Seeking Alpha

Rep. Paul Ryan releases a new deficit reduction proposal that claims to cut $5.8T in spending...

Rep. Paul Ryan releases a new deficit reduction proposal that claims to cut $5.8T in spending over the next decade and includes major changes to Medicare and Medicaid. These problems won't get fixed because (choose one): A. they're unworkable; or B. politicians and voters don't have the stomach for such deep cuts.
Comments (120)
  • Terry330
    , contributor
    Comments (866) | Send Message
     
    GOP/Conservatives only goal is to end all social security-Medicare to Americans.
    5 Apr 2011, 06:20 PM Reply Like
  • The Geoffster
    , contributor
    Comments (4009) | Send Message
     
    Not true Terry. The GOP knows that's not possible. Your comment is like me saying the Dem's goal is to turn America into a Marxist state.
    5 Apr 2011, 07:24 PM Reply Like
  • 7footMoose
    , contributor
    Comments (2266) | Send Message
     
    Did you bother to read even a synopsis of the proposal before you began spouting off?
    5 Apr 2011, 07:32 PM Reply Like
  • AxiosCap
    , contributor
    Comments (291) | Send Message
     
    Terry, I wonder if you are even aware that social security was intended to be a temporary program and not a permanent one? Also, is there some particular reason you can't save that money yourself? You would get a better rate of return from a CD.
    5 Apr 2011, 08:38 PM Reply Like
  • bigbenorr
    , contributor
    Comments (734) | Send Message
     
    I want out of SS and Medicare......right now.
    5 Apr 2011, 11:44 PM Reply Like
  • mikeybronx
    , contributor
    Comments (347) | Send Message
     
    You are certainly permitted not to accept benefits and contribute the proceeds to charity but you will pay into the system. Besides the cutoff is something like $140,000 in wages. Think of it as a charitable contribution with returns in the future then. You do contribute to the needy, do you not?
    On a side note, I do believe you are a good american that is dead against terrorism, (aka al queda etc.) but will you stop putting gasoline into your car knowing that millions upon millions of profits are being funneled to their operations overseas thru petroleum sales? I am saddened like yourself that our social service programs are not satisfactorly policed to minimize the fraud that is present but we cannot turn our backs on the real destitute.
    6 Apr 2011, 08:32 AM Reply Like
  • bigbenorr
    , contributor
    Comments (734) | Send Message
     
    I have no problem with helping the needy, I just don't like being forced to do so.....
    6 Apr 2011, 11:36 AM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    bigbenorr

     

    You probably are already out of SS and Medicare since they will likely not be around when you retire or the age will be so high you will not make it. But you have to pay in for everyone else riding the train.

     

    How is that for getting out?
    6 Apr 2011, 04:32 PM Reply Like
  • Vikingvst
    , contributor
    Comments (6) | Send Message
     
    Yes, Social security is intended to be temporary program until everyone has stable jobs and wages above inflation rate to feed their family. Unfortunately the people who are supposed to achieve that failed. Maybe it is the Government fault, maybe it is Fed fault.
    so AxiosCap, until the system achieves that stability we should not be cutting social security. It means we have to keep society secure with some plan to ensure everyone is given a way to live.
    What we need to cut is the expensive space programs and military adventures. there is no bogeyman out there. The biggest bully man is our own USA. We don't need to steal the Arab oil. That is BS. We are the richest country and the biggest manufacturer and exporter of food products. We can buy it in open market at higher price than anyone else. We are being confused with nonsense to prevent any real understanding. And you my friend is adding to that confusion. You ask "is there some particular reason you can't save that money yourself?" are you talking to the 45 millions who are on food stamp?
    8 Apr 2011, 12:59 AM Reply Like
  • AxiosCap
    , contributor
    Comments (291) | Send Message
     
    Viking - not is...WAS. When the program was started 80 years ago it was never supposed to last beyond 10-12 years or so. When greedy politicians learned they could win votes through this new largesse, they continued the program. Secondly, your entire assumption/belief system is wrong IMO. It is not the gov'ts job to "save" for us. We are perfectly capable of removing that liability from the gov't entirely. We can sunset social security without devastating the people on it. We close the program immediately to those 22 and under (college age and younger who have not contributed), then we allow everyone else to opt out or opt in. If you opt out, you no longer have to contribute, but you forfeit everything you put in. Now, we have a terminus date for the program when the youngest person on it passes away. I have developed an entire program around this and it can be done, but the left will use demogaugary and scare tactics to maintain their vote buying scheme. Third, we are not the richest country in the world. We are dead ass broke. Also, we don't steal Arab oil. We pay full market price for it. For a change, why don't you try coming up with some original thoughts instead of buying into the left's party line hook, line, and sinker. Finally, your last statement is so stupefying it just about defies logic. Are you illiterate? Because clearly, if someone is unemployed and NOT PAYING INTO SOCIAL SECURITY then my statement doesn't apply now does it?
    10 Apr 2011, 11:26 PM Reply Like
  • dividend_growth
    , contributor
    Comments (2878) | Send Message
     
    Let's have a shutdown first and see how much people complain, then we will have a better picture about whether any of the entitlements can be cut at all.
    5 Apr 2011, 06:23 PM Reply Like
  • Terry330
    , contributor
    Comments (866) | Send Message
     
    It is not about taxes and deficits. It is all about the redistribution of wealth. The republicans want to take the money fom retirees and poor and give it to the super rich.
    5 Apr 2011, 06:38 PM Reply Like
  • rothyman
    , contributor
    Comments (126) | Send Message
     
    You clearly don't have a good understanding on how taxation or redistribution of wealth really works. Just another Obama water carrier mouthing off statistics & generalizations that you think mean something. Do us all a favor and take some macroeconomics courses before you post this jibberish.

     

    As is now, wealth is being redistributed immensely through taxation & entitlements to poorer Americans. In fact, entitlements such as welfare make up a vast sum of our spending. Again, these are people OUT of works who are receiving money. And again, these are poorer people receiving lower % tax cuts just because they aren't making as much $$. Clearly, a flat % tax cut is and always has been the fairest way to tax Americans; however the rich have compromised and given this to the poor over time.

     

    Rich Americans are not getting wealthier off taxes, they are getting wealthier because it takes money to make money in the first place.

     

    If you weren't so blind to the massive bureaucracy and waste of our whole system, you would see as well that companies are investing elsewhere now because taxes are SO HIGH in the US. High taxes will be the end of corporate America, and every CEO knows it.

     

    In conclusion, please do your homework and stop posting statistics that you really have no background education on.
    5 Apr 2011, 08:19 PM Reply Like
  • coddy0
    , contributor
    Comments (1182) | Send Message
     
    Terry330
    It is not about taxes and deficits. It is all about the redistribution of wealth. The republicans want to take the money fom retirees and poor and give it to the super rich.
    ======================...
    Too late to talk about it
    Current tax rates signed into law by President Obama late last year
    5 Apr 2011, 08:57 PM Reply Like
  • bearfund
    , contributor
    Comments (1534) | Send Message
     
    That defies logic. The poor by definition don't have money, so trying to take it from them is pointless. And even if you could, the amount you would get would be so small that the "super rich" wouldn't even notice.

     

    It's clear that you like a heavily redistributive policy. Fine, advocate for it effectively. Making obviously false and self-contradictory claims about people who don't agree with your stance wastes others' time and does nothing to persuade anyone.
    5 Apr 2011, 09:09 PM Reply Like
  • 867046
    , contributor
    Comments (398) | Send Message
     
    1) Please read "Introduction to Logic" by Irving Copi, Univerisity of California Press and stop the argumentum ad hominem attacks.

     

    2) The problem with your main thesis is that it is logically inconsistent. If you had been reading the paper, you would have found out that the 35% corp tax rate while high on paper is not the effective tax rate. Companies like Google pay like 2% and others like GE actually got back $3.2 billion. In terms of companies investing elsewhere, please explain why Intel is building a state of the art fab in the US? According to your thesis, US corporate capital budgets should be zero.

     

    3) If you had any credibility you would also get rid of:
    a) Beet sugar subsidies. The US consumer pays 2X for sugar.
    b) Oil tax credits.
    c) Other agricultural credits.
    d) Corporations in general getting tax credits from the government.

     

    4) According to you central thesis, the heavily taxed scandanavian countries should be backward wastelands, whereas your free market tax free heaven locations like Yemen or Afghanistan should be corporate paradises.

     

    5) Finally, closer to home, compare the blue states versus the red states. The blue states have much higher tax rates than the red states. The blue states are home to the worlds top companies and universities (Harvard #1 and UC Berkeley #2 in the world). One reason the blue states are suffering right now is the long time money flow of federal dollars from the blue states to the red states.
    5 Apr 2011, 09:29 PM Reply Like
  • acp678
    , contributor
    Comments (20) | Send Message
     
    Actually Terry is closer to the problem..but to clarify...Senators and Congressmen ( or congress women ) have it easy top say cut medicare and medicade benefits for those approaching late 50's and up thru 72yrs old. Its easy for any congressional body to legislate what and how our contributions should be cut...because they are given life-long medical benefits and retirement no matter how long they serve: so cutting everybodies benefits ( except for congress or senators ) is really contray to fair and honest judgement.
    Lastly, most of our elected represenatives are as a whole, are very wealthly, and who have no real worries that normal real americans have when dicussing others lifelong benefits...especially medicare amd medicade. Our american lifestyle is being decimated by the rich and their reach into the destruction of the middleclass. To make my point...what is the percentage of Millionaires losing their homes compared to the middleclass who have lost their jobs, their homes, and their childerns chance to get the American dream.
    5 Apr 2011, 10:13 PM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    Terry your absolutely right, but, your in conservative LA LA LAND now. All these guys will do is tell you to take your meds, if someone hasn't already. The Republicans have been trying to gut social programs in this country for 60 or 70 years. You can't have social programs that benefit the citizenry when your trying to eliminate any taxation of the upper 2% and corporations. They have, I'm afraid, successfully starved the beast with their NO TAX and spend like "Drunken Sailor" style of governing.
    6 Apr 2011, 01:54 AM Reply Like
  • Vikingvst
    , contributor
    Comments (6) | Send Message
     
    Dear Joker, (from your profile)

     

    The corporations became big because of the hard work of Americans. If they have been paying "correctly", they would not be able to become big in the first place. Now that they have become too big. they want to go overseas to sell that useless product not sold in America. Then they want to even move the production from America to this other countries. Then they started selling this overseas products back to america at same price and without necessity to pay American workers american workers. They also managed to remove import taxes in the name of free trade and gain even more profits and no contribution to the people who actually made them big and profitable. So please you tell me exactly why we should not tax them and pay to the millions who are now jobless.
    6 Apr 2011, 03:23 AM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    867046

     

    Your analysis is lacking. Our economy is much more complex than blue/red and corporate tax should really be translated into capital tax and everyone should realize that capital is being sent overseas where it is treated better or at least has more certainty. We could probably have reasonable corporate tax rates if the government was more consistent about it year over year so they corporation could plan around it. Keep in mind though they will just add it on to their prices so in the end the consumer pays.

     

    I am fine with getting rid of all corporate tax breaks as they cause more problems. Comparing the US economy to the Scandanavian countries is a joke. CA is likely bigger than all of them put together.

     

    I would not admit I had a degree from Harvard.
    6 Apr 2011, 02:29 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    acp678

     

    Agree with your point on rich packages for already rich congressmen.

     

    I would say our American lifestyle is being decimated by many decades of change that has not been noticed but going on all the same. Namely that when we came out of WWII we were the majority of the world's GNP as everyone else was in tatters. We were the industrial power of the world. It was inevitable that we gave up a greater share of the world's GNP every 10 years to other countries as they rebuilt and emerged into economic power houses. Germany in the 50's. Japan in the 70's and 80's. Korea. And now China and India with over $2 Billion people combined.

     

    Did our leadership raise our competetive profile and bang the table that education of our workforce was critical to maintaining middle class lifestyles? Not really. They just moaned that we were losing jobs screwing nuts on cars to other parts of the world and that it was unfair. Of course nobody in the US wants to pay $100,000 for a Ford Fusion so the jobs went off by necessity the same way textile jobs left this country. So we have a huge amount of the population that is not highly educated and is directly in the competetive line of fire from Asian workers.

     

    This macro trend is of course only 1 part of the story but it is an important element to understand so that we worked on constantly educating our workforce and moving them up rather than leave them in the line of fire.

     

    Rich people tend to be highly educated. Go figure.
    6 Apr 2011, 04:52 PM Reply Like
  • Terry330
    , contributor
    Comments (866) | Send Message
     
    The wealthy tell us we must suffer to balance federal budget, but they deserve another tax cut. Federal taxes are already at 50 year lows.
    5 Apr 2011, 06:45 PM Reply Like
  • coddy0
    , contributor
    Comments (1182) | Send Message
     
    Terry330
    The wealthy tell us we must suffer to balance federal budget, but they deserve another tax cut. Federal taxes are already at 50 year lows.
    ======================...
    Election cycle's completing other turn
    We have to suffer terries here now
    5 Apr 2011, 09:04 PM Reply Like
  • Terry330
    , contributor
    Comments (866) | Send Message
     
    Center on Budget and Policy Priorities reports that about 2/3 of these cuts would be done on the backs of the poorest.

     

    Vanity Fair this month reports on the richest 1% owning roughly 40% of the nation's wealth.

     

    I hope Ryan's cuts go through- it'd be great to see what happens when democracy comes to the U.S. and the poor, middle class and seniors on fixed incomes do when the tea party tries to gut the few remaining programs and supports.

     

    Hopefully this will be the nail on the teaparty coffin. Though, I would enjoy watching Bachman make a fool out of herself.
    5 Apr 2011, 06:49 PM Reply Like
  • tka1115
    , contributor
    Comments (34) | Send Message
     
    I've asked people who will win the revolution - those who want more from the government or those who refuse to support more of the 'passengers' who pay no share. It would really be a trip to see what would happen if there were a vast conspiracy of the rich not sending in their quarterly estimated taxes.
    I am as appalled by the greed of numerous corporate executives as I am by the fact that about half of the people in this country pay no income taxes whatsoever. People with no skin in the game don't behave in a way which will be beneficial to our children and grandchildren.
    I have never objected to paying taxes, but I object significantly to how our legislators choose to spend those dollars.
    I believe it is an incontrovertible fact that as a nation we will de-lever, so something will give.
    5 Apr 2011, 09:25 PM Reply Like
  • Trever99
    , contributor
    Comments (105) | Send Message
     
    you're battling people that don't like to share Terry.

     

    What was the most recent report saying on productivity gains? Something along the top 5% have received over 90% of the benefits associated with productivity gains in the last 30 years... Something like that.

     

    I think eventually every society needs a revolution every couple of generations or so.. and now that the average american family has gone from one income earner.. to two income earners.. to two income earners working more hours, to two income earners maxing out their credit cards and pullling the equity out of their houses.... to... well.. there's nothing left to turn to to keep the masses temporarily satisfied. Revolution is the next rightful inevitability.

     

    I think climate change is going to kick this in to high gear within the next 15 years. After that it's all community and survival.
    5 Apr 2011, 09:53 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    Terry330

     

    Whatever the richest 1% own is irrelevant. The government taxes income not wealth. Personally part of me would not mind if they taxed wealth because that would take our socialist bend to the ultimate conclusion and it would send a lot of congressmen running for the border and renouncing their citizenship because they are sitting on a lot of it. But that would not pass congress would it? However it would certainly shut Warren Buffet up.

     

    If we want to outlaw wealth then we need to focus the tax system on wealth not income. But that of course is plain robbery but then again what's the difference between taking a person's income or their wealth when you really think about it?

     

    By the way people on fixed incomes were getting screwed by the government long before the Tea Party showed up.
    5 Apr 2011, 10:25 PM Reply Like
  • bigbenorr
    , contributor
    Comments (734) | Send Message
     
    "Something along the top 5% have received over 90% of the benefits associated with productivity gains in the last 30 years... Something like that."

     

    Why is that a surprise? Winners win, losers lose. That's the way the world works.
    5 Apr 2011, 11:49 PM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    No one is saying "outlaw wealth", what about paying your fair share don't the rich understand?

     

    The point Terry was trying to make is that the richest 1% continue to grab more and more every year. It's not what they own so much as what they grab. However, what they own does play into this. They own all the media, all the financial institutions, and so many other things that preclude the functioning of our democracy.
    6 Apr 2011, 02:14 AM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    Monngie:

     

    When people say the wealthiest 1% dont pay their fair share you have to understand if they even have any income beyond muni bonds and the like. High income earners which is small business and corporate executives pay through the nose on W2 income.

     

    These are not necessarily the same people. The left stirs the pot by saying the top X% own over Y% of the country so let's raise taxes on those deadbeats. That could be a tragic mistake as you cannot reach those people because the people making large W2's are driving jobs and may not be all that wealthy so they just shut down and employment drops along with GDP.

     

    Terry's point about richest 1% grabbing more is another high level statement without solid thinking behind it. How they "grab" more is not defined so it sounds like a midnight train robbery but in fact the richest 1% dropped the most in wealth during the last recession because they own a lot of equity and it of course got crushed.
    6 Apr 2011, 02:40 PM Reply Like
  • Trever99
    , contributor
    Comments (105) | Send Message
     
    Comical.

     

    It's not about winning and losing. It's about power.. and clearly there has been a power shift to the rich. Eventually however their wealth begins to erode as well. You can't get richer when no one is buying or working. Ironically, to the abject denial of the conservative elite, the rich got their richest under Clinton and he did more to help the general masses than any recent president and he still balanced the budget.

     

    Remember.. you always judge a society by how it treats its poorest and weakest. Based on your desires you probably want to see a small elite and wide scale poverty. So my statement on revolution still remains unchallenged.
    6 Apr 2011, 02:54 PM Reply Like
  • bigbenorr
    , contributor
    Comments (734) | Send Message
     
    In my opinion it is all about winning and losing, and plenty of people are still working and making money the old fashioned way. I know I am, and you attack me for not wanting to share my money. Well F you, I've worked my ass off to get it, what gives you the right to take it and fund your charitable cause. I have my own dreams I would like to pursue, you tell me I have to delay those to help your loser friends? that is BS.

     

    And I don't believe a society should be judged by "how it treats its poorest" but rather what great accomplishments it makes. However, neither goal should be funded by the government. It is not their place, let people decide on their own what is important enough to contribute their efforts to.
    10 Apr 2011, 10:58 AM Reply Like
  • mikeybronx
    , contributor
    Comments (347) | Send Message
     
    As one becomes more mature the sayings of their parents take on more significant meaning at times. My parents would always say, "charity begins at home", but they always fed the church baskets on Sunday.
    The government has fostered a society born and bred on welfare handouts and it will never change. The programs were well conceived at their inception to meet the needs of the unemployed and downtrotten. However it has now become a way of life for people and its much too late to attempt to wean recipients of these free handouts off the perverbial free money nipple.
    10 Apr 2011, 11:51 AM Reply Like
  • joro_ianev
    , contributor
    Comments (378) | Send Message
     
    First, based on several of such pieces related to the budget that have gone through SeekingAlpha I have a feeling that the editor has a definitive affinity for Democrats agenda. Krugman seems to be quoted daily.

     

    Second, I think there is enough anxiety among the electorate that a cut of large magnitude will become possible.

     

    Third, it is EASY to find large magnitude of savings when the spending has gone so out of control over the last 5 years.
    5 Apr 2011, 06:51 PM Reply Like
  • mikebrah
    , contributor
    Comments (253) | Send Message
     
    I would contend that the editor just knows his readership quite well, and selects those topics (i.e. Krugman) which generate the most responses.

     

    He may, or may not be Democratic but any editor's main goal is to generate buzz, eyeballs, comments, etc.
    5 Apr 2011, 07:21 PM Reply Like
  • D_Virginia
    , contributor
    Comments (2280) | Send Message
     
    It is well documented that this site has a significant conservative slant. The editors try to mention Krugman and Obama as often as possible so that they will get more ad revenue from the conservative sheep coming to do their daily bashing as instructed by Rupert and Rush.
    5 Apr 2011, 07:53 PM Reply Like
  • 7footMoose
    , contributor
    Comments (2266) | Send Message
     
    Show us your documentation for your claims.
    5 Apr 2011, 08:02 PM Reply Like
  • joro_ianev
    , contributor
    Comments (378) | Send Message
     
    mikebrah, you may be right. It is just tiresore seeing that meritless tweet Krugman being quoted daily... talk about someone generating a lot of worthless hot air.
    5 Apr 2011, 10:59 PM Reply Like
  • joro_ianev
    , contributor
    Comments (378) | Send Message
     
    7footMoose,

     

    If you need documentation on Krugman being quoted daily, just read the site daily. I guarantee you that Krugman's daily nonsense is quoted here among the Market Currents.

     

    If you need documentation on anxiety of the electorate, then just check the latest polls. Yahoo news had an article today about the baby boomers fearing their retirement. It is here: finance.yahoo.com/news...=

     

    If you need documentation that it is EASY to cut from the mushrooming spending over the last 5 years then simply check the growth in spending at the CBO web site or at the Treasury's web site. You can also check spending by the numbers at www.heritage.org/Resea....

     

    Just do your research.
    5 Apr 2011, 11:09 PM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    joro_ianev,

     

    That's how conservatives handle things they don't like to hear on this site. State your statistics.......let me see your documentation....... They can't see the obvious and God forbid they use Google, Yahoo, or Bing. Most of the BS the spout here can be refuted in 3 minutes using a search engine.
    6 Apr 2011, 02:21 AM Reply Like
  • rothyman
    , contributor
    Comments (126) | Send Message
     
    Monngie,

     

    Well thank god we live in a world that requires people (especially politicians) to back up their ideas with facts. It's not a conservative or liberal issue.. especially when today Conservatives and Liberals are becoming more and more alike.

     

    Every time someone says 'conservatives always this' or 'liberals always that' they prove themselves to be ignorant to what really goes on in the world. For a second step back from your bias and assess the facts as an innocent child would. Assumptions based on stereotypes can really blind you to the truth.
    6 Apr 2011, 02:35 AM Reply Like
  • Uncle Pie
    , contributor
    Comments (2675) | Send Message
     
    maybe they should consider just a teeny, tiny cut to the 942 Billion dollar F-35 Fighter-bomber program. According to a recent Atlantic Monthly article, this weapon will cost US taxpayers more than the GDP of Australia over the next 10 years.
    According to published reports, America spends more money on weapons than every other country in the world COMBINED. To pay for this they cut fuel oil assistance to low-income people living in trailers in Maine. Amazing!
    5 Apr 2011, 06:54 PM Reply Like
  • rlg7_98
    , contributor
    Comments (35) | Send Message
     
    Fact-check time. From Wikipedia: "The United States intends to buy a total of 2,443 aircraft for an estimated US$323 billion." GDP of Australia (CIA World Factbook): $1.22 trillion (2010 est.) Maybe they got the numbers backwards???

     

    To use the same logic that justified the $787B stimulus bill, that $323B will create thousands of jobs, increase innovation and grow the economy. Allowing an inbred Downeaster to heat up his trailer with the front door wide open, not so much.

     

    But seriously, there should be cuts across the board. The alternate F35 engine is a waste of money, as is extending the C-17 transport contract, both supported by, ironically, Democrats in Congress. Changing Medicare and Medicaid so that we don't lose $600B during the next ten years due to fraud alone sounds like a great idea too.
    5 Apr 2011, 07:44 PM Reply Like
  • 867046
    , contributor
    Comments (398) | Send Message
     
    The actual Atlantic quote is:

     

    "Washington intends to buy 2,443, at a price tag of $382 billion.
    Add in the $650 billion that the Government Accountability Office estimates is needed to operate and maintain the aircraft, and the total cost reaches a staggering $1 trillion.

     

    In other words, we're spending more on this plane than Australia's entire GDP ($924 billion)."

     

    One other thing of note is that the V/STOL version is behind schedule.

     

    The second engine is just corporate welfare for GE who might end up transferring the technology off-shore anyway.

     

    Finally, I'm not sure that the cost per plane includes the sunk R&D costs.
    5 Apr 2011, 09:47 PM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    I'm with ya Uncle.
    6 Apr 2011, 02:22 AM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    Good fact check and good comments. But, Uncle Pie's point is still well taken. Our priorities are all screwed up. I agree with the stimulus bill, however, even a liberal like me can't agree with how it was spent. More money for basic research, innovation and job growth, and infrastructure development and maintenance should have been allocated.

     

    Right on about the F35 replacement engine, but, I hate to see the C-17 production go away. I'd like to see them sell a boat load of them to other countries.

     

    You don't need to change Medicare and Medicaid to prevent fraud, but, you do need a lot of auditors and investigators to do it. We just don't want to pay for that much oversight.
    6 Apr 2011, 02:32 AM Reply Like
  • Trever99
    , contributor
    Comments (105) | Send Message
     
    I couldn't agree more with you.

     

    The age of the USA policing the world is just about over. After these current missions the US military is going to set up shop on the Mexican border and call it a day. The US can no longer afford literally and figuratively to be the policeman.

     

    Cut 20% off of the military budget and what do you get? 100 billion a year? Probably more. How many infrastructure projects is that by the way? What would be the effect on world security? Zero!! The middle east is now clearly embroiled in its "INTERNAL" desire for democracy and change.. and it had nothing to with any US invasion to oust a leader that no longer wanted to play ball with mainstream world politics.

     

    Not to mention you'll have alot less US military committing suicide on a daily basis.. which is what.. 20 or 30 a day confirmed?
    6 Apr 2011, 03:03 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    Trever

     

    Ironically although I believe you come more from the left and I come from the right I also want to cut military. The simple facts are that the military budget contains a lot of nation building projects and basic transfer payments to other countries. That should not be under the military budget but called out under the state department budget and see if everyone agrees with it. Ultimately we cannot police every part of the world without bankrupting ourselves so we have to accept that tragedies will happen but we have to accept our limitations. If people want to kill each other than we cannot stop it.

     

    I say slice it in half and we will still be the biggest military in the world and drop it all to reducing the deficit.
    6 Apr 2011, 05:02 PM Reply Like
  • Trever99
    , contributor
    Comments (105) | Send Message
     
    Believe it or not.. I'm more to the right than left... but I'm also a realist. I do not believe in gross social systems.. but I believe there are systems that should be social.

     

    My understanding on the US military is that it is bigger than the next 5 countries combined in terms of annual expenditures. You could easily cut it in half.. use 5% of that savings to secure the borders and improve security at the ports... and every American would be 10 times more secure than they are now.

     

    Truth though.. you have to increase taxes on the rich. I've seen articles even on this site that showed the taxes on the wealthiest americans are half of what they used to be. That makes no sense. Last but not least.. stop the loopholes on corporations. GE paying no tax for years makes no sense. Obama should be ashamed for even associating his administration with this company.
    6 Apr 2011, 09:59 PM Reply Like
  • mikeybronx
    , contributor
    Comments (347) | Send Message
     
    Reducing the expense of military hardware is what i am in agreement with, but the expense of shrinking the physical military to avoid having to pay salary and medical is not viable. Our ratio of size needs to stay in line with the othe major worldwide militariy's as to always be able to respond proportionately to any circumstances. I am also not aware of GE paying no taxes although there may be some green subsideraries having tax breaks.
    7 Apr 2011, 07:19 AM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    Trev

     

    Tax rates may be lower but tax receipts is way up.

     

    And somebody needs to define wealthy as we need to talk apples to apples. Trust fund babies may not be reporting a lot of taxable income which is a very different issue than working people reporting a lot on their W2's.
    7 Apr 2011, 10:03 AM Reply Like
  • User 487974
    , contributor
    Comments (1105) | Send Message
     
    Paul Ryan is spot on, I don't know what Terry 330 is on. We need to get real here, its math,pure and simple, no B.S. Need apply, sorry Terry!
    We should just cut to the chase here, flat tax of 15%. No more deductions and you do your taxes on a post card! If Russia can do a 13% consumption tax, surely we can. If you want a way out, before the depression makes fast work of all the liberal/progressive posturing, we need to face the music. The endgame stares back from the mirror you poor drunken bastard! Sober up!

     

    If we can't get real cuts, not this "rounding error" of 40 BILLION, we are going to surrender our say to the gale forces of the market. The cycle will come full circle. We still have time to have a say in it. Do we take the reigns of our own destiny? In the America of yesterday we sure would, today? Not so much! We are in need of leadership, moral as well as intellectual! D.C., I don't know if it is fixable.
    Jerry
    5 Apr 2011, 07:01 PM Reply Like
  • Terry330
    , contributor
    Comments (866) | Send Message
     
    Flat tax at 15% would mean wealthy pay even less tax than today, while middle class and elderly would pay much more to support wealthy, this is income redisperation or socialism for the top 5%.
    5 Apr 2011, 07:09 PM Reply Like
  • Paul Nelson
    , contributor
    Comments (225) | Send Message
     
    Terry, I agree with you 100%-the problem is the fat cats own the media and the politicians-they want the public to be dumb so they feed them lies all day long-no talk of corps actually not paying their taxes or the fact that rich people now have the lowest tax rates in history-it is all about spending-they just keep saying it and the idiots believe them but I think you are right on the money!
    5 Apr 2011, 07:17 PM Reply Like
  • rothyman
    , contributor
    Comments (126) | Send Message
     
    You're incredibly thick-headed. A 15% flat tax is EQUAL. Having poorer Americans pay relatively (% wise, if you can't comprehend that) less is UNEQUAL and is our system now.
    5 Apr 2011, 08:22 PM Reply Like
  • AxiosCap
    , contributor
    Comments (291) | Send Message
     
    Clearly you are incapable of math. You look at the number and forget that a flat tax would eliminate all deductions and actually lead to many people paying MORE in taxes. Not to mention that we need to broaden the tax base, not shrink it. When 50% of the population pays nothing you have a real problem. That disparity is what creates the class warfare because you have half of the population that wants gov't largesse and the other half wants the first half out of their pocket. This is what makes it possible to "buy" votes through political patronage.
    5 Apr 2011, 08:44 PM Reply Like
  • AxiosCap
    , contributor
    Comments (291) | Send Message
     
    This is why the Fair Tax is better than the flat tax. The Fair Tax would be a huge tax cut for the poor bec taxes on gas, food, medicine and more would go away. Add to that no taxes on investments and it provides them a real opportunity to pull themselves out of poverty. But, that's why Dems don't want it.
    5 Apr 2011, 08:49 PM Reply Like
  • Jason Rines (iThinkBig)
    , contributor
    Comments (2231) | Send Message
     
    The poor pay it in inflation now already through currency devaluation. If I was poor I would rather pay 15% on what I choose to buy than pay $5 gallon of gas that I need to get to work.
    5 Apr 2011, 08:49 PM Reply Like
  • coddy0
    , contributor
    Comments (1182) | Send Message
     
    Jerry369
    In the America of yesterday we sure would, today? Not so much! We are in need of leadership, moral as well as intellectual! D.C., I don't know if it is fixable.
    ======================...
    I believe it is other way.
    It is leadership needs us moral and intellectual
    As long as we are terries, leadership is not going to change its ways
    5 Apr 2011, 09:13 PM Reply Like
  • bearfund
    , contributor
    Comments (1534) | Send Message
     
    Sorry, not true. The poor today pay no or negative net taxes, and that includes most of the elderly whose incomes are rarely very large. The "super rich" have armies of lawyers and accountants whose sole function is to use and abuse the millions of pages in the US tax code to avoid, and occasionally evade, paying much of anything. I'd be surprised if those guys pay 15% (and of what... what even constitutes their income?). That leaves the middle class paying through the nose today; I've never made $250k in a year, my net worth doesn't even approach $1m, and I've paid at least 36% of my gross income in taxes in every one of the last 7 years. A 15% flat tax (even if we left the state taxes and payroll taxes as they are) would be about a 900bp tax cut for me. I'm pretty sure most other middle class taxpayers would find it's a cut for them as well. At worst, it would be about the same rate they're paying already, without having to spend hours filing a return or hundreds of dollars paying someone else to do so. It's a good answer. What's yours?
    5 Apr 2011, 09:17 PM Reply Like
  • joro_ianev
    , contributor
    Comments (378) | Send Message
     
    AxiosCap,

     

    Maybe your logic is a bit off. The Flat Tax idea is simply about ONE rate across the board. It is not about deductions. You can have one rate across the board and still have deductions and exemptions, just like you have it under the current system.

     

    The smart tax policy is to do both: flat tax plus elimination of all those giveaways to various interest groups (like the alternative energy credit, for example, or the $250 deduction for teachers). These are gifts to special interest groups and are thus used to 'buy' votes. Fact.
    5 Apr 2011, 11:16 PM Reply Like
  • bigbenorr
    , contributor
    Comments (734) | Send Message
     
    Surprise! Thumbs up!
    5 Apr 2011, 11:52 PM Reply Like
  • Trever99
    , contributor
    Comments (105) | Send Message
     
    rothyman.

     

    You clearly know nothing about tax. Your ignorance is astounding.

     

    The rule goes that the amount of consumption tax people pay as a % of their income is inversely proportional to their income. It is that simple. The more you make the less you pay in consumption taxes as a % of your income. On the low end however it does behave fairly flat.

     

    Savings my friend.
    6 Apr 2011, 03:10 PM Reply Like
  • Trever99
    , contributor
    Comments (105) | Send Message
     
    Removing taxes on Gas would be unwise as it would promote consumption. On the other items I agree wholly.
    6 Apr 2011, 03:15 PM Reply Like
  • Machiavelli999
    , contributor
    Comments (829) | Send Message
     
    I think its worth bringing up how much Obama got bashed during the health care debate because he proposed a $500 Billion dollar cut to Medicare over a decade. And it was the Republicans who bashed him.

     

    Well, now the Republicans are proposing to cut $5.8 Trillion from Medicare. For all the elderly, who voted for Republicans because they were afraid Obama was going to get his government hands on their Medicare...the joke is on you!!!
    5 Apr 2011, 07:16 PM Reply Like
  • Terry330
    , contributor
    Comments (866) | Send Message
     
    Well the Conservatives,listen and obey Rush. He would put his mother on the city streets for another tax cut.
    5 Apr 2011, 07:23 PM Reply Like
  • rlg7_98
    , contributor
    Comments (35) | Send Message
     
    No, rather he would stop Octomom from grossing up her welfare pay by having 14 children. Many Scandinavian countries limit welfare payments to 2 children. More children, no more money. Maybe we should learn from our "socialist" brethren.
    5 Apr 2011, 07:56 PM Reply Like
  • The Geoffster
    , contributor
    Comments (4009) | Send Message
     
    Having seen Rush, I can't imagine that his mother would stop traffic, but you just might Terry.
    5 Apr 2011, 09:10 PM Reply Like
  • beaux
    , contributor
    Comments (99) | Send Message
     
    An ongoing distributionist policy and concomitant lack of meaningful cuts (i.e. $500b over TEN years) will result in a steadily declining dollar, rising rates and a lower standard of living for all. Unfortunately with this approach the middle and lower classes will bear the brunt of this inflation as they will not have assets to act as hedges and their food & energy spending represent a higher percent of their income. Paradoxical but indisputable. How sad.
    5 Apr 2011, 07:45 PM Reply Like
  • Jason Rines (iThinkBig)
    , contributor
    Comments (2231) | Send Message
     
    I am going to put this out as a survey to the general public next week. Cut or hyperinflate. Begin competition or hyperinflate. Since we only have two doors and not a third.

     

    But media has done a great job reinforcing the duopoly, of that I imagine most can agree on.

     

    I am a business owner in the middle getting creamed to support the Boomers. Think the smaller and younger demographic will remain productive for a decade of no opportunity? Shared sacrifice, remember? I ain't get diddly out of SS or Medicare and have paid in for 27 years washing dishes when I was 14 and I don't make such generic political statements. Learn how Central Banking works Terry, this is an investment forum after all.
    5 Apr 2011, 08:21 PM Reply Like
  • Cerberus
    , contributor
    Comments (200) | Send Message
     
    Did you go to Harvard?
    5 Apr 2011, 08:24 PM Reply Like
  • SonofFred
    , contributor
    Comments (5) | Send Message
     
    Jerry 369 is so very correct. Don't any of you Obamans out there understand that we are in a debt crisis the likes of which our country has never seen before. We cannot proceed like it doesn't exist. We are quickly heading over a precipice from which we will not soon return. The government is presently monetizing this debt which will no doubt lead to steep inflation. Now we are asked to take on more debt with relation to health care. If you think scaling back on medicare for those not already on it and social security for those at 55 or younger is horrible, wait until you see what happens if we don't. Our economic system could crumble under the onerous weight of our spending habits. Just like an addict who must change their ways or die....we must change our ways.
    5 Apr 2011, 07:51 PM Reply Like
  • Machiavelli999
    , contributor
    Comments (829) | Send Message
     
    "Don't any of you Obamans out there understand that we are in a debt crisis the likes of which our country has never seen before."

     

    Treasury yields and CDS spreads are a good sign of whether or not we are in a debt crisis. Greece had a debt crisis and its yeilds and CDS spreads skyrocketed.

     

    We have lower interest rates now (LONG TERM rates ANDshort term) than we did during your patron saint, Ronald Reagan's reign.

     

    finance.yahoo.com/echa...=^TNX+Interactive#char...

     

    That indicates that we are not broke and people are literally still lining up to buy our debt. I know what you are going to say now. "It's all a conspiracy. The Fed is buying up all the debt."

     

    I can say that's complete BS and I know it won't make a difference. But all I'll say is that the Fed is not all powerful. If the market was truly worried about our fiscal situation, then rates would rise and the bond vigilantes would appear.

     

    Now, I agree in the long term, our debt is a problem. But the reason it is a problem is because of lack of tax revenue because of lack of growth because of the financial crisis.

     

    But the Republicans have loved this recession. It has been an excuse to cut every public service imaginable.
    5 Apr 2011, 08:00 PM Reply Like
  • The Geoffster
    , contributor
    Comments (4009) | Send Message
     
    The people lining up to buy Treasuries are the U.S. taxpayers, courtesy of the Fed's digital dollar printer.
    5 Apr 2011, 09:12 PM Reply Like
  • 867046
    , contributor
    Comments (398) | Send Message
     
    BINGO!

     

    Another republican logical contradiction. Listen to the markets that you claim to worship.
    5 Apr 2011, 09:57 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    Mach

     

    You are whistling past the graveyard and are completely distracted by politics.

     

    The debt is a problem right now. PIMCO has completely sold out of Treasury positions and they are some of the smartest fixed income people on the planet. China is moving money elsewhere. Rates are not rising because the Fed is monetizing the debt and forcing down rates artificially but that will not last. The lack of buyers during our treasury auctions is a message which is our debt at current rates is overpriced. The Fed Res is buying it up which should be an alarm bell bigger than the Empire State building. The only way to get real buyers is by raising rates which will then increase the deficit. Given the inflation we are seeing the rates should reflect that inflation. To slow down inflation we have to raise rates but again that raises the deficit. At best we can say we are only comparatively better than Greece and Ireland but we are right behind them. Our only claim can be that "we suck less."

     

    Our debt trajectory is not realistic and delaying action will only mean we have to cut more later than taking less now. All programs will have to be cut the only question is how much. This is not a marginal debt problem but order of magnitude in that we cannot pay it back without massive wealth transfer hence the Fed is already taking the first step to relief by driving inflation.

     

    Frankly the cards have already been dealt and the cuts will be coming across the board either by choice or by crisis.
    5 Apr 2011, 10:04 PM Reply Like
  • nlvnumbersman
    , contributor
    Comments (13) | Send Message
     
    At best we can say we are only comparatively better than Greece and Ireland but we are right behind them. Our only claim can be that "we suck less."
    ======================...
    Fact.
    6 Apr 2011, 12:03 AM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3314) | Send Message
     
    Maciavelli999,

     

    You and a few people on this board seem to be in denial and
    refuse to recognize the serious issues at hand.

     

    As if somehow covering your eyes, will prevent it from happening.

     

    All things cannot be fixed via wishful aspirations of future growth.

     

    I, and anybody with any intelligence would rather put my money on Bill Gross.

     

    I have a bit of a hunch, that he is smarter, richer and likely better informed than yourself.

     

    www.professionaladvise...
    9 Apr 2011, 02:05 PM Reply Like
  • Digger John
    , contributor
    Comments (13) | Send Message
     
    How about some cuts in the pay for Senators, state representatives the president, and some cuts in their pensions, and some cuts in their medical plans???
    5 Apr 2011, 07:58 PM Reply Like
  • bearfund
    , contributor
    Comments (1534) | Send Message
     
    Sigh. It's easy to agree with these ideas in principle, but the fact of the matter is that such cuts would make no meaningful difference when talking about the public debt or even a given year's deficit. Even completely eliminating pensions for ALL government workers would only save about $110B a year -- or 10% of the current deficit. The expenses for Congressmen themselves, including medical care, pensions, the whole works, are not even a rounding error.

     

    This is one of the biggest problems with the budget conversation: most people simply have no idea how much or little any given item costs. And it's not that people are off by 20% or 50%, they're off by one or two orders of magnitude. The ideological battles that people fight tend to be over things that don't even combine to make up 10% of the budget altogether. I'm not trying to say that they aren't important; they are, in part because a government that recognises the proper limits of its authority in spending relatively small amounts of money is more likely to recognise those limits when much larger sums are in play as well. But cutting ALL of those favourite fighting words on BOTH sides wouldn't even make a dent in the debt problem.

     

    Face facts: tackling the debt in a meaningful way means spending less on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, and/or dramatically raising taxes on a tax base that currently consists of less than 50% of all voters. Together those programs constitute almost half the entire budget. Throw in defense and you're past 65%. It is pointless to talk about cutting this kind of small stuff without also talking about the big things that actually contribute the overwhelming majority of the problem.
    5 Apr 2011, 09:25 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    bearfund

     

    You are dead on with respect to the programs that really drive the size of the budget and if those programs including defense are not dealt with then it is true we will never solve the budget problems.

     

    However a few points about the seemingly meaningless comments about congressmen, etc:

     

    1. Americans will deal with pain if it is shared because everyone understands we are all sucking it up to get to a better place. This is one of the reasons why government workers need to get on the same playing field as private sector workers. However government workers including Congress and the other political ilk running around have shown nothing but greed and incompetence. This prevents them from leading because they have no high ground to speak from as they are sacrificing nothing and are not feeling the pain and they don't want to get called out when they ask for sacrifice so they stay silent on the truth and just play politics. It is in their interest not to be honest. Guaranteed pensions really don't exist except in the government and so they should be done away with completely. Open up 401K's like everyone else.
    2. Government benefits at the federal, state and local levels are more than taxpayers can afford and the biggest deficits from these rich programs are in the future not now so you cannot look at the deficit today and conclude all is well.
    3. There is also an element of empathy and understanding that government workers cannot extend to the private sector because they are not living in the same world. They have blind spots. For example why worry about the private sector's retirement plans when you can take it for granted in the government sector? Leveling the playing field would help immensely in putting together better policies for our country. We all need to be in the same boat so ideas and policies are created that drive everyone forward together.
    4. Raising taxes is becoming increasingly impossible as inflation takes off and households are stretched very thin and almost 50% don't pay any tax which is a different problem. People want the rich or wealthy to pay more but they are often confusing the people who own a lot of stuff with the people who earn a lot of money which is typically small businesses. We can tax the heck out of high earners and corporations but that will only cause capital flight and business downsizing. Thus government spending has to come down to the capacity of the tax payer and that is huge amount more than anyone in government wants to contemplate. SSA, Medicare and DOD need hard cuts and that is going to cause even more pain on top of the tough economy. The recrimination is going to be something to behold when this happens.
    6 Apr 2011, 12:03 AM Reply Like
  • cowpieTX
    , contributor
    Comments (29) | Send Message
     
    i say pass Ryan's budget. it'll crash the market simply put. there's not cove of investor's in line with billions of dollars to invest now. mutuals have had net outflows of -2-1 billion last week alone. i'm locked and loaded with lots of dry powder on the side.
    5 Apr 2011, 08:09 PM Reply Like
  • Cerberus
    , contributor
    Comments (200) | Send Message
     
    Count me in, my sword has been sharpened and my quiver reloaded!
    5 Apr 2011, 08:26 PM Reply Like
  • apberusdisvet
    , contributor
    Comments (2860) | Send Message
     
    It's way past the time for infantile partisan rhetoric folks; the R and Ds both have been bought and paid for, as well as the regulators. Courtesy of the FED and its mostly European masters who have stolen most of our wealth since 1913, we are facing an unprecedented monetary and fiscal armageddon. To those of you who don't recognize this truth, I strongly suggest that you start connecting the dots before it's too late.
    5 Apr 2011, 08:29 PM Reply Like
  • The Geoffster
    , contributor
    Comments (4009) | Send Message
     
    Agreed. Rs and Ds are two sides of the same coin. If only there was true ideological choice, then we could have a real debate.
    5 Apr 2011, 09:15 PM Reply Like
  • User 487974
    , contributor
    Comments (1105) | Send Message
     
    Both serve at the feet of the progressive master...
    Jerry
    5 Apr 2011, 10:49 PM Reply Like
  • Trever99
    , contributor
    Comments (105) | Send Message
     
    Agreed!!

     

    Obama could be a Republican .. no real way to tell.

     

    The important thing for the powers in power is that things DONT change. Gridlock is essential. Deficits are essential. It is the only way to quickly distribute the wealth of the population to only afew. Unfortunately for Americans that few earned 80 billion last year printing American money and those few are primarily europeans. I still can't figure why Americans don't want the FED to end. The FED is a complete scam.

     

    Make elections publicly funded, end PACs, things will improve.
    6 Apr 2011, 03:32 PM Reply Like
  • Ken Solonika
    , contributor
    Comments (165) | Send Message
     
    If Ryan is the best the conservatives can put forth...

     

    In an op-ed written in October 2009, Ryan said that President Obama broke his promises by cutting Medicare. Ryan complained that, “in order to pay for the trillion dollar health care overhaul making its way through Congress…hundreds of billions of dollars will be cut from Medicare.”

     

    And then, in a Newsmax piece, Ryan complained that the health bill would involve “10 years of tax increases and Medicare cuts to pay for six years of spending.”

     

    Moreover, on his congressional website, Ryan complained that the health care bill “raises taxes by more than a half-trillion dollars over the next 10 years—the largest tax increase in American history—and cuts more than a half-trillion dollars from Medicare to finance this new entitlement.”

     

    Paul Ryan: concerned about Medicare, except when he's not.

     

    Finally, CBO has repeatedly said that repealing the Affor. Care Act will increase the deficit, not reduce it. Paul Ryan: either a liar or too lazy to read CBO reports, or both.
    5 Apr 2011, 08:36 PM Reply Like
  • The Geoffster
    , contributor
    Comments (4009) | Send Message
     
    Ken, Ryan is a politician. See apberusdisvet's comment above. The two party system is a symbiotic parasite on the body politic. They have divided and conquered the electorate for their own corrupt purposes. The big donors get the spoils and the sheeple get the crumbs.
    5 Apr 2011, 09:20 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    KS

     

    Can't deal with all the various Paul Ryan slams although the sleight of hand on collecting taxes for more years than are provided in benefits is well known which means that it is planned to run in the red which is insane.

     

    But here is something the CBO also has put forth which is that Obama Care will save $130 billion over 10 years. That is chump change to risk an entire health system over $13 Billion per year in a $14 Trillion economy and we know they will likely miss their numbers anyways because that is par for the course.

     

    There are very few people who want to tangle with Paul R on the numbers in a direct discussion including Obama. Part of it is that Ryan knows them better than most people but also the numbers are so bad that they condemn all of the Washington politicos and cannot be argued.

     

    This will all end rather badly no matter who is doing the talking because the numbers will not yield to agendas, emotions or viewpoints.

     

    Buckle up.
    5 Apr 2011, 10:17 PM Reply Like
  • SonofFred
    , contributor
    Comments (5) | Send Message
     
    That is the bottom line. We are in for a very bumpy ride. Very few in Washington have the intestinal fortitude to say "no" to all of the program spending. Everyone says, "Why cut this or that? It's only a small percentage of what we owe!" Add them all up, and it comes up to real money. Most of you who watch the markets and watch what is happening know in your gut this isn't going to end well. Our interest rates will begin to rise. Inflation will rear its ugly head. Unions will continue to demand their pounds of flesh, or else. Yes, sir! Buckel up!
    6 Apr 2011, 09:45 AM Reply Like
  • deloraguy
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    As a senior, I am willing to take cuts to Social Security and Medicare
    but with a single proviso: that all these Congressmen and women, the President and his staff, the top military, especially the Supreme justices and all those TOP bureaucrats lose all of their fat pensions, fancy medical care, costly perks, and also that our empire building wars stop immediately. Our Congress fat cats, regardless of party, would all sing a different tune then. It would start us on a sane (rather than insane) road to fiscal responsibility.
    5 Apr 2011, 08:37 PM Reply Like
  • bearfund
    , contributor
    Comments (1534) | Send Message
     
    If everyone receiving or about to receive these benefits were as easy to please as you, we wouldn't have a budget problem. In the scenario you describe, recipients of Social Security and Medicare would be shouldering about 99.95% of the spending cuts. The things you describe are inconsequential in the budget. The only other way I could interpret this would be that by "empire building" you mean you want the military budget cut by some drastic figure. If it were cut by 50%, the entitlement programs would still be about 2/3 of all the reductions needed to reach a balanced budget.
    5 Apr 2011, 09:34 PM Reply Like
  • pier0188
    , contributor
    Comments (147) | Send Message
     
    Any deficit/debt reduction without a meaningful reduction in defense spending is nothing but hot air.

     

    Gotta love the neo-neo-cons. Worthless as the neo-cons.
    5 Apr 2011, 08:54 PM Reply Like
  • mike mohr
    , contributor
    Comments (451) | Send Message
     
    Can you trust a GOP candidate after BOOSH?
    5 Apr 2011, 09:20 PM Reply Like
  • Econdoc
    , contributor
    Comments (2944) | Send Message
     
    FIrst - the nonsense about cutting $30 billion or $100 billion is completely ridiculous - who really cares about this?

     

    Second - Why didn't they just photocopy the Erskine Bowles plan?

     

    Third - looking at the Ryan Plan. It is a good effort and should be supported. The principle that Government support should be for the most disadvantaged is a good one. In the US - the lions share - the bulk of Government largess - goes to the middle classes - the poor and the rich get the least.

     

    I paid over $120,000 in income taxes last year. There is no way I get even 10% of that back as value. I also fund my own Social Security and a bunch of others people's as well.

     

    On the income tax - I am willing to pay about the same - I just want the folks who pay nothing to pay something and share that burden with me. Too much too ask? I am sick of hearing how I am such a fat cat. Really? Here are the facts.

     

    Top 1% earns 20% of income and pays 38% of all taxes
    Top 5% earns 38% of income and pays 58% of all taxed

     

    On Social Security. I will pay in what I pay - just let me have control over 50% of my contribution. The government can take the rest and give it to the rest of you. I can create my own personal pension plan. What's the harm in that AND I will continue to let them take the other half and do whatever they want with it. Just don't ask me for more. Is that too much too ask?

     

    Some problems with the Ryan Manifesto - in my not so humble opinion.

     

    No Tax increases - that's not smart. I would have liked to see a consumption tax

     

    Simplification of the tax system - removal of the mortgage deduction - in fact eliminate all deductions - get rid of the. They are just sops to get politicians elected - and they distort.

     

    Corporate Welfare reduction is good - eliminate all of it. Especially the Corn Ethanol subsidies - that change of itself will do more to reduce World Food inflation than anything Bernanke can do with monetary policy.

     

    Reduce taxes on savings and investment - we need more of that Increase taxes on consumption - especially energy.

     

    Regarding the cuts - it is hard to comment. The program are all of some value to someone. I would cut a little less in exchange for more entitlement and tax reform.

     

    The big question is what will President Obama do? This will test his mettle. Will he rise to the challenge and present a real and credible alternative or just demagogue it and use it to scare the troops into action. What do you think?

     

    VOTE

     

    Thumbs down if you think Obama wimps out and takes the low demagogue road.

     

    Thumbs up if you think Obama stands tall and delivers an strong and credible alternative.

     

    E
    5 Apr 2011, 09:22 PM Reply Like
  • Jason Rines (iThinkBig)
    , contributor
    Comments (2231) | Send Message
     
    The survey I will actually launch is to introduce door number three, we all do seem to be clamoring for the center so I am happy too see that sentiment shared.

     

    Good comment, right idea to conduct research. Thumbs down on your flash research poll. The people should vote on what stays and goes! A good application of American ingenuity the Internet is.

     

    American innovators are hard at work on the feedback collection and light analysis. No one had to tell us to or bribe us. For the rest of the world what the hell is up with you treating some in the investment community (global) like shit?! Compromise, continuity is guaranteed but the gains or losses are not. Capital must return to where it is most multiplied. Budget cut discussions are a reality be them through inflation (umm gas prices) or through balanced budgets.

     

    At least all of us in every income strata are vigorously debating online rather than killing all of each other. Perhaps America rather than EuroChina can lead brand in this area. Let's face it, if nothing else it will be fun!
    5 Apr 2011, 10:14 PM Reply Like
  • 867046
    , contributor
    Comments (398) | Send Message
     
    The irony is that the Democrats proposals are closer to what modern corporation executives would do, cut expenses AND grow the top line.
    5 Apr 2011, 09:54 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    867046

     

    No that would not be their initial move. First given the debt load modern corporate executives would call up their creditors and tell them "you have a problem and we cannot pay you back so help us or else." And they would not cut expenses until the creditors caved on terms because they want the P&L to look as ugly as possible.

     

    So who does the US Government owe a lot of money to besides bond holders? US Citizens collecting SSA, SSI, Medicare, employee benefits, etc. Our government is not going to tell these parties they owe money and benefits that they cannot make good on their promises until they absolutely are forced. So they instead dance around with growing the top line and cutting expenses rhetoric.

     

    Nothing works unless they take apart SSA and Medicare and throw on defense for good measure although by itself it is not enough.
    6 Apr 2011, 05:17 PM Reply Like
  • Terry330
    , contributor
    Comments (866) | Send Message
     
    Before the REAGON, BUSH SR. and BUSH Jr. tax cuts the rich were paying WHAT??? 70% on earnings over $1 million. Now they cry about the top rate being 35%.

     

    Boy AMERICA is in so much BETTER SHAPE than it was in the 70's, 80's and 90's. Look who much GOOD giving the RICH MORE has done. It created a whole NEW MIDDLE CLASS----- In CHINA while destroying the AMERICAN MIDDLE CLASS and moving 10's of MILLIONS of jobs overseas.

     

    And it worked so well, the REPUBLICANS want EVEN MORE.... What is it that comes after TRILLIONS???? Because that is what the NEW AMERICAN DEBT will be IF this REPUBLICAN plan ever passes!!!!!....
    5 Apr 2011, 09:55 PM Reply Like
  • valueinvestor123
    , contributor
    Comments (327) | Send Message
     
    I would like to see Social Security age moved up to 75 with no exceptions. Then again, given my age and the state of this program, I will likely never see it anyway.
    5 Apr 2011, 09:57 PM Reply Like
  • Terry330
    , contributor
    Comments (866) | Send Message
     
    During Harry Truman's administration, spending was cut in half, (end WW II )from 41 percent of GDP down to 20 percent, and went down further to 18 percent under Dwight Eisenhower. It stayed at 18 percent of GDP through the John F. Kennedy presidency, crept up to 19 percent under Lyndon Johnson, and then went up to 20 percent while Richard Nixon was in the White House. Gerald Ford brought spending back down to 19 percent of GDP, it then went up to 22 percent during Jimmy Carter's term, down to 21 percent under Ronald Reagan's two terms and George H.W. Bush's four years as commander in chief. Bill Clinton brought spending back down to 18 percent of the U.S. economy.

     

    No president since FDR has increased spending as a percentage of GDP by more than George W. Bush, taking it from 18.4 percent of GDP to 22.8 percent.
    5 Apr 2011, 10:12 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    Wars and recessions have an impact on the ratio. Looking at both the numerator and denominator provides more insight than ratios and GWB bashing. Although GWB spent money like a CA liberal.
    6 Apr 2011, 05:40 PM Reply Like
  • mikeybronx
    , contributor
    Comments (347) | Send Message
     
    Someone is actually proposing to cut $580 billion annually, what will they think of next? Well, with military accounting for only 10% of the deficit and in the global climate we are in there is little confidence that the military budget will be reduced. Financial aid to foreign countries is doable, being that charity begins at home. Medicaid and medicare for all the bad press it receives cannot be touched. Actually policing the social security and welfare system would reduce the deficit burden tremendously. Growing a pair and taking firm action to close the trade deficit would certainly be beneficial. Enforcing the laws to stop the invasion of illegal immigrants would work wonders but decrease the dems voting base. Telling big pharma to stick it and allow a significant amount of generic drugs into our country will add to our tax revenues to help pay for other programs. The truth is the boys and girls on capitol hill are not getting the job done.
    5 Apr 2011, 10:13 PM Reply Like
  • Dave Suh
    , contributor
    Comments (2) | Send Message
     
    Didnt read the plan yet but Im curious as to how much of the 5.8T savings is front loaded (meaning legitimate) and how much is backloaded (meaning complete wild guess because we all know or should I say hopefully realize that all est. on the economy this large and complicated that far out are complete waste of time)
    5 Apr 2011, 10:14 PM Reply Like
  • Paine in America
    , contributor
    Comments (20) | Send Message
     
    The best way to solve the SUCK, is to embrace the suck...

     

    A solution: Divide US debt in the Middle; and form two sets of individual, and self-disciplined Governmental Societies...

     

    -Society One: Supports Gov power over their society to maintain Utopian dream; via rationing, & mass tax collection. (spending caps / LTD expansion)

     

    -Society Two: Creates flat tax, maintains LTD safety net, empowers earners to create surplus; enabling growth & job creation. (strict budget / Gov reduction)

     

    -Society One would have to CAP instead of TAP; in order to maintain itself; thus create incentive to reduce from within.

     

    -Society Two would be afforded a CLEAR BUDGET.
    In every school of economics, budgets are essential to growth...
    5 Apr 2011, 10:27 PM Reply Like
  • joebaggadonuts
    , contributor
    Comments (47) | Send Message
     
    Ahh. Like conjoined twins, fighting over which way to turn, your solution is to cut them apart and keep the liver in the one on the right and the stomach in the one on the left. Great solution. Not.
    6 Apr 2011, 06:39 AM Reply Like
  • KnaveChild
    , contributor
    Comments (45) | Send Message
     
    We're all in denial that the united states is collapsing before our eyes.

     

    Pretty soon we'll all be standing around without food or energy, looking at each other wondering where our empire went.

     

    I hope you guys like squirrel for dinner.
    5 Apr 2011, 11:37 PM Reply Like
  • Common Cents
    , contributor
    Comments (198) | Send Message
     
    I usually try to keep my comments to investments vs. politics but .. ....

     

    1). Congrats to the congressman for at least trying to provide a framework for an adult discussion about the order of magnitude of change that might be required.

     

    2). As usual, the devil will be in the detail....I kind of skimmed the plan and the most detail I could find was things like
    - "lower the tax rate but broaden the base by eliminating loopholes"......OK I guess.... but which loopholes are you closing...is that the mortgage deduction, carried interest, favorable treatment of dividends, ira deductions, earned income credits etc. Only once those specifics are put on the table can the debate really begin.

     

    - "change medicare to a block grant/lump sum to each of the 50 states" On one hand, it kind of makes sense to me that the closer health care decisions get to the individual the better, on the other hand it is not obvious to me why 50 different programs are really needed/helpful. In any event , it mostly seems like this just kind of eliminates medicare as a federal budget problem but leaves the budget problem to the states.

     

    Let me know if anyone knows if there is more detail and I just missed it..but it seems like the process needs to get to that level of detail soon or this will likely all just be fodder for talk until at least 2013.
    5 Apr 2011, 11:38 PM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    Republicans don't conduct adult conversations they just say NO.
    6 Apr 2011, 02:02 PM Reply Like
  • Tommy_Finger
    , contributor
    Comments (320) | Send Message
     
    91st!
    6 Apr 2011, 12:25 AM Reply Like
  • paulo.pereira
    , contributor
    Comments (492) | Send Message
     
    US federal deficit = 1500 Billion USD

     

    US defense+intelligence = 850 Billion USD (more than all the world combined)
    6 Apr 2011, 07:06 AM Reply Like
  • mikeybronx
    , contributor
    Comments (347) | Send Message
     
    "US defense+intelligence = 850 Billion USD (more than all the world combined)"

     

    Which is why we can sit here on SA and enjoy prosperity.
    6 Apr 2011, 10:07 AM Reply Like
  • paulo.pereira
    , contributor
    Comments (492) | Send Message
     
    THank you middle class americans.

     

    We are becaming poor in order to save the world.
    6 Apr 2011, 05:26 PM Reply Like
  • bearfund
    , contributor
    Comments (1534) | Send Message
     
    Well... one could argue that the Swiss are equally free to sit here and enjoy prosperity, and they spend virtually nothing on military or intelligence activities. It's going to be hard to avoid spending more than the Swiss to defend such a huge territory with long borders and coastlines, but it's not obvious that it's necessary to spend 800 billion dollars a year. Would 600 billion do just as well? What about 400? I really don't know, but the case for spending so much is anything but a slam dunk, especially since so many US military and intelligence activities do not seem related to reducing or eliminating a significant threat to the health, liberty, or prosperity of US citizens. Surely there is some scope there for scaling back without incurring any major risks.
    6 Apr 2011, 05:32 PM Reply Like
  • tigersam
    , contributor
    Comments (1711) | Send Message
     
    Paul Ryan, Donald Trumpt, Carl Ichan are snake oil salesman.
    6 Apr 2011, 07:13 AM Reply Like
  • bike 05673
    , contributor
    Comments (132) | Send Message
     
    If you want good government you have to do away with the professional politicians this can be done by all elected officials getting their health care from the people they represent and getting no pension. Basically we should give senators 2/ 6years terms , representatives 3/2 year terms. All politicians should not depend on the Gov. for their long term job.
    6 Apr 2011, 08:48 AM Reply Like
  • Paine in America
    , contributor
    Comments (20) | Send Message
     
    The US has become a two Government Nation...

     

    1) A Govt motivated to advance & excel beyond need.
    2) A Govt motivated to draw from its remaining strength.

     

    I am seeing too much money being wasted on thwarting efforts of two different ways of governing... Is America better off forming two smaller Governments with populations who equally support their leadership?

     

    Should each be given the choice to exist independent of one another? Could debt be more easily tackled, if split in half?

     

    This seems absurd, but as one Government leadership views "mass entitlements" collapsing all Nations who expand them... The other Government is repulsed by Capitalism & favors limits for Society...

     

    Would two separate and Independent Governments provide the American people with enough motivation to prove the other wrong; that it will ensure a US toe-hold on survivability?
    9 Apr 2011, 07:22 PM Reply Like
  • mikeybronx
    , contributor
    Comments (347) | Send Message
     
    Respectfully asking, what in the world are you smoking?
    9 Apr 2011, 09:42 PM Reply Like
  • rothyman
    , contributor
    Comments (126) | Send Message
     
    I believe he makes a very good point and indeed a unique view. I think a big problem is that there is a HUGE uneducated population who does not see this divide.

     

    Instead of seeing a divide between greedy government controls & free market capitalism, they see a divide between Republicans and Democrats. I really do believe this is a juvenile view that needs to be taught correctly. The difference between Republicans and Democrats grow narrower everyday while a lot of people believe it is growing larger (Thank the boobtube for that one).

     

    If the Gov't was presented as more of a gov't divided between advancing & controlling as a opposed to dems/reps, it would be a huge wakeup call to the public.
    10 Apr 2011, 09:54 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Tools
Find the right ETFs for your portfolio:
Seeking Alpha's new ETF Hub
ETF Investment Guide:
Table of Contents | One Page Summary
Read about different ETF Asset Classes:
ETF Selector

Next headline on your portfolio:

|