GOP Senator offers solution to fiscal cliff

[g5000]

GOP senator offers 'fiscal cliff' solution - Business - Boston.com

Both tax increases and adjustment to entitlements involved. Grover must be soiling his pants...

FINALLY! Some ideas on the table instead of attacks.



Something I have been in favor of for a long time. We are living longer, we should be working longer.

However, 68 and 67 are nowhere near high enough. Both need to be at least 70.

Life expectancy was 60 when Social Security was implemented. Social Security was insurance in case you beat the odds, not an entitlement.

6 percent of the population was over 65 when Social Security was enacted. Today, 13 percent are over 65. We have literally more than doubled the Social Security load on the Treasury. When you add Medicare on top of that, it is no wonder we are seriously broken.

Life expectancy is now 78 and will keep on climbing.

The eligibility ages should either be indexed to life expectancy or to a percentage of the population.

Corker’s plan also includes $749 billion in higher tax revenue claimed by capping itemized deductions at $50,000, a proposal that hits wealthier taxpayers the hardest.

Wrong answer.

We need to remove ALL tax expenditures from the tax code. Every last one of them.

If a Congressman cannot tinker with the tax code by attaching a rider to a bill that adds another tax expenditure, then giving him campaign cash to do so becomes pointless. He cannot be bribed.

We have been adding tax expenditures at the rate of one a day for over a decade. It has become so corrupt that they now add up to a trillion dollars a year.

Get rid of them all. This will truly broaden the base, and then you can lower the tax rates for everyone. And you can broaden the base to include more than 47 percent of income earners so that more people have skin in the game.

This way, if your neighbor earns the same paycheck you do, you are both paying the identical amount of taxes.

It does not get more fair than that.

.

Just pointing out that the tax itself was only 3% when SS was fully implemented so we have also doubled the amount taken in for each worker as well.

Yes, and that is a 100 percent tax increase to pay for the extra years you draw from the Treasury in your retirement.

Instead of continuing to raise taxes, we need to raise the eligibility age. That is a spending cut instead of the usual tax increase.

.

 

[Seawytch]

FINALLY! Some ideas on the table instead of attacks.

Tennessee Sen. Bob Corker is circulating a 10-year, $4.5 trillion plan loaded with controversial proposals, including a less generous inflation adjustment for Social Security, and a gradual increase in the regular Social Security retirement age to 68 and the Medicare eligibility age to 67.

Something I have been in favor of for a long time. We are living longer, we should be working longer.


However, 68 and 67 are nowhere near high enough. Both need to be at least 70.

Life expectancy was 60 when Social Security was implemented. Social Security was insurance in case you beat the odds, not an entitlement.

6 percent of the population was over 65 when Social Security was enacted. Today, 13 percent are over 65. We have literally more than doubled the Social Security load on the Treasury. When you add Medicare on top of that, it is no wonder we are seriously broken.

Life expectancy is now 78 and will keep on climbing.

The eligibility ages should either be indexed to life expectancy or to a percentage of the population.

Except life expectancy is only going up for white collar workers. It has stayed consistent for blue collar.

 

[Stephanie]

Don't hold your breath any Democrats will go along with this..

 

[Seawytch]

FINALLY! Some ideas on the table instead of attacks.



Something I have been in favor of for a long time. We are living longer, we should be working longer.

However, 68 and 67 are nowhere near high enough. Both need to be at least 70.

Life expectancy was 60 when Social Security was implemented. Social Security was insurance in case you beat the odds, not an entitlement.

6 percent of the population was over 65 when Social Security was enacted. Today, 13 percent are over 65. We have literally more than doubled the Social Security load on the Treasury. When you add Medicare on top of that, it is no wonder we are seriously broken.

Life expectancy is now 78 and will keep on climbing.

The eligibility ages should either be indexed to life expectancy or to a percentage of the population.



Wrong answer.

We need to remove ALL tax expenditures from the tax code. Every last one of them.

If a Congressman cannot tinker with the tax code by attaching a rider to a bill that adds another tax expenditure, then giving him campaign cash to do so becomes pointless. He cannot be bribed.

We have been adding tax expenditures at the rate of one a day for over a decade. It has become so corrupt that they now add up to a trillion dollars a year.

Get rid of them all. This will truly broaden the base, and then you can lower the tax rates for everyone. And you can broaden the base to include more than 47 percent of income earners so that more people have skin in the game.

This way, if your neighbor earns the same paycheck you do, you are both paying the identical amount of taxes.

It does not get more fair than that.

.

Just pointing out that the tax itself was only 3% when SS was fully implemented so we have also doubled the amount taken in for each worker as well.

Yes, and that is a 100 percent tax increase to pay for the extra years you draw from the Treasury in your retirement.

Instead of continuing to raise taxes, we need to raise the eligibility age. That is a spending cut instead of the usual tax increase.

.

Yeah, make those Blue Collar folks work until they die.

http://nhregister.com/articles/2010/11/12/opinion/doc4cdc7e6764d1f745461200.txt?viewmode=fullstory

 

[bripat9643]

GOP senator offers 'fiscal cliff' solution - Business - Boston.com

Both tax increases and adjustment to entitlements involved. Grover must be soiling his pants...

Obama has already said he isn't going to cut entitlements, so it's dead on arrival.

 

[g5000]

Just pointing out that the tax itself was only 3% when SS was fully implemented so we have also doubled the amount taken in for each worker as well.

Yes, and that is a 100 percent tax increase to pay for the extra years you draw from the Treasury in your retirement.

Instead of continuing to raise taxes, we need to raise the eligibility age. That is a spending cut instead of the usual tax increase.

.

Yeah, make those Blue Collar folks work until they die.

For blue-collar workers, higher retirement age is absurd- The New Haven Register - Serving New Haven, Connecticut

There's that entitlement attitude kicking in that is destroying us.

First, blue collar jobs are for up-and-coming economies, not ours. The days of growing up to work in the same factory as your dad are over. We need to train our workforce for the jobs of tomorrow, not protect the jobs of yesterday.

Second, our government supported 6 percent of our population on Social Security when it was enacted. That means the other 94 percent were either out there working their asses off or were minors too young to work yet.

Now we are supporting 13 percent on Social Security, and that is bullshit. It is a stone cold fact we are living longer. So we should be working longer, you lazy bum.

When life expectancy hits 100, you going to argue we should live one third of our lives on Social Security?

.

 

[Seawytch]

Yes, and that is a 100 percent tax increase to pay for the extra years you draw from the Treasury in your retirement.

Instead of continuing to raise taxes, we need to raise the eligibility age. That is a spending cut instead of the usual tax increase.

.

Yeah, make those Blue Collar folks work until they die.

For blue-collar workers, higher retirement age is absurd- The New Haven Register - Serving New Haven, Connecticut

There's that entitlement attitude kicking in that is destroying us.

First, blue collar jobs are for up-and-coming economies, not ours. The days of growing up to work in the same factory as your dad are over. We need to train our workforce for the jobs of tomorrow, not protect the jobs of yesterday.

Second, our government supported 6 percent of our population on Social Security when it was enacted. That means the other 94 percent were either out there working their asses off or were minors too young to work yet.

Now we are supporting 13 percent on Social Security, and that is bullshit. It is a stone cold fact we are living longer. So we should be working longer, you lazy bum.

When life expectancy hits 100, you going to argue we should live one third of our lives on Social Security?

.

So the upper 50% gets to retire and enjoy it, but the bottom 50% gets to retire and die. Great plan for those of us that sit at computers all day. Fuck the peasants.

 

[g5000]

Yeah, make those Blue Collar folks work until they die.

For blue-collar workers, higher retirement age is absurd- The New Haven Register - Serving New Haven, Connecticut

There's that entitlement attitude kicking in that is destroying us.

First, blue collar jobs are for up-and-coming economies, not ours. The days of growing up to work in the same factory as your dad are over. We need to train our workforce for the jobs of tomorrow, not protect the jobs of yesterday.

Second, our government supported 6 percent of our population on Social Security when it was enacted. That means the other 94 percent were either out there working their asses off or were minors too young to work yet.

Now we are supporting 13 percent on Social Security, and that is bullshit. It is a stone cold fact we are living longer. So we should be working longer, you lazy bum.

When life expectancy hits 100, you going to argue we should live one third of our lives on Social Security?

.

So the upper 50% gets to retire and enjoy it, but the bottom 50% gets to retire and die. Great plan for those of us that sit at computers all day. Fuck the peasants.

Are the bottom 50 percent of income earners not living to 78 years of age?

And if you don't want to be a peasant, stay in school and learn a valuable trade.

One third of all the uninsured are high school dropouts. That's THEIR fault. I should be made to pay for their irresponsibility?

.

 

[g5000]

When you do everything right, you live longer, you earn more, you don't end up in jail.

Stay in school, get married BEFORE you have kids and STAY married, don't hop from job to job.

.

 

[jwoodie]

The sad truth is that the Dems will only agree to spending cuts if they can lay the blame entirely on the GOP. Obama's "tax the rich" slogan is merely a bargaining chip to be given away if the GOP agrees to take the fall on cuts. Makes you proud, doesn't it?

 

[JimH52]

Ahhhh, I hate to break up the pity party, but Obama won. His plan will be given preference. Yes, there needs to be compromises on both sides, but Obama won. Deal with it...

 

[BillyV]

Ahhhh, I hate to break up the pity party, but Obama won. His plan will be given preference. Yes, there needs to be compromises on both sides, but Obama won. Deal with it...

Until he becomes king, he will need the House to go along. Deal with it...

 

[g5000]

Ahhhh, I hate to break up the pity party, but Obama won. His plan will be given preference. Yes, there needs to be compromises on both sides, but Obama won. Deal with it...

Until he becomes king, he will need the House to go along. Deal with it...

Obama has more leverage than the House. If we go over the cliff, the Republicans will be blamed by most Americans, including many who voted for Romney.

Simple fact.

Obama was elected on the basis of combining spending cuts with increased taxes on the wealthy.

The People have spoken, and the Republicans ignore them at their peril.

These are the realities on the ground.

.

 

[bripat9643]

Ahhhh, I hate to break up the pity party, but Obama won. His plan will be given preference. Yes, there needs to be compromises on both sides, but Obama won. Deal with it...

So what is Obama offering to compromise on? So far, nothing.

 

[BillyV]

Ahhhh, I hate to break up the pity party, but Obama won. His plan will be given preference. Yes, there needs to be compromises on both sides, but Obama won. Deal with it...

Until he becomes king, he will need the House to go along. Deal with it...

Obama has more leverage than the House. If we go over the cliff, the Republicans will be blamed by most Americans, including many who voted for Romney.

Simple fact.

Obama was elected on the basis of combining spending cuts with increased taxes on the wealthy.

The People have spoken, and the Republicans ignore them at their peril.

These are the realities on the ground.

.

If the Republicans offer increased taxes on the wealthy through limits or other reductions on deductions and the President refuses, and is unwilling to make cuts in spending that at least appear significant, I'm not so sure the House goes along despite the potential for blame. They are already trying to look like the reasonable side:

"The target of the president's rallies should be the congressional Democrats who want to raise tax rates on small businesses rather than cut spending" -John Boehner

I think there is still a lot of brinksmanship to go. Remember, House members only need to please their district, not the "People". With that said, I think ultimately there will be (and should be) a deal made.

 

[Duped]

If anyone thinks that the libs are going to meaningfully cut entitlements - they are wrong! Their constituency will turn on them like a rabbit dog, and they know it. They would rather go off the cliff, and blame it on the republicans - pushing more, and more taxes until the republicans can no longer capitualate.
I believe that the obama administration wants to destroy capitalism; Clower, and Piven - I think they will succeed. There are just too many dumb ass takers in our country now

 

[RoadVirus]

GOP senator offers 'fiscal cliff' solution - Business - Boston.com

Both tax increases and adjustment to entitlements involved. Grover must be soiling his pants...

Obama has already said he isn't going to cut entitlements, so it's dead on arrival.

So much for comprimise, huh?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Corker has yet to attract any Democrats in support

Shocking.

 

[JimH52]

GOP senator offers 'fiscal cliff' solution - Business - Boston.com

Both tax increases and adjustment to entitlements involved. Grover must be soiling his pants...

Obama has already said he isn't going to cut entitlements, so it's dead on arrival.

So much for comprimise, huh?

You are unfamiliar with gamesmanship? Just stay tuned...