before it's spent on benefits.

There will be more retirees who are living longer, and fewer workers paying taxes into the plan. The math just doesn't work unless you're generating some kind of return.

Finally, if the money was put into the S&P, and those stocks went up, almost every American benefits from that, because most of us have some stake in the market.

Will some benefit more than others? Absolutely. Does that mean it's better to let the whole plan implode, rather than let a lot of people do OK and a few get rich?

please distinguish between partial privatization of social security (which is what Jim suggests) particulary considering most of us will never see a penny of our ss "investment" and to continue the farce of doling out huge sums each year cloaked as retirement investment(lock box) but in actuality just another tax and government transfer of wealth....and the government actually taking ss money and buying into the stock market which this union thug(Stern) seems to favor probably realizing the depth of the disaster that unfunded union pensions pose...there's a huge difference...