President Obama and Congressional leaders will meet again today for another tete-a-tete on...

This news story has 14 comments:

Register or Login to rate comments »

davidingeorgia Comments (2713)
 
If the GOP leadership was politically astute (most of them aren't, or show no signs of it) and had some negotiating skill (they don't), they'd cancel the meeting and tell Obama to get back to them when he stops proposing crazy stuff like raising taxes $2T in what is looking more and more like double-dip recession (or the worst "recovery" in the history of recoveries).

How unserious are the Dems? Their "plan" doesn't touch entitlements. Yeah, of course you can get the deficit under control without touching entitlement programs. Sure thing. And yet, according to the media - including this web site in places, sad to say - it's all the fault of those nasty, mean Republicans who just want an excuse to toss grandma and grandpa off a cliff.
11 Jul 2011, 07:54 AM Reply Like

kmi Comments (3847)
 
This is no double dip recession, main street never got out of the recession.

The reason this 'recession'which bears many similarities to the Great Depression isn't nearly as bad is precisely because of many of the entitlement programs put in place as a result of that.

Cutting spending is just as devastating for the economy as increasing taxes, i.e. if we are talking about the potential for extending the pain neither should be on the table.

However it is the Repubs who have made the deficit an issue - and it's a fair stance, the budget is indeed out of control - and said spending cuts can also create your 'double dip recession' just as readily as tax increases can.

Don't get me wrong, I support spending cuts, and I support tax increases - or at least the removal of tax breaks an subsidies to entities not needing them - but I wonder if either are appropriate right now, and in what areas they are applied.
11 Jul 2011, 08:06 AM Reply Like

frosty Comments (624)
 
I hope you don't include SS as an entitlement you want to hit. SS is an entitlement in exactly the same way my IRA and 401K are entitlements. Over 50 years of work, I contributed over $100,000 (after tax) to SS, my employers matched that; at long term treasury yields my 'theoretical' SS account would be worth over $800,000 which currently yields over $40,000 per year which I am allowed to withdraw at the rate of $20,000 per year and 85% of that is taxed--AGAIN! The SSA continues to 'profit' from my account which will never be paid out in full but will benefit many others. And now Republicans want to cut my payout more?
11 Jul 2011, 08:48 AM Reply Like

davidingeorgia Comments (2713)
 
I would say, it depends on what spending you cut. But either way, spending has to be cut. If the choice is a) continuing to have the federal gov't suck up more and more of the economy into its ravenous maws and do damage to the economy by raising taxes to pay for it, or b) cutting spending and drastically reducing the size of the government, and doing some damage to the economy with those spending cuts but ending up with a smaller federal government at the end? That's an easy choice, as far as I'm concerned. I'll vote for "starve the monster" every time (or at least for putting it on a crash diet).

I have no problem with eliminating each and every tax loophole/break/incentive on the books, even the ones I take advantage of from time to time. As someone once said, your tax return to the feds should fit on an index card (only one side of it). It would decrease the deficit, and it would give politicians fewer items to sell to the highest bidder.
11 Jul 2011, 09:07 AM Reply Like

davidingeorgia Comments (2713)
 
I hate to break this to you, but whatever "promises" the government may or may not have made about SS over the years, what you've been paying in all these years isn't in a "lockbox" or "trust"...it's been used like all money that's gone to the feds has be used...that is, on whatever they felt like spending it on, accounting gymnastics to the contrary or not. Your money - at best - has gone to pay current and past recipients of SS. By the time you retire, not nearly as many people will be working and paying into the system to pay for what you'll draw. Fair or unfair, something has to give in that equation. My wife and I are planning (trying to anyway) on getting maybe 50% of what the SSA says we'll be getting when we reach retirement age. That estimate on our part may be overly optimistic. It's not about fairness...it's just that the money to pay everyone what they think they should get will not be there - at least not in dollars that will be worth the paper they are printed on.

Yeah, everything has to be cut. Some less, some more, but it's all got to be on the table. Every single penny. It's the only way you'll ever get meaningful cuts done short of a train wreck, and I'm not optimistic about even that getting it done given our current crop of political leaders.
11 Jul 2011, 09:15 AM Reply Like

inthemoney Comments (981)
 
> I hate to break this to you, but whatever "promises" the government may or may not have made about SS over the years, what you've been paying in all these years isn't in a "lockbox" or "trust"

It is not a news to most people but it is still dishonest to call something something you paid for an "entitlement". In this case your salary is an entitlement as well.
If we want to introduce the payout limits to no more than 10% above the contribution (inflation adjusted + 3-5% yearly interest rate), I am all for that.
11 Jul 2011, 09:42 AM Reply Like

Poor Texan Comments (3499)
 
"If we want to introduce the payout limits to no more than 10% above the contribution (inflation adjusted + 3-5% yearly interest rate), I am all for that."

Interesting thought. I'd like to see you develop that in more detail.
11 Jul 2011, 11:12 AM Reply Like

inthemoney Comments (981)
 
>Interesting thought. I'd like to see you develop that in more detail.

Ok, here is some rought calculations. Let's forget the inflation for now, for simplicity and just assume the amounts will be indexed fairly (yeah, right -)) ).
Let's assume that over your working career you have an average salary of 50K per year, which is very modest.
SSN is 6%, then your employer pays the same, this is 6 K a year contribution.
Compounded over 30 years at 5% this is 418K. Let's add another 10% on top, that is 450K limit. Even if you have to draw SSN for 30 years, that is 15K per year, about 30% of your original salary. This is not bad to be getting 30% of your salary from SSN.
So, all this talk about "entitlements" is a red herring. People who pay into SSN system are not the problem, it is the misallocation of the resources by the government that is the problem. And then they lie about it on top.
11 Jul 2011, 11:34 AM Reply Like

Poor Texan Comments (3499)
 
O.K. but this would require a redo of the whole system (which is badly needed) and who do we have with enough ability to make such a change. Another good idea to put on the shelf after a committee studies it.
11 Jul 2011, 11:57 AM Reply Like

davidingeorgia Comments (2713)
 
Well, you can argue semantics if you like, but a program in which you give money to the government, which the government spends on all sorts of things, including SS payments to people who are already retired and aren't paying in any longer, and you, as you wait to retire, have to trust the government, at that later date, to take money from someone else to pay you your SS check each month post retirement sounds an awful lot like any other entitlement program the federal government runs to me. Should it be? Was it supposed to be that way? Well, no, but as a practical matter as far as mechanics and funding it go, it's the same thing whether "entitlement" is the best thing to call it or not.

Things that can't go on forever, won't.
11 Jul 2011, 03:34 PM Reply Like

That_Guy Comments (74)
 
both parties have the same objective...look busy....charge by the job.
11 Jul 2011, 08:00 AM Reply Like

kmi Comments (3847)
 
Rep Jim Himes (D-CT) is speaking very well on this today on CNBC at 8AM
11 Jul 2011, 08:10 AM Reply Like

BlueOkie Comments (2566)
 
What city has had housing increase in prices for the past 17 months? What city has not a clue about the rest of the country? What city is still hiring? What city is not worried about the debt or their jobs?

Washington DC ofcourse.
11 Jul 2011, 08:14 AM Reply Like

davidingeorgia Comments (2713)
 
Even Obama is against raising taxes in a bad economy...well, he was against it before he was for it.

www.weeklystandard.com...
11 Jul 2011, 08:59 AM Reply Like