Boehner demands trillions in cuts in exchange for debt vote

[auditor0007]

The problem with Medicare and ss is simple: when we put them in place, we expected granny to be dead by now. We didn't plan for this.

This is 100% correct, and it is the reason that we must raise the retirement age.

Not on those who've been paying in all this time and were told they'd get their benefits at a given age. You forced them into an arrangement- now honour it.

Or should we simply let it be known that America believes is a nation of liars founded on lies? Perhaps our new nat5ional motto would be 'Our Word Means Nothing'; hell, the Hmong would probably agree.

If we raise the retirement age one year every five years, it gives everyone time to adjust to the new time frame without forcing those near retirement to have to make any changes. You make an assumption that everyone was guaranteed to begin collecting benefits at a certain age. Do you also make the assumption that regardless of how many years individuals collect from Medicare and SS, they should start collecting at a certain age?

Let me ask you this; if tomorrow everyone's life expectancy increased to 100 years, would you still suggest people should expect to begin receiving SS and Medicare at age 66? The age has already been increased to 67 for those born after 1960. It just needs to be raised more and sooner.

 

[auditor0007]

Our biggest spending issues are from Military spending and Medicare. SS is a problem to a much lesser degree. The money for SS would pretty much be there if our elected representatives, both Republicans and Democrats, had not loaned it away over the past 30 years. Military spending could easily be cut by $300 billion per year if we get the hell out of the Middle East and quit trying to police the entire planet. Long term Medicare costs can be reduced dramatically by increasing the retirement age. Nobody seems to like this idea, but it is the one that makes the most sense considering people are living so much longer. Instead of making private insurance cover people in their last years, allow private insurance to cover most people while they work a few more years before retirement, then let Medicare do what it was meant to, but for fewer years.

Cuts in some discretionary spending can be made, but the fact is that discretionary spending is not the long term problem, yet this is what Republicans seem to concentrate on. The worst thing about all of this is that it doesn't even begin to address one of our biggest long term issues, and that is spending on infrastructure. At some point, we are going to have to find a way to pay for this on top of figuring out our current budget. The current need for infrastructure spending is estimated somewhere around $2.5 trillion. And we are going to have to address this if we plan to keep this country from physically falling apart.

A reduction in Military and we could have awesome schools, roads, trains, bridges, and be out of debt.

Bullshit.
I suppose we could dismantle the military entirely. Then we wouldn't have to worry about debt because Muslims don't believe in interest payments. We could be a province of the new Caliphate.

As for Boehner, good for him. Politics is a rough game. Every opportunity to cut entitlement programs, roll back Obamacare, and reduce taxes and spending should be taken. If that means Obama has to do it in exchange for anything, so be it.

No reason to dismantle the military entirely. We are spending a very large amount of our military spending on nation building, something that we cannot afford to do, plain and simple.

As for the rest, how far would you like to roll back taxes? Does zero sound good to you? And let's say we put an end to SS and Medicare, since you seem to like this idea so much. Are you suggesting we pay back every dollar put in by those who have not yet started collecting. I'm not sure what that amount might be, but just by estimating, it should be between $20 to $30 trillion. Or do you suggest we just tell everyone to get fucked and figure it out on their own?

Some of the crap you spew is just that, crap. We've lowered taxes to the lowest in 60 years, yet you want to reduce it more. Sorry, but government does have a role in society. Your idea of cutting it to bare bones is not in the best interest of anyone including yourself. You're just so stuck on your ideology that you can't even see it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Here's the question I'll be asking the next time I vote:

Did you vote for more debt?

If the answer is "yes," you're not getting my vote.

Sometimes you have to spend in debt in order to get out of debt.

Ask anyone whose started a business; debt is fine if it's for sound investments that'll leave you better off in the long run.

Stop clinging to empty rhetoric and think

That only works if the credit is readily available, which you would know if you actually ran a business. It works the same way for a country. The more debt you have, the harder it is to weather a recession.

In comparing the experience of the United States, Canada, Japan, and the Eurozone of 16 countries, two conspicuous findings emerge. One of these, which we address on the back page, is the relationship between different regulations governing employment and the unemployment rates during both recession and recovery. The other, discussed here, is the relationship between debt financing and the decline of output during a recession.The primary differences in the severity of this recession across nations can be explained by the levels of debt each had going into the downturn. Countries that had built up high debt loads suffered deeper and longer recessions. The immediate implication is that nations that run up high debt-to-GDP levels through deficit spending now may be compromising their ability to survive the next recession…

Higher debt reduces flexibility, which leads to a rather logical conclusion.

If leveraging is treacherous ground for an individual investor, imagine the implications for an entire economy. Before the recent crisis, when real estate and other asset prices were rising, debt loads were less problematic. When asset prices began to fall, high debt loads became destructive. The financial crisis ensued. Recession followed.
All this implies that an economy can be made less susceptible to the devastating effects of a financial crisis if the reliance on debt financing is kept at a reasonable level.

How Debt Drove the Great Recession - by Polina Vlasenko

And you want to talk about others clinging to rhetoric.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Sometimes you have to spend in debt in order to get out of debt.

Ask anyone whose started a business; debt is fine if it's for sound investments that'll leave you better off in the long run.

Stop clinging to empty rhetoric and think

If your talking about people who are starting businesses....maybe, but we ARE talking about politicians and it's not their money. I suggest you think about it.

And? What's your point? Deficits are still not inherently bad. It's all about the difference between spending and investment. Deficits are fine under some circumstances, such as investing on education and infrastructure in order to improve our economic condition in the long run.

Simply screaming about deficits without addressing the real problems in this nation (like education and infrastructure) is moronic.

It oft isn't the business's money either. Ever heard of business loans?

How is education a problem? Is it because we spend more than any other nation, and get less? Or is it because some people believe that everyone has a Constitutional right to a PhD, even if they are not mentally capable of actually earning one?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

i mean them undermining the full faith and credit of this country is imbecilic.

and while i agree that the debt has to be addressed, one shouldn't cut one's income when one has bills to pay. so you'll forgive me if i'm not all torn up about it.

Indeed, instead, we should tax the hell out of those who have achieved the higher incomes, and drive them offshore so that all we have left are dependents of the Nanny State.

Taxes are at the lowest rates in 60 years. There are very few countries on this planet with lower tax rates than the US.

And even fewer countries with higher revenues.

 

[auditor0007]

Indeed, instead, we should tax the hell out of those who have achieved the higher incomes, and drive them offshore so that all we have left are dependents of the Nanny State.

Taxes are at the lowest rates in 60 years. There are very few countries on this planet with lower tax rates than the US.

And even fewer countries with higher revenues.

Of course not; we have the biggest economy in the world. Why would you expect countries with smaller economies to have higher revenues than us?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Taxes are at the lowest rates in 60 years. There are very few countries on this planet with lower tax rates than the US.

And even fewer countries with higher revenues.

Of course not; we have the biggest economy in the world. Why would you expect countries with smaller economies to have higher revenues than us?

I wouldn't.

Why would you expect us to take more taxes than other countries that have smaller economies? We could halve the size of our defense budget and still spend more than all the other major military forces combined. That alone tells me we spend more than we need to which actually makes the people that point out that the problem is not the revenue end of the equation right. Until we deal with the spending problem that our government has we do not need to talk about taxes. Congress needs to cut spending to the bone, and then cut it in half. Then they can come to us and ask for more taxes after justifying the need for them.

 

[bripat9643]

they keep digging themselves into a hole they're never going to get out of.

So you think $1.5 trillion plus deficits are the politically expedient thing to support?

 

[Avatar4321]

Here's the question I'll be asking the next time I vote:

Did you vote for more debt?

If the answer is "yes," you're not getting my vote.

Sometimes you have to spend in debt in order to get out of debt.

Ask anyone whose started a business; debt is fine if it's for sound investments that'll leave you better off in the long run.

Stop clinging to empty rhetoric and think

Call me when the government starts making sound investments. Till then, cut the dang spending.

 

[bripat9643]

Sometimes you have to spend in debt in order to get out of debt.

That is almost never true.

Ask anyone whose started a business; debt is fine if it's for sound investments that'll leave you better off in the long run.

Stop clinging to empty rhetoric and think

What does starting a business have to do with government deficit spending that has been going on since the Roosevelt Administration?

An investment is not the kind of debt the federal government is racking up. That more closely resembles credit card debt racked up by compulsive shoppers who can't control their spending.

The federal government is not "investing" any of the money it spends. It's all pissed down the welfare sewer.

 

[Avatar4321]

so the country should grow and the govt stay the same size?

No. The government should shrink.

We have a Constitution. It would be nice if we actually followed it for a change.

 

[auditor0007]

And even fewer countries with higher revenues.

Of course not; we have the biggest economy in the world. Why would you expect countries with smaller economies to have higher revenues than us?

I wouldn't.

Why would you expect us to take more taxes than other countries that have smaller economies? We could halve the size of our defense budget and still spend more than all the other major military forces combined. That alone tells me we spend more than we need to which actually makes the people that point out that the problem is not the revenue end of the equation right. Until we deal with the spending problem that our government has we do not need to talk about taxes. Congress needs to cut spending to the bone, and then cut it in half. Then they can come to us and ask for more taxes after justifying the need for them.

So, say $1 trillion per year, or is that still too much? BTW, we don't take in more taxes than smaller countries. As a whole, of course we do, but not per capita or as a percentage of GDP, and those are the measuring stick, are they not?

 

[Avatar4321]

Please explain in great detail why the government won't wast my money again.

Because you're going to vote for James Beukema and then pass the Emergency Powers act, granting me authority for 12 months to make any changes to the budget I wish and re-arrange the government as I see fit.

It's faster and easier than passing FeRRA

You've got to be joking. Do you think anyone is crazy enough to give you or any politician Emergency powers, even temporary?

History and Episodes 1-3 of Star Wars explain why that is neccesarily a bad idea. Because we have learned through sad experience that it is nature and disposition almost all men that as soon as they get alittle power, they immediately begin corrupting it for their own benefits and ego.

There are few people I would trust with that kind of power. Most of them are dead. I'm not sure I'd trust myself with that at this time. I certainly wouldn't trust you. No offense.

 

[Avatar4321]

We need to find a good man, like Paul, to serve a term as a tyrant. A classical tyrant, granted great authority to make sweeping changes in government (changes difficult to push through legislatively due to a variety of reasons) for a set period of time.

Such a man could use this authority to get rid of many redundant government agencies, end subsidies for big agra, which is near impossible through other means, and clean out the federal government. We could write the Emergency Powers Act in such as way as to ensure the term cannot be renewed and he can be recalled with an 85% majority.

Term of, say, 6-12 months.

Worked out very well for the Romans. Hail Ceasar!

 

[Avatar4321]

A reduction in Military and we could have awesome schools, roads, trains, bridges, and be out of debt.

you really don't understand the concept of limited jurisdiction or the vast problems we are facing with our budget do you?

 

[JBeukema]

BTW, we don't take in more taxes than smaller countries. As a whole, of course we do, but not per capita or as a percentage of GDP, and those are the measuring stick, are they not?

Can you source that?

 

[JBeukema]

Episodes 1-3 of Star Wars

You're basing your political philosophy on Star Wars?

 

[Avatar4321]

The problem with Medicare and ss is simple: when we put them in place, we expected granny to be dead by now. We didn't plan for this.

This is 100% correct, and it is the reason that we must raise the retirement age. I realize that doing so would not work for everyone and we would have to grant early retirement to certain disabled individuals, but overall, the new retirement age needs to move to at least 70.

How about we do aware with the concept of retirement altogether. Through thousands of years of history no one ever retired. We lose a significant part of our work force who can contribute so much to the knowledge and experience of the nation because for some reason 80 years ago a politician arbitrarily decided that people should stop working at 65.

Continue participating in life. Life isn't over just because we reach a certain age.

 

[Avatar4321]

Episodes 1-3 of Star Wars

You're basing your political philosophy on Star Wars?

No. Im basing it on the totality of history. Human experience. You know, the same place Star Wars got their idea. I was pretty clear in my post before you cut all of the rest of what I said out.

I just presumed you'd have an easier time understanding the Star Wars analogy.

Apparently, I was wrong.

 

[JBeukema]

mole ruit sua