Democratic Party Plan: Pelosi's first 100 hours

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: maluckey
I feel that the House may not be able to accomplish as much as they think that they can. Only taxing the rich means nothing as far as debt to income ratio in the United States. It's really only a smoke and mirrors thing meant to appease the masses. It won't affect much except the opinion of those feeble minded enough to follow rhetoric instead of substance. I'd really like the Democrats to take care of their child...Social Security. It will be bankrupt through it's own waste and inefficiency within 10-15 years. they have talked much about fixing it. I'd like to see it. I am tired of paying for something that I will never see. Immigration is another thing that could give them a good name. Do ANYTHING positive about reducing the illegal invasion and they will be saints to the average Joe.

One GOOD thing of her (pelosi) being the Speaker of the house is that her every move will be scrutinized. Until recently, half of America didn't know who she was.

Uh no SS wont be bankrupt, it has plenty of assests to last until 2040. Its just that it will starting paying out more than its taking, in which becomes a problem, because the Fed has used the SS money to fund other spending. But technically there is money there, the the Govt owes the SS fund.

SS isnt an issue, a few minor adjustments and its solvent infinitly. Medicad on the other hand is a huge liability, that no major offical on either side has even wanted to talk about.

If we stop spending $3billion a week in Iraq and repeal parts of Bush's tax cut, we could start solving some financial problems.

What assets? The IOU's congres wrote to itself and the tax payers have to pay when they are turned in? People act like there is a vault with a bunch of money just waiting to be used. The fact is there are bonds that have to be paid back by the tax payer.

Any excess cash from surplus's have been spent long ago and will continue to be spent until the day comes to start making the tax payer pay for the deficit.

The IOUs are assests, they are government bonds. Yes the tax payer is fcked. But the government has to pay those back.

I dont consider something that requires taking money from somebody else to pay back an asset. There is no value in that asset. It ends up being a defacto tax, on top of the current SS taxes.

In otherwords they are just shifting money around. There isnt anything tangible within that vault.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Vic
The Dems ran to the middle, and abandoned you on the far left.

Sorry, for example in 2004 Kerry was centrist, he was for Iraq war and he lost,

With people speaking out like now I would say you are very incorrect.
Just looking at the dems centrist policys 2 years ago, they are far more in touch with voters nowdays and they rallied the base last night, and poor libertarians are still the right-wings bastard stepchild crying in the corner alone.

If the presidential election had been held yesterday instead of 2 years ago, Kerry would have won (he almost did as it was).

You have proved repeatedly in the past than you have zero idea what a libertarian is. Especially if you think that being pro-choice, pro-legalization, pro-gay marriage, pro-civil liberties, makes someone "right wing." It's too bad you can't figure out that your arrogant ignorant attitude of "I'm always right and anyone who disagrees with me is my enemy" is why your socialist ilk are falling from favor in the eyes of the American public, just one step behind Bush and his neocon ilk.

 

[Genx87]

Doing away with early retirement, raising the retirement age to 70, adjusting the COLA, and doing away with the ~$90k cap on payroll taxes, would go a LONG way to helping the SS situation.

I agree, I think this can be fixed if we raised it to the median age of this country which is ~76 years of age and moved it accordingly from there on out.

When they implemented the program in the 30s the avg life expectancy was ~60 years. The program paid when you hit 60 years of age. Thus on avg 50% of people would never collect. It was a brilliant scam they pulled off in the 1930s. The problem is they never raised the collection age and that will bite us in the ass soon.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Doing away with early retirement, raising the retirement age to 70, adjusting the COLA, and doing away with the ~$90k cap on payroll taxes, would go a LONG way to helping the SS situation.

I agree, I think this can be fixed if we raised it to the median age of this country which is ~76 years of age and moved it accordingly from there on out.

When they implemented the program in the 30s the avg life expectancy was ~60 years. The program paid when you hit 60 years of age. Thus on avg 50% of people would never collect. It was a brilliant scam they pulled off in the 1930s. The problem is they never raised the collection age and that will bite us in the ass soon.

Sadly this is true. SS is great in theory but in reality it's a ponzi scheme. Meh. It's better than the poor farms we had before. What would be ideal would be if families and communities could do more on their own to take care of their elderly.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Genx87

Doing away with early retirement, raising the retirement age to 70, adjusting the COLA, and doing away with the ~$90k cap on payroll taxes, would go a LONG way to helping the SS situation.

I agree, I think this can be fixed if we raised it to the median age of this country which is ~76 years of age and moved it accordingly from there on out.

When they implemented the program in the 30s the avg life expectancy was ~60 years. The program paid when you hit 60 years of age. Thus on avg 50% of people would never collect. It was a brilliant scam they pulled off in the 1930s. The problem is they never raised the collection age and that will bite us in the ass soon.

Sadly this is true. SS is great in theory but in reality it's a ponzi scheme. Meh. It's better than the poor farms we had before. What would be ideal would be if families and communities could do more on their own to take care of their elderly.

SS is a tiny problem compared to Medicad.

We have at a minimum of $35 trillion in upaid liabilities. Thats going with the most favorable conditions. So that $35 trillion is likely to be much higher.

Almost no elected offical will bring this up. Seriously, this issue needs to be brought to the table and dealt with. Or I guess they will do what everyother generation before it does, pass it on to the next(mine). Except this will seriously fvck over americas future if something isnt done sooner rather than later.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Doing away with early retirement, raising the retirement age to 70, adjusting the COLA, and doing away with the ~$90k cap on payroll taxes, would go a LONG way to helping the SS situation.

I agree, I think this can be fixed if we raised it to the median age of this country which is ~76 years of age and moved it accordingly from there on out.

When they implemented the program in the 30s the avg life expectancy was ~60 years. The program paid when you hit 60 years of age. Thus on avg 50% of people would never collect. It was a brilliant scam they pulled off in the 1930s. The problem is they never raised the collection age and that will bite us in the ass soon.

Completely agreed, though raising it to 65, while not as effective as raising it to 70, would be far more likely to actually happen.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Wreckem
Depends on where they live. It will effect almost ANY student worker, as they get paid 5.15-6.00 unless they are doing something like IT Tech Support or are a Research assistant.

Also raising the minimum wage will increase everyones wages. The Fed will need to keep inflation after the hike or the hike in min wage will mean nothing.

Originally posted by: Wreckem
Im all for cutting student loan interest rates to 3.4%.

Trying to eat your cake and have it too?

Why are you trying to profit off the future of the Country?

Don't you think it would be prudent to charge the higher rate to businesses like Exxon that are making billions in record profits?

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Genx87

Doing away with early retirement, raising the retirement age to 70, adjusting the COLA, and doing away with the ~$90k cap on payroll taxes, would go a LONG way to helping the SS situation.

I agree, I think this can be fixed if we raised it to the median age of this country which is ~76 years of age and moved it accordingly from there on out.

When they implemented the program in the 30s the avg life expectancy was ~60 years. The program paid when you hit 60 years of age. Thus on avg 50% of people would never collect. It was a brilliant scam they pulled off in the 1930s. The problem is they never raised the collection age and that will bite us in the ass soon.

Sadly this is true. SS is great in theory but in reality it's a ponzi scheme. Meh. It's better than the poor farms we had before. What would be ideal would be if families and communities could do more on their own to take care of their elderly.

Or if people would look down the road a bit further before splurging on that 60"+ LCD tv.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus

Originally posted by: Genx87

Doing away with early retirement, raising the retirement age to 70, adjusting the COLA, and doing away with the ~$90k cap on payroll taxes, would go a LONG way to helping the SS situation.

I agree, I think this can be fixed if we raised it to the median age of this country which is ~76 years of age and moved it accordingly from there on out.

When they implemented the program in the 30s the avg life expectancy was ~60 years. The program paid when you hit 60 years of age. Thus on avg 50% of people would never collect. It was a brilliant scam they pulled off in the 1930s. The problem is they never raised the collection age and that will bite us in the ass soon.

Completely agreed, though raising it to 65, while not as effective as raising it to 70, would be far more likely to actually happen.

Standard retirement IIRC is 67. Early retirement(which needs to be totally done away with), is 62.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus

Originally posted by: Genx87

Doing away with early retirement, raising the retirement age to 70, adjusting the COLA, and doing away with the ~$90k cap on payroll taxes, would go a LONG way to helping the SS situation.

I agree, I think this can be fixed if we raised it to the median age of this country which is ~76 years of age and moved it accordingly from there on out.

When they implemented the program in the 30s the avg life expectancy was ~60 years. The program paid when you hit 60 years of age. Thus on avg 50% of people would never collect. It was a brilliant scam they pulled off in the 1930s. The problem is they never raised the collection age and that will bite us in the ass soon.

Completely agreed, though raising it to 65, while not as effective as raising it to 70, would be far more likely to actually happen.

I thought they were phasing in a rise in age to 67 over the next decade or so?

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Genx87

Doing away with early retirement, raising the retirement age to 70, adjusting the COLA, and doing away with the ~$90k cap on payroll taxes, would go a LONG way to helping the SS situation.

I agree, I think this can be fixed if we raised it to the median age of this country which is ~76 years of age and moved it accordingly from there on out.

When they implemented the program in the 30s the avg life expectancy was ~60 years. The program paid when you hit 60 years of age. Thus on avg 50% of people would never collect. It was a brilliant scam they pulled off in the 1930s. The problem is they never raised the collection age and that will bite us in the ass soon.

Sadly this is true. SS is great in theory but in reality it's a ponzi scheme. Meh. It's better than the poor farms we had before. What would be ideal would be if families and communities could do more on their own to take care of their elderly.

Or if people would look down the road a bit further before splurging on that 60"+ LCD tv.

Yes consumerism and consumption is americas biggest threat.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Originally posted by: Genx87
I thought they were phasing in a rise in age to 67 over the next decade or so?

Beats me, but if people with such typically polarized opinions as us can agree on it, it's obviously a good idea, haha.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Genx87

Doing away with early retirement, raising the retirement age to 70, adjusting the COLA, and doing away with the ~$90k cap on payroll taxes, would go a LONG way to helping the SS situation.

I agree, I think this can be fixed if we raised it to the median age of this country which is ~76 years of age and moved it accordingly from there on out.

When they implemented the program in the 30s the avg life expectancy was ~60 years. The program paid when you hit 60 years of age. Thus on avg 50% of people would never collect. It was a brilliant scam they pulled off in the 1930s. The problem is they never raised the collection age and that will bite us in the ass soon.

Sadly this is true. SS is great in theory but in reality it's a ponzi scheme. Meh. It's better than the poor farms we had before. What would be ideal would be if families and communities could do more on their own to take care of their elderly.

SS is a tiny problem compared to Medicad.

We have at a minimum of $35 trillion in upaid liabilities. Thats going with the most favorable conditions. So that $35 trillion is likely to be much higher.

It shouldnt be a surprise that both programs that represent you a typical big govt social programs are in ruins. The simple fact is these programs require huge population increases for them to continue to be viable. Yeah, the baby boomers made them viable far longer than they would have otherwise. Reality is catching up with us quickly and it will sting big time.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus

Originally posted by: Genx87
I thought they were phasing in a rise in age to 67 over the next decade or so?

Beats me, but if people with such typically polarized opinions as us can agree on it, it's obviously a good idea, haha.

Very true, now how do we get the hacks in Washington to agree?

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus

Originally posted by: Genx87

Doing away with early retirement, raising the retirement age to 70, adjusting the COLA, and doing away with the ~$90k cap on payroll taxes, would go a LONG way to helping the SS situation.

I agree, I think this can be fixed if we raised it to the median age of this country which is ~76 years of age and moved it accordingly from there on out.

When they implemented the program in the 30s the avg life expectancy was ~60 years. The program paid when you hit 60 years of age. Thus on avg 50% of people would never collect. It was a brilliant scam they pulled off in the 1930s. The problem is they never raised the collection age and that will bite us in the ass soon.

Completely agreed, though raising it to 65, while not as effective as raising it to 70, would be far more likely to actually happen.

I thought they were phasing in a rise in age to 67 over the next decade or so?

They are.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Wreckem
Depends on where they live. It will effect almost ANY student worker, as they get paid 5.15-6.00 unless they are doing something like IT Tech Support or are a Research assistant.

Also raising the minimum wage will increase everyones wages. The Fed will need to keep inflation after the hike or the hike in min wage will mean nothing.

Originally posted by: Wreckem
Im all for cutting student loan interest rates to 3.4%.

Trying to eat your cake and have it too?

Why are you trying to profit off the future of the Country?

Don't you think it would be prudent to charge the higher rate to businesses like Exxon that are making billions in record profits?

Put the crack pipe down and come back to the real world, Dave. Nice talking point BTW. You're really learning to quack like a duck quite well. :roll:

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: magomago
1) Good luck with that on just the first day. Most people in congress are beholden to special interests, so to get them to cut that off is a very tough thing. It would be nice to see corportaions or any special interests group banned from donating money to a candidate...like canda

2) Not bad, but saying we will enact it and actually watching it happen are two different things...if their idea is making more bloat like the TSA - hold on. But if its real constructure ideas to effciently and quickly scan cargo while keeping that delay absoutely minimal it sounds like a good thing

3) raising it to 7.25 won't affect much, as most people probably get paid 7-8/hour for starting.

4) Good - lets hope there are enough moderate republicans to get along with that research

5) Okay not bad - i like the idea of rewarding work; but any raise should be accompanied by cuts, else it will be "tax and spend"

Depends on where they live. It will effect almost ANY student worker, as they get paid 5.15-6.00 unless they are doing something like IT Tech Support or are a Research assistant.

Also raising the minimum wage will increase everyones wages. The Fed will need to keep inflation after the hike or the hike in min wage will mean nothing.

Washington is already at the level, so it won't touch our wages...though if we move to stay just as far ahead as we have been it will put us up to about $10 in short order.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
As in the first 100 hours the House meets after Democrats ? in her fondest wish ? win control in the Nov. 7 midterm elections and Pelosi takes the gavel as the first Madam Speaker in history.

Day One: Put new rules in place to "break the link between lobbyists and legislation."

Day Two: Enact all the recommendations made by the commission that investigated the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Time remaining until 100 hours: Raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour, maybe in one step. Cut the interest rate on student loans in half. Allow the government to negotiate directly with the pharmaceutical companies for lower drug prices for Medicare patients.

Broaden the types of stem cell research allowed with federal funds ? "I hope with a veto-proof majority," she added in an Associated Press interview Thursday.All the days after that: "Pay as you go," meaning no increasing the deficit, whether the issue is middle class tax relief, health care or some other priority.

To do that, she said, Bush-era tax cuts would have to be rolled back for those above "a certain level." She mentioned annual incomes of $250,000 or $300,000 a year and higher, and said tax rates for those individuals might revert to those of the

Clinton era. Details will have to be worked out, she emphasized.

"We believe in the marketplace," Pelosi said of Democrats, then drew a contrast with Republicans. "They have only rewarded wealth, not work."


Sounds good to me, dunno how they are going to kill off lobbyists corruption though overnight, it's a huge problem.

Much ado about nothing here, don't you think?

Dems rely on lobbyists and special interests just as much as the Pubs, so any talk to the contrary is going to end up just being smoke and mirrors.

Enacting all the recommendations by the 9/11 committee would mean significant inroads into personal privacy.

Wal-Mart already starts its employees above $7.25/hr. even in states that don't have their own minimum wage (my state's minimum wage is already $7.50/hr. and set to go to $7.80/hr the 1st of the year, and covers restaurant workers who get tips), so such a pathetically small increase really isn't going to do anything for the working poor, much less the struggling middle class who average $20/hr. already.

And funding stem cell research is something that can be done and should be done by private industry because there is so much potential profit in it. Federal funding of it will just amount to a corporate subsidy.

Really... is this what the far left thinks gave victory to the Dems? You better think again.

Only point I want to make is that stem cell research should have NOTHING to do with profit. Medical research should be 100% about improving quality of life. Making a fair living off a job in a medical related field is fine, but the minute you start basing 'shoulds' on profit everyone might as well commit suicide because all hope for life is lost.

 

[tomywishbone]

Did anybody hear the Nancy P, Wolf blitzer interview?

Nancy: "I want to thank the Glorious US Congress, for this delightful opportunity to continue the rich historic tradition of leadership and blah blah blah blah...


Check it out Nancy; you didn't win, the other creeps lost.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Wreckem
Depends on where they live. It will effect almost ANY student worker, as they get paid 5.15-6.00 unless they are doing something like IT Tech Support or are a Research assistant.

Also raising the minimum wage will increase everyones wages. The Fed will need to keep inflation after the hike or the hike in min wage will mean nothing.

Originally posted by: Wreckem
Im all for cutting student loan interest rates to 3.4%.

Trying to eat your cake and have it too?

Why are you trying to profit off the future of the Country?

Don't you think it would be prudent to charge the higher rate to businesses like Exxon that are making billions in record profits?

Put the crack pipe down and come back to the real world, Dave. Nice talking point BTW. You're really learning to quack like a duck quite well. :roll:

Thank you :heart:

I won't legalize crack but I bet Marijuana would help fund 3.4% interest rates for student quite nicely.

Come to the dark side, you are good. You don't want to work for McCain do you?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Only point I want to make is that stem cell research should have NOTHING to do with profit. Medical research should be 100% about improving quality of life. Making a fair living off a job in a medical related field is fine, but the minute you start basing 'shoulds' on profit everyone might as well commit suicide because all hope for life is lost.

Profit is what pays for peoples' "fair livings," and what got us this far already. It is abused? Of course, sometimes. But more often than not, the prospect of profit is what drives people to help others (through helping themselves). Good intentions only go so far, and often do more harm than good.

edit: and profit from stem cell research is inevitable. My original point was that we should allow business to do that on their own, rather than subsidizing them and multiplying their profits at public expense. It hasn't been capital keeping them from their research, it's been stupid legislation.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Wreckem
Depends on where they live. It will effect almost ANY student worker, as they get paid 5.15-6.00 unless they are doing something like IT Tech Support or are a Research assistant.

Also raising the minimum wage will increase everyones wages. The Fed will need to keep inflation after the hike or the hike in min wage will mean nothing.

Originally posted by: Wreckem
Im all for cutting student loan interest rates to 3.4%.

Trying to eat your cake and have it too?

Why are you trying to profit off the future of the Country?

Don't you think it would be prudent to charge the higher rate to businesses like Exxon that are making billions in record profits?

Put the crack pipe down and come back to the real world, Dave. Nice talking point BTW. You're really learning to quack like a duck quite well. :roll:

Thank you :heart:

I won't legalize crack but I bet Marijuana would help fund 3.4% interest rates for student quite nicely.

Come to the dark side, you are good. You don't want to work for McCain do you?

Blah blah blah blah... do you ever do anything but spout mindless rhetoric?

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Originally posted by: Genx87
It shouldnt be a surprise that both programs that represent you a typical big govt social programs are in ruins. The simple fact is these programs require huge population increases for them to continue to be viable. Yeah, the baby boomers made them viable far longer than they would have otherwise. Reality is catching up with us quickly and it will sting big time.

Again, agreed. I think all but the most delusional liberals realize medicare/medicaid are in dire straits & need some fixing. The first step towards this is reigning in the cost of healthcare. This can be accomplished by limiting medical malpractice lawsuits, especially pain & suffering type lawsuits. The status quo for that is nuts; I'm not talking about giving docs & hospitals freedom to maim & kill patients, I'm talking about reasonable compensation. Curbing class action lawsuits against pharmaceuticals on behalf of people who can't read usage directions or can't understand the risks entailed by taking prescriptions would certainly lower the cost of drugs. Right now the only people benefitting from health care law are lawyers!

But more importantly, people need to start taking more responsibility for their own health. God only knows how much medical-related expense could be eliminated if America lost weight, stopped smoking, stopped drinking excessively, and visited their GP instead of using the ER. This is an education issue, but the government can also help by - pardon the flaming liberality - helping to further bans on smoking & encouraging transparency in food contents - and maybe even offering tax incentives for healthy food manufacturers to encourage their consumption in the place of potato chips cooked in lard.

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus

Originally posted by: Genx87
I thought they were phasing in a rise in age to 67 over the next decade or so?

Beats me, but if people with such typically polarized opinions as us can agree on it, it's obviously a good idea, haha.

Very true, now how do we get the hacks in Washington to agree?

I write letters to elected officials & try to get op pieces published in the local newspapers. It's not much, but it's something.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Only point I want to make is that stem cell research should have NOTHING to do with profit. Medical research should be 100% about improving quality of life. Making a fair living off a job in a medical related field is fine, but the minute you start basing 'shoulds' on profit everyone might as well commit suicide because all hope for life is lost.

Profit is what pays for peoples' "fair livings," and what got us this far already. It is abused? Of course, sometimes. But more often than not, the prospect of profit is what drives people to help others (through helping themselves). Good intentions only go so far, and often do more harm than good.

edit: and profit from stem cell research is inevitable. My original point was that we should allow business to do that on their own, rather than subsidizing them and multiplying their profits at public expense. It hasn't been capital keeping them from their research, it's been stupid legislation.

I agree entirely with your second paragraph, just wanted to make the clarification that it should be researched for its benefit to mankind and not to line the pockets of already rich investors. This is because I completely disagree with your first point - I believe that all monetary pursuits are what have hindered and corrupted and that ideology is what drives most beneficial accomplishments. But arguing about that is really impossible since it's unwinnable by either side.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Only point I want to make is that stem cell research should have NOTHING to do with profit. Medical research should be 100% about improving quality of life. Making a fair living off a job in a medical related field is fine, but the minute you start basing 'shoulds' on profit everyone might as well commit suicide because all hope for life is lost.

Profit is what pays for peoples' "fair livings," and what got us this far already. It is abused? Of course, sometimes. But more often than not, the prospect of profit is what drives people to help others (through helping themselves). Good intentions only go so far, and often do more harm than good.

edit: and profit from stem cell research is inevitable. My original point was that we should allow business to do that on their own, rather than subsidizing them and multiplying their profits at public expense. It hasn't been capital keeping them from their research, it's been stupid legislation.

I agree entirely with your second paragraph, just wanted to make the clarification that it should be researched for its benefit to mankind and not to line the pockets of already rich investors. This is because I completely disagree with your first point - I believe that all monetary pursuits are what have hindered and corrupted and that ideology is what drives most beneficial accomplishments. But arguing about that is really impossible since it's unwinnable by either side.

Ideology doesn't feed your children, and that's the most beneficial accomplishment of all.