Totally agree. Food stamps and WIC are good programs, IMO. However, I do believe that people on those programs should have to agree to mandatory birth control while on them. These people obviously can't financially support extra children, and having them drains medical and financial resources from taxpayers. While I don't like mandating things, it can be a necessary evil. One of those, my house my rules things.
Agreed. Something has to give, and we can't make everybody happy. Sleep in the bed you made, AFAIC.
Do you support replacing the payroll tax revenue from those who opt out of the system with an income tax hike to cover the cost of 65 and over retirees? I wanna see how you plan to afford to pay for social security for people who currently are 65 if you let young people opt out of the system. Also do you support using higher income tax revenue to write a check to people like RedDawn who want to cash out of the system. You might be shocked to find out that there isn't a pile of money waiting for Red Dawn to claim it, but it's a pay as you go system. So to give Red a refund, the money will have to come from somewhere. Where do you think it should come from?
I believe this is the relevant section of the transcript:
Dean said in the MTP interview that he is no longer in favor of raising the retirement age. Roll the tape:
MR. RUSSERT: But you would no longer cut Social Security?
DR. DEAN: But you don't--no. I'm not ever going to cut Social Security benefits.
MR. RUSSERT: Would you raise retirement age to 70?
DR. DEAN: No. No.
MR. RUSSERT: Would you cut defense?
DR. DEAN: You don't have to do that either. Here's what you have to do. You got to get rid of the tax cuts, all of them, and then you have got to restrict spending. You've got to control--well, here's what we did in Vermont. We had some mild tax cuts in the '90s, not the huge ones that most other states did. Secondly, we put a lot of money into a rainy day fund, and I never let the Legislature spend more than the rate of growth of the economy, so the biggest increase I think we had in the almost 12 years I was governor was I think 5.2 percent or something like that. And then we paid off a quarter of our debt, which is what Bill Clinton did when he was president.
Now, we're not cutting higher education, we're not cutting K through 12, we're not cutting Medicaid for kids, and we have a balanced budget. So if you restrain spending, which is long-term spending, that's the key to balancing the budget. But you've got to get rid of the tax cuts because the hole is so very, very deep. And Social Security, I--the best way to balance Social Security budget right now, other than stop taking the money out for the tax cuts, is to expand the amount of money that Social Security payroll taxes apply to. It's limited now to something like $80,000. You let that rise. I also would entertain taking the retirement age to 68. It's at 67 now. I would entertain that.
link
Dean said in the MTP interview that he is no longer in favor of raising the retirement age. Roll the tape:
MR. RUSSERT: But you would no longer cut Social Security?
DR. DEAN: But you don't--no. I'm not ever going to cut Social Security benefits.
MR. RUSSERT: Would you raise retirement age to 70?
DR. DEAN: No. No.
MR. RUSSERT: Would you cut defense?
DR. DEAN: You don't have to do that either. Here's what you have to do. You got to get rid of the tax cuts, all of them, and then you have got to restrict spending. You've got to control--well, here's what we did in Vermont. We had some mild tax cuts in the '90s, not the huge ones that most other states did. Secondly, we put a lot of money into a rainy day fund, and I never let the Legislature spend more than the rate of growth of the economy, so the biggest increase I think we had in the almost 12 years I was governor was I think 5.2 percent or something like that. And then we paid off a quarter of our debt, which is what Bill Clinton did when he was president.
Now, we're not cutting higher education, we're not cutting K through 12, we're not cutting Medicaid for kids, and we have a balanced budget. So if you restrain spending, which is long-term spending, that's the key to balancing the budget. But you've got to get rid of the tax cuts because the hole is so very, very deep. And Social Security, I--the best way to balance Social Security budget right now, other than stop taking the money out for the tax cuts, is to expand the amount of money that Social Security payroll taxes apply to. It's limited now to something like $80,000. You let that rise. I also would entertain taking the retirement age to 68. It's at 67 now. I would entertain that.
link
Crazee
Elite Member
- Nov 20, 2001
- 5,736
- 0
- 76
Issue Date: June 30, 2003
Editorial
Nothing but lip service
In recent months, President Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress have missed no opportunity to heap richly deserved praise on the military. But talk is cheap ? and getting cheaper by the day, judging from the nickel-and-dime treatment the troops are getting lately.
For example, the White House griped that various pay-and-benefits incentives added to the 2004 defense budget by Congress are wasteful and unnecessary ? including a modest proposal to double the $6,000 gratuity paid to families of troops who die on active duty. This comes at a time when Americans continue to die in Iraq at a rate of about one a day.
Similarly, the administration announced that on Oct. 1 it wants to roll back recent modest increases in monthly imminent-danger pay (from $225 to $150) and family-separation allowance (from $250 to $100) for troops getting shot at in combat zones.
Link to copy of original story in Army Times
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Well, if he thought it would have worked then(to balance the budget), why wouldn't he think it would work now? Do we need a balanced budget? Yup. I guess he changed his position on the whole thing though, no?
BTW - welcome Crazee to P&N. Haven't seen you in here. Just remember this forum stays here and doesn't wander into the "other" area
Just ask DaveMcOwenCkG
To be fair, those aren't pensions but death benefits and imminint danger and family seperation pay.
Additionally, the $6,000 gratuity was increased to $12K; the $225 per month danger pay remains in effect along with the higher amount for family seperation allowance, as far as I know.
IMO, looking for a 'reward' for a lifetime of work is where you got yourself in trouble. Create your own reward, let your kids pick up a little of your financial burden later in life if necessary, but don't expect me to pay for your retirment. If you didn't take care of your own affairs, I have no sympathy for you. Its the boomers' own fault for setting up such an unworkable system. They'll have to live with it.
I do agree with you though on the less productive older folk taking up the jobs of the younger people though. Maybe working at Wal-mart would be a good place to stuff all of them and free up the office jobs for people more productive? Its not like it doesn't already take half an hour to get through a checkout line at any big store anyway
.Actually, all it would take is the right issue to energize the younger voting base. And some grass roots effort could even bring some of those older folks to our side. Not all of them depend on SS. Not to mention that kids have had a lifetime of practice convincing their parents to sacrifice for their children's best interests
. It could happen, if there was a leader charismatic enough to make the younger generation really work for it.The White House was opposed to those increases but the Congress went ahead as it would have been political suicide and just plain mean to not do so. I think there was a thread about it here.
well i named 3 programs right there... as for how much will it save? i have no idea. how much of the social security hole will it cover? between 0 and 100%. as for the ppl currently on welfare/foodstamps/wic, well tell everybody that their 'benefits' expire in 6 months. and for your information you have to work to collect welfare and you have to buy foodstamps so i dont really get your argument, if it was one, about 100% employment.
To begin with, the Army Times editorial piece is comparatively old. The allegations contained therein were not implemented.Originally posted by: Crazee
They may not be pensions but they are benefits just the same. And I guess CKG you are more an expert on how the military is compensated than the editor of Army Times
And don't worry what happens in here stays in here
Finally, unless the editor of the Army Times served 20 years in the Army in higher capacities than I, yes, I am more of an expert on how the military is compensated.
I may be wrong, but as I recall, a DoD staffer, not Rumsfeld or Dubya, made those comments about the reluctance to increase pay.
At any rate, the gratuity was increased on Veterans Day, as was Concurrent Receipt and regular pay. Was it political? Sure.
You can't really end welfare, however, you can revise it. It should remain in place for unexpected issues such as the death of the family provider, massive job loss(ie: Factory employing 2000 people shuts down), but it definately is being abused right now. People should not be able to go on welfare for multiple years and the only job they try for is Wendy's for 10 hours a week.
As part of his budget plan, Bush proposed a 2 percent raise for civilian employees and a 4.1 percent increase to members of the military. Lawmakers said Congress should uphold the tradition of "pay parity" and grant equivalent increases in base pay to the military and the civil service. Congress, in September, gave the military a 4.15 percent pay raise with the passage of the Defense Department spending bill. Raises typically take effect Jan. 1.
Washington Post
Concurrent Receipt: At least the Bush Admin even ENTERTAINED the notion and came to a compromise. That is more than I can say about any administration during the past 100 YEARS.
You mean danger pay? According to Congressman Mike Thompson (D-CA), "a White House spokesman referred questions about the Administration?s position on the pay cuts to the Pentagon."
Text
The Washington Times also has more specific details
Of course Dubya wanted to make cuts. However, he misjudged public opinion and it almost bit him in the ass.
Welfare was massively overhauled a few years ago with I believe most of the control of the program was shifted to the individual states. In Utah there is a time limit which I think is 5 years total for your entire lifetime. Once you use up the 5 years it's tough luck the rest of your life. There were also significant changes to payment and benefit calculations. Again I believe most control was handed to the states.
Solid observations, burnedout. The Admin's use of the pentagon in running the whole proposal up the flagpole is in their best disingenuous style. First tell the pentagon to announce your intentions as their own, disavow the whole thing when nobody salutes...
Their whole approach to SS is similarly disingenuous. Conservatives have despised the whole program since its inception, and have continuously sought its destruction. Dubya is no different, he's just going about it in a different way. Reference this article for the particulars-
http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/issueguides_socialsecurity_socsecfacts
So what we have is a projected effectiveness until 2041, w/o any changes, quite contrary to the chicken little talk from the republicans, and probably a much longer effectiveness if the $85K cap were removed. All of that, of course, depends on the fiscal integrity of the govt., and the ability to repay the $1.2T already owed to the trust, something the Bushies clearly intend to destroy. When push comes to shove, they'll want to "extend" payments to the SS trust in favor of other creditors... you know, the Saudis, and other wealthy debt holders around the globe...
And the demise of SS can also be hastened by allowing younger folks to opt out, placing their retirement incomes entirely at the tender mercies of the vultures of Wall Street... Maybe those folks should also support their own parents and grandparents while they're at it, rather than let those of us stuck in the system carry their familial burdens for them...
Their whole approach to SS is similarly disingenuous. Conservatives have despised the whole program since its inception, and have continuously sought its destruction. Dubya is no different, he's just going about it in a different way. Reference this article for the particulars-
http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/issueguides_socialsecurity_socsecfacts
So what we have is a projected effectiveness until 2041, w/o any changes, quite contrary to the chicken little talk from the republicans, and probably a much longer effectiveness if the $85K cap were removed. All of that, of course, depends on the fiscal integrity of the govt., and the ability to repay the $1.2T already owed to the trust, something the Bushies clearly intend to destroy. When push comes to shove, they'll want to "extend" payments to the SS trust in favor of other creditors... you know, the Saudis, and other wealthy debt holders around the globe...
And the demise of SS can also be hastened by allowing younger folks to opt out, placing their retirement incomes entirely at the tender mercies of the vultures of Wall Street... Maybe those folks should also support their own parents and grandparents while they're at it, rather than let those of us stuck in the system carry their familial burdens for them...
jhhnn: I agree with much of what you say. The idea of refering the matter to a third party was lame. One might conclude that if the allegations were untrue then the Bush admin would have addressed the situation head on.
At any rate, I applaud the admin for finally addressing the subject of Concurrent Receipt. No one else has, up until now. However, considering the current situation in Iraq, the hesitation in approving hostile fire pay for active duty troops without negative public sentiment was uncalled for.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter