5-Minute Solution for fixing the deficit....I think this would work. Seriously.

[Missouri_Mike]

This isn't new, but it's worth revisiting.

Some background [1]:

• Salary of retired US Presidents:.. . . . .. . . . . $180,000 FOR LIFE.
• Salary of House/Senate members: .. . . . .. . . . . $174,000 FOR LIFE. This is stupid
• Salary of Speaker of the House .. . . . .. . . . . $223,500 FOR LIFE. This is really stupid
• Salary of Majority / Minority Leaders . . .. . . . . $193,400 FOR LIFE. Stupid
• Average Salary of a teacher . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. .$40,065
• Average Salary of a deployed Soldier . . .. . . .. $38,000

So with that as context....."I could end the deficit in five minutes," Warren told CNBC. "You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for re-election."

​

I think Buffett's spot on because today we have leaders who want you and me to fear all sorts of things -- the press, ISIS, global warming, etc. Elected federal leaders, however, have no fear of facing any consequence from not actually doing their job and doing it well.

Note:

1. (Please, don't parrot the "serve one term and collect full retirement for life" thing. First, read this. Congress Members got it good, but not that good. LOL There's a schedule for how much they actually can collect, but whatever they collect, it's for life if they retire "in full" or what some folks might call "fully vested." That's what the figures above refer to.)

You actually posted something I agree with. I would take it one step further. No Congress or senate person should ever make more in a year than the national average wage. No retirement above the average of what people on SS get. Then we would have government reps in there with some motivation to actually do better for the people.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

My plan to fix the ******* deficit
1. Go to single payer for our healthcare system...That is hundreds billions to pay down our deficit.
2. Kick anyone with more then 2 million dollars in the bank off of SSI, SSD and Medicare.
3. Decrease unemployment to 60 weeks.
4. Close half of the over sea's bases and stop being assholes....Cut military to 350 billion per year. No one will **** with us in America...
5. Decrease the paper corporate tax from 35 to 20% but close all loop holes. **** wall mart, boeing, apple.Watch revue go up!
6. Raise a border tax on all outsourced goods coming back into America. **** em.

Go to single payer for our healthcare system...That is hundreds billions to pay down our deficit.

There's the stupid!

There isn't another developed nation on earth that is as dumb as us with Healthcare....They all have single payer and pay 1/2 of what we do...Go back to private sector shit = make it worse.

Name one country that provides single payer healthcare that doesn't require at a minimum 40% of your earnings in taxes.

 

[danielpalos]

end the cost of the drug war by executive order in five minutes; what a capital concept.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

My plan to fix the ******* deficit
1. Go to single payer for our healthcare system...That is hundreds billions to pay down our deficit.
2. Kick anyone with more then 2 million dollars in the bank off of SSI, SSD and Medicare.
3. Decrease unemployment to 60 weeks.
4. Close half of the over sea's bases and stop being assholes....Cut military to 350 billion per year. No one will **** with us in America...
5. Decrease the paper corporate tax from 35 to 20% but close all loop holes. **** wall mart, boeing, apple.Watch revue go up!
6. Raise a border tax on all outsourced goods coming back into America. **** em.

Go to single payer for our healthcare system...That is hundreds billions to pay down our deficit.

There's the stupid!

There isn't another developed nation on earth that is as dumb as us with Healthcare....They all have single payer and pay 1/2 of what we do...Go back to private sector shit = make it worse.

....They all have single payer and pay 1/2 of what we do..

Make the wait times long enough, you'll save tons of money.
Look at all the money the VA saved by letting veterans die on their waiting list.

Of course that will hurt the poor and middle class most, the rich can always afford private, immediate care.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

end the cost of the drug war by executive order in five minutes; what a capital concept.

Dude, we get it, you like drugs. Sheesh.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

This isn't new, but it's worth revisiting.

Some background [1]:

• Salary of retired US Presidents:.. . . . .. . . . . $180,000 FOR LIFE.
• Salary of House/Senate members: .. . . . .. . . . . $174,000 FOR LIFE. This is stupid
• Salary of Speaker of the House .. . . . .. . . . . $223,500 FOR LIFE. This is really stupid
• Salary of Majority / Minority Leaders . . .. . . . . $193,400 FOR LIFE. Stupid
• Average Salary of a teacher . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. .$40,065
• Average Salary of a deployed Soldier . . .. . . .. $38,000

So with that as context....."I could end the deficit in five minutes," Warren told CNBC. "You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for re-election."

​

I think Buffett's spot on because today we have leaders who want you and me to fear all sorts of things -- the press, ISIS, global warming, etc. Elected federal leaders, however, have no fear of facing any consequence from not actually doing their job and doing it well.

Note:

1. (Please, don't parrot the "serve one term and collect full retirement for life" thing. First, read this. Congress Members got it good, but not that good. LOL There's a schedule for how much they actually can collect, but whatever they collect, it's for life if they retire "in full" or what some folks might call "fully vested." That's what the figures above refer to.)

Your figures are a bit off.

 

[flacaltenn]

The deficit is much akin to the bible and the constitution. They have no relevance other than as instruments with which to bludgeon opponents.

Tell that to Greece or Venezuela or a dozen other countries in your lifetime with that attitude.

When interest on the debt ALONE is expected to hit 3% of GDP by 2020 and the entire Fed Budget should be less than 9 or 10% --- there starts to be a pretty big issue with WTF ELSE a nation can afford when 30% of your budget is Debt Repayment AND you keep issuing it like candy every year rather than manage your scope and spending habits...

 

[flacaltenn]

The deficit is much akin to the bible and the constitution. They have no relevance other than as instruments with which to bludgeon opponents.

BTW -- the graph in my previous post shows why the Fed is giving a royal screwing to seniors who planned on living on the interest from their savings in retirement. If consumer savings were to be VALUED with interest above the ZERO rate it's been HELD AT --- We would be Greece by now..

 

[OKTexas]

This isn't new, but it's worth revisiting.

Some background [1]:

• Salary of retired US Presidents:.. . . . .. . . . . $180,000 FOR LIFE.
• Salary of House/Senate members: .. . . . .. . . . . $174,000 FOR LIFE. This is stupid
• Salary of Speaker of the House .. . . . .. . . . . $223,500 FOR LIFE. This is really stupid
• Salary of Majority / Minority Leaders . . .. . . . . $193,400 FOR LIFE. Stupid
• Average Salary of a teacher . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. .$40,065
• Average Salary of a deployed Soldier . . .. . . .. $38,000

So with that as context....."I could end the deficit in five minutes," Warren told CNBC. "You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for re-election."

​

I think Buffett's spot on because today we have leaders who want you and me to fear all sorts of things -- the press, ISIS, global warming, etc. Elected federal leaders, however, have no fear of facing any consequence from not actually doing their job and doing it well.

Note:

1. (Please, don't parrot the "serve one term and collect full retirement for life" thing. First, read this. Congress Members got it good, but not that good. LOL There's a schedule for how much they actually can collect, but whatever they collect, it's for life if they retire "in full" or what some folks might call "fully vested." That's what the figures above refer to.)

Nice article, too bad it's a lie.

A member of Congress retiring with 20 years of service under Federal Employees' Retirement System and a high three-year average salary of $174,000 would get an initial annual FERS pension of $59,160.

A member of Congress retiring with five years' service under the Civil Service Retirement System and 25 years under FERS at the same salary level would get an initial annual pension of $89,610.

A member of Congress retiring with 30 years of service under the CSRS offset plan would get $130,500 year, though at age 62 or older, this amount would be reduced by the amount received from Social Security attributable to federal service.

Your Retirement vs. Your Congressman's

Also you can't block a congressman for running for reelection without a constitutional amendment.

 

[ding]

Stop spending money. Problem solved.

 

[usmbguest5318]

This isn't new, but it's worth revisiting.

Some background [1]:

• Salary of retired US Presidents:.. . . . .. . . . . $180,000 FOR LIFE.
• Salary of House/Senate members: .. . . . .. . . . . $174,000 FOR LIFE. This is stupid
• Salary of Speaker of the House .. . . . .. . . . . $223,500 FOR LIFE. This is really stupid
• Salary of Majority / Minority Leaders . . .. . . . . $193,400 FOR LIFE. Stupid
• Average Salary of a teacher . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. .$40,065
• Average Salary of a deployed Soldier . . .. . . .. $38,000

So with that as context....."I could end the deficit in five minutes," Warren told CNBC. "You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for re-election."

​

I think Buffett's spot on because today we have leaders who want you and me to fear all sorts of things -- the press, ISIS, global warming, etc. Elected federal leaders, however, have no fear of facing any consequence from not actually doing their job and doing it well.

Note:

1. (Please, don't parrot the "serve one term and collect full retirement for life" thing. First, read this. Congress Members got it good, but not that good. LOL There's a schedule for how much they actually can collect, but whatever they collect, it's for life if they retire "in full" or what some folks might call "fully vested." That's what the figures above refer to.)

Your figures are a bit off.

Okay/ I didn't verify the figures, mainly because the OP's key point doesn't stand on them. The figures are presented to provide a bit of situational context, namely this:

Elected leaders get paid quite nicely and are not held accountable for actually achieving one of the key things they are employed to do. Indeed, often enough they achieve something between none and 1/3rd of it as goes facilitating economic growth at an "acceptable" rate. Moreover, though it's not part of the OP's theme, one might even argue they have a similarly dismal record of achievement with regard to inexplicitly economic targets. Elected officials, in return for their abjectly deficient performance, receive a decent salary with increases at their discretion, excellent benefits, great notoriety (which feels good if nothing else), myriad material perquisites derived from the position/job itself, and most importantly, little chance of actually losing their job, provided, of course, they aren't pellucidly repugnant.

In contrast teachers and soldiers, who in the OP really are just mentioned as analogues for "everyone except Congresspersons, are paid not nearly so well, receive decent benefits, individually garner no great and widespread renown to speak of, have no direct control over their pay increases, enjoy few, if any, material job-related perquisites, but most importantly, if they consistently fail to meet expectations set for their performance, they don't get to keep their jobs. They, like everyone except Congress members, are held accountable for demonstrably achieving results that are objectively measurable.​

.....I'm not sure how or whether you think the degree of the figures' inaccuracy materially alters the main point of the post...The sums merely form the mise-en-scène, as it were. If one doubled, say, the shown teacher and soldier salaries, would that really change the merit (or lack thereof, if that be one's view) of the proposal that the tenure of lawmakers be incumbent on effectively managing economic growth? Not in my mind.

I realize you didn't say that the margin of error do so alter the central theme, but I'm also struggling to grasp why you bothered to note the inaccuracy. Would you care to provide some perspective on why you noted that there is some inaccuracy in the figures? Perhaps it's merely that you note the inaccuracy for the sake of doing so? Maybe even it's that you did so to catalyze a response that would allow you to gauge whether a petty purpose underpinned my listing the sums? (The abundance of pettiness on the forum makes this motive quite possible, sadly....) Perhaps you had some other reason? I don't know. I know only that you did, but as that's all you did, that's all I can claim to know.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The deficit is much akin to the bible and the constitution. They have no relevance other than as instruments with which to bludgeon opponents.

yeah it never matters if a person, business or government sends more than it takes in

 

[EverCurious]

Hey some folks save up $2mil their entire life so that they can retire with close to the same lifestyle they had while working. If some random idiot doesn't plan for their own retirement years don't take it out on folks who did. :/

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

This isn't new, but it's worth revisiting.

Some background [1]:

• Salary of retired US Presidents:.. . . . .. . . . . $180,000 FOR LIFE.
• Salary of House/Senate members: .. . . . .. . . . . $174,000 FOR LIFE. This is stupid
• Salary of Speaker of the House .. . . . .. . . . . $223,500 FOR LIFE. This is really stupid
• Salary of Majority / Minority Leaders . . .. . . . . $193,400 FOR LIFE. Stupid
• Average Salary of a teacher . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. .$40,065
• Average Salary of a deployed Soldier . . .. . . .. $38,000

So with that as context....."I could end the deficit in five minutes," Warren told CNBC. "You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for re-election."

​

I think Buffett's spot on because today we have leaders who want you and me to fear all sorts of things -- the press, ISIS, global warming, etc. Elected federal leaders, however, have no fear of facing any consequence from not actually doing their job and doing it well.

Note:

1. (Please, don't parrot the "serve one term and collect full retirement for life" thing. First, read this. Congress Members got it good, but not that good. LOL There's a schedule for how much they actually can collect, but whatever they collect, it's for life if they retire "in full" or what some folks might call "fully vested." That's what the figures above refer to.)

Your figures are a bit off.

Okay/ I didn't verify the figures, mainly because the OP's key point doesn't stand on them. The figures are presented to provide a bit of situational context, namely this:

Elected leaders get paid quite nicely and are not held accountable for actually achieving one of the key things they are employed to do. Indeed, often enough they achieve something between none and 1/3rd of it as goes facilitating economic growth at an "acceptable" rate. Moreover, though it's not part of the OP's theme, one might even argue they have a similarly dismal record of achievement with regard to inexplicitly economic targets. Elected officials, in return for their abjectly deficient performance, receive a decent salary with increases at their discretion, excellent benefits, great notoriety (which feels good if nothing else), myriad material perquisites derived from the position/job itself, and most importantly, little chance of actually losing their job, provided, of course, they aren't pellucidly repugnant.

In contrast teachers and soldiers, who in the OP really are just mentioned as analogues for "everyone except Congresspersons, are paid not nearly so well, receive decent benefits, individually garner no great and widespread renown to speak of, have no direct control over their pay increases, enjoy few, if any, material job-related perquisites, but most importantly, if they consistently fail to meet expectations set for their performance, they don't get to keep their jobs. They, like everyone except Congress members, are held accountable for demonstrably achieving results that are objectively measurable.​

.....I'm not sure how or whether you think the degree of the figures' inaccuracy materially alters the main point of the post...The sums merely form the mise-en-scène, as it were. If one doubled, say, the shown teacher and soldier salaries, would that really change the merit (or lack thereof, if that be one's view) of the proposal that the tenure of lawmakers be incumbent on effectively managing economic growth? Not in my mind.

I realize you didn't say that the margin of error do so alter the central theme, but I'm also struggling to grasp why you bothered to note the inaccuracy. Would you care to provide some perspective on why you noted that there is some inaccuracy in the figures? Perhaps it's merely that you note the inaccuracy for the sake of doing so? Maybe even it's that you did so to catalyze a response that would allow you to gauge whether a petty purpose underpinned my listing the sums? (The abundance of pettiness on the forum makes this motive quite possible, sadly....) Perhaps you had some other reason? I don't know. I know only that you did, but as that's all you did, that's all I can claim to know.

The point you miss in your diatribe is that these people number in the hundreds compared to the millions of teachers and members of the military.

My daughter is an Army officer and brings home at the ripe old age of 22 almost as much as her father with 20 years experience.

The comparisons are simply invalid and using incorrect data makes it "fake news' in the grand tradition of CNN.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I know what won't end deficits...Trump's plans...they will increase them if implemented in their entirety.

 

[danielpalos]

end the cost of the drug war by executive order in five minutes; what a capital concept.

Dude, we get it, you like drugs. Sheesh.

dudes, you prefer to "throw Capitalism and natural rights under the bus" for the sake of your social policies on a national basis; i get it.

 

[Mac1958]

This isn't new, but it's worth revisiting.

Some background [1]:

• Salary of retired US Presidents:.. . . . .. . . . . $180,000 FOR LIFE.
• Salary of House/Senate members: .. . . . .. . . . . $174,000 FOR LIFE. This is stupid
• Salary of Speaker of the House .. . . . .. . . . . $223,500 FOR LIFE. This is really stupid
• Salary of Majority / Minority Leaders . . .. . . . . $193,400 FOR LIFE. Stupid
• Average Salary of a teacher . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. .$40,065
• Average Salary of a deployed Soldier . . .. . . .. $38,000

So with that as context....."I could end the deficit in five minutes," Warren told CNBC. "You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for re-election."

​

I think Buffett's spot on because today we have leaders who want you and me to fear all sorts of things -- the press, ISIS, global warming, etc. Elected federal leaders, however, have no fear of facing any consequence from not actually doing their job and doing it well.

Note:

1. (Please, don't parrot the "serve one term and collect full retirement for life" thing. First, read this. Congress Members got it good, but not that good. LOL There's a schedule for how much they actually can collect, but whatever they collect, it's for life if they retire "in full" or what some folks might call "fully vested." That's what the figures above refer to.)

All things considered, I like it.

We've had a toxic mix that has led us to this point: (a) Open purse strings available to Congress, and (b) Politicians more than willing to spend money to buy votes.

I'm not really fond of artificial rules like this, but our "leaders" have made it clear that re-election is their top priority, and that they can no longer be trusted to work in our best interests.
.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The deficit is much akin to the bible and the constitution. They have no relevance other than as instruments with which to bludgeon opponents.

BTW -- the graph in my previous post shows why the Fed is giving a royal screwing to seniors who planned on living on the interest from their savings in retirement. If consumer savings were to be VALUED with interest above the ZERO rate it's been HELD AT --- We would be Greece by now..

BTW -- the graph in my previous post shows why the Fed is giving a royal screwing to seniors who planned on living on the interest from their savings in retirement.

The Fed only sets the rate on overnight loans. The rest are set by the market.

 

[danielpalos]

it has been more than five minutes. the right still complains about taxes; and, we still have an alleged, war on drugs.

 

[FA_Q2]

This isn't new, but it's worth revisiting.

Some background [1]:

• Salary of retired US Presidents:.. . . . .. . . . . $180,000 FOR LIFE.
• Salary of House/Senate members: .. . . . .. . . . . $174,000 FOR LIFE. This is stupid
• Salary of Speaker of the House .. . . . .. . . . . $223,500 FOR LIFE. This is really stupid
• Salary of Majority / Minority Leaders . . .. . . . . $193,400 FOR LIFE. Stupid
• Average Salary of a teacher . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. .$40,065
• Average Salary of a deployed Soldier . . .. . . .. $38,000

So with that as context....."I could end the deficit in five minutes," Warren told CNBC. "You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for re-election."

​

I think Buffett's spot on because today we have leaders who want you and me to fear all sorts of things -- the press, ISIS, global warming, etc. Elected federal leaders, however, have no fear of facing any consequence from not actually doing their job and doing it well.

Note:

1. (Please, don't parrot the "serve one term and collect full retirement for life" thing. First, read this. Congress Members got it good, but not that good. LOL There's a schedule for how much they actually can collect, but whatever they collect, it's for life if they retire "in full" or what some folks might call "fully vested." That's what the figures above refer to.)

Your figures are a bit off.

Okay/ I didn't verify the figures, mainly because the OP's key point doesn't stand on them. The figures are presented to provide a bit of situational context, namely this:

Elected leaders get paid quite nicely and are not held accountable for actually achieving one of the key things they are employed to do. Indeed, often enough they achieve something between none and 1/3rd of it as goes facilitating economic growth at an "acceptable" rate. Moreover, though it's not part of the OP's theme, one might even argue they have a similarly dismal record of achievement with regard to inexplicitly economic targets. Elected officials, in return for their abjectly deficient performance, receive a decent salary with increases at their discretion, excellent benefits, great notoriety (which feels good if nothing else), myriad material perquisites derived from the position/job itself, and most importantly, little chance of actually losing their job, provided, of course, they aren't pellucidly repugnant.

In contrast teachers and soldiers, who in the OP really are just mentioned as analogues for "everyone except Congresspersons, are paid not nearly so well, receive decent benefits, individually garner no great and widespread renown to speak of, have no direct control over their pay increases, enjoy few, if any, material job-related perquisites, but most importantly, if they consistently fail to meet expectations set for their performance, they don't get to keep their jobs. They, like everyone except Congress members, are held accountable for demonstrably achieving results that are objectively measurable.​

.....I'm not sure how or whether you think the degree of the figures' inaccuracy materially alters the main point of the post...The sums merely form the mise-en-scène, as it were. If one doubled, say, the shown teacher and soldier salaries, would that really change the merit (or lack thereof, if that be one's view) of the proposal that the tenure of lawmakers be incumbent on effectively managing economic growth? Not in my mind.

I realize you didn't say that the margin of error do so alter the central theme, but I'm also struggling to grasp why you bothered to note the inaccuracy. Would you care to provide some perspective on why you noted that there is some inaccuracy in the figures? Perhaps it's merely that you note the inaccuracy for the sake of doing so? Maybe even it's that you did so to catalyze a response that would allow you to gauge whether a petty purpose underpinned my listing the sums? (The abundance of pettiness on the forum makes this motive quite possible, sadly....) Perhaps you had some other reason? I don't know. I know only that you did, but as that's all you did, that's all I can claim to know.

The point you miss in your diatribe is that these people number in the hundreds compared to the millions of teachers and members of the military.

My daughter is an Army officer and brings home at the ripe old age of 22 almost as much as her father with 20 years experience.

The comparisons are simply invalid and using incorrect data makes it "fake news' in the grand tradition of CNN.

The cited dollar figures have nothing to do with the point in the OP. He was not stating that the money paid to congressman is remotely significant in the debt. He was stating that the fact they get paid and can continue to do so without consequence to debt is the problem.


IOW, if congressman lost their jobs for spending too much money they would STOP doing so.


The point is correct as well – congressman are rewarded for spending more rather than the opposite. The constituents at home are more likely to give that congressman another term for getting that pork project passed in their home state whether or not the feds actually have the money to do so. Tell that same congressman that if these projects go through he is not going to be allowed to run again and he just might think twice about borrowing the money for it.