What should a GOP-controlled Congress do, starting from swear-in?

[rich_t]

Here's the deal folks, and I am not joking.

It's OK for conservatives to have differernt ideas on how to correct what we all see as wrong.  It's ok to express them.  It's ok to disagree with each other.

But the constant insults between us doesn't actually gain anything.  Sure it can be amusing, but in the long run does it actually resolve anything?

Nope.

[Hawkgirl]

Here's the deal folks, and I am not joking.

It's OK for conservatives to have differernt ideas on how to correct what we all see as wrong.  It's ok to express them.  It's ok to disagree with each other.

But the constant insults between us doesn't actually gain anything.  Sure it can be amusing, but in the long run does it actually resolve anything?

Nope.

I think it's quite childish actually. 

[Lacarnut]

If you Google rate of return on Social Security it averages out to always be a positive percent.
Obviously that can vary individual to individual and how it compares with other "investments" but I do believe on average more benefits are collected then are paid into the system.
It requires a pool of contributers much larger then collectors to maintain a balance and thus the problem facing it...that ratio is closing while life expectancy is rising.

I am not sure they are taking into account the employer half for those on payroll deduction as being a contribution for the person or just what is deducted.

Still to average out as a positive it would take into account the self employed who do pay the full shot.

The computations probably do not take into account that the money individual put into to the fund should have been invested and gained appreciation. The government raided and spent the money as fast as it came in and put IOU's in there. The money you put in should have doubled or tripled over a 40 year period. State and private pensions do not have the solvency problems like the Feds because they wisely invested the funds, and there is actual money in those funds.  .

[bkg]

Here's the deal folks, and I am not joking.

It's OK for conservatives to have differernt ideas on how to correct what we all see as wrong.  It's ok to express them.  It's ok to disagree with each other.

But the constant insults between us doesn't actually gain anything.  Sure it can be amusing, but in the long run does it actually resolve anything?

Nope.

I have to agree with you Rich. Conservative's biggest issue, and what will prevent real change in this country, is the vile hatred that conservatives have towards each other... The "moderate" conservatives who hate the "conservative" conservatives (and are very vocal about it) and the "conservative" conservatives who don't think the moderates are really conservative. I admit, I fall into the latter. Point taken... Seriously.

[Hawkgirl]

The computations probably do not take into account that the money individual put into to the fund should have been invested and gained appreciation. The government raided and spent the money as fast as it came in and put IOU's in there. The money you put in should have doubled or tripled over a 40 year period. State and private pensions do not have the solvency problems like the Feds because they wisely invested the funds, and there is actual money in those funds.  .

So basically, if you give anything to the government, the government will be irresponsible.  This is why SS should be privatized, this is why everyone should pay for their own healthcare insurance, this is why MEDICAID should be phased out...or like Giuliani did in NY, "workfare not welfare".

[bkg]

The computations probably do not take into account that the money individual put into to the fund should have been invested and gained appreciation. The government raided and spent the money as fast as it came in and put IOU's in there. The money you put in should have doubled or tripled over a 40 year period. State and private pensions do not have the solvency problems like the Feds because they wisely invested the funds, and there is actual money in those funds.  .

Money doubles based on Rate of Return/72... 10%=doubling every 7.2 years. So I agree to a large extent, except that I'd much rather be able to opt out than watch them spend it into oblivian.

Also, I think you're incorrect on the State AND private pensions... General Motors, nurses union, state unions, teacher's unions, etc are not solvent... are they?

[Carl]

The computations probably do not take into account that the money individual put into to the fund should have been invested and gained appreciation. The government raided and spent the money as fast as it came in and put IOU's in there. The money you put in should have doubled or tripled over a 40 year period. State and private pensions do not have the solvency problems like the Feds because they wisely invested the funds, and there is actual money in those funds.  .

Not in the great liberal states like NY...they guarantee a payout that is in keeping with the very best year rate of return never taking into account that is an outlier.
Then again you did say wisely invested which almost automatically doesn`t apply to blue states.

I also for the record just so no misunderstandings think SS is or has been a good investment just that it still does on average pay out more then paid in.

[Lacarnut]

Money doubles based on Rate of Return/72... 10%=doubling every 7.2 years. So I agree to a large extent, except that I'd much rather be able to opt out than watch them spend it into oblivian.

Also, I think you're incorrect on the State AND private pensions... General Motors, nurses union, state unions, teacher's unions, etc are not solvent... are they?

I retired after working about 20 years in the private sector and 25 years for the state (non union). My pension is 5 times as much as the pathetic amount I get from SS. My SS amount is cut in half because of the Federal offset. The State of LA earns an average of 8% on investments per year while the Federal government earns a big fat zero on non existing money in the Trust Fund. If the greedy politicians had invested the money rather than spend it, the SS and Medicare fund would not be eating up a large part of the budget. It would be revenue neutral or close to it.

Many pension funds are not solvent. We had a jerk Repub Gov. named Buddy Romner  that wanted to withdraw all the money out of our retirement fund back in the 80's and put IOU's in there. The legislature put thumbs down on that stupidity.   

[Eupher]

So basically, if you give anything to the government, the government will be irresponsible.  This is why SS should be privatized, this is why everyone should pay for their own healthcare insurance, this is why MEDICAID should be phased out...or like Giuliani did in NY, "workfare not welfare".

Anybody who believes that government really, truly looks out for the taxpayer and the voter is not paying attention. Government exists to protect and serve itself FIRST. Everything after that is doled out piecemeal.

I continually shake my head in disgust at those misguided souls who honestly, truly believe that the government serves the people.

The government is a necessary evil that should be held to the lowest possible level.

[NHSparky]

You sure are a friggin grouch.....get over yourself...
And if you READ my post a few pages back..you'd know I gave a few responses to the OP and I didn't hurl insults at other posters...something you are very good at.

Smartass--just one of the many services I provide.

Or as I tell people, I'll be nicer when you'll be smarter.

[NHSparky]

Already aswered for you -offered to take it off the table, but you refuse. And have you noticed it's the ONLY one you've focused on?  

It's the banker's fault people buy more than they can afford? Holy hell - you're true colors are coming out aren't they?

Again, arlready gave you an answer for that one. But again, you've ignored it. You will NOT get back everything you paid into SS as it is... So why the fawk are you bitching about cutting it? Somoene may not get their fair share? Sheesh - your "fairness" attach here is quite in line with the current administration. The money is gone - get over it. Deal with it and move on. How many times do I need to remind you that we're almost $14T in debt? You're upset that I suggest tha we cut entitlements - including SS and Medicaid (which i have family who rely on) and then you start talking about cutting Earned income and mortgage deduction and STILL bitch at me for wanting to cut entitlements.  

Yes, you can say no.  So can lenders, no matter how much pressure they're getting from ACORN.  Notice we're pumping tens, if not hundreds, of BILLIONS of dollars into the housing market, yet foreclosures still aren't going down.  Wonder why?

And GFY with your "fairness".  BOTH parties are to blame for our current financial crisis, and it's going to take BOTH parties working together to get us out.  Your "go-it-alone" approach is doomed before it even gets out of the gate, assuming it even gets that far.

[NHSparky]

Yeah, that about sums it up...no use even engaging him.

Ya know, there's an ignore button for you too.  If you don't like what I have to say, pack your shit and get out of the sandbox.

[NHSparky]

Troof... Everyone but NHS is WRONG, dammit! WRONG! Only took him 6 pages to quit bitching enough to actually present some ideas... 

Hey Sparky - send me your address... I'll send you a "CUT ENTITLEMENTS!" T-shirt... Girls size small?

Sorry, I forgot to send you your box of Tampax last month.  Get over it already, will ya?

[NHSparky]

I bought wine...

You mean "whine", don't you?  Seems that's what you're best at.  And not just on this thread.

[NHSparky]

I think it's quite childish actually. 

And yet you jump right the **** in, head first.

[NHSparky]

Money doubles based on Rate of Return/72... 10%=doubling every 7.2 years. So I agree to a large extent, except that I'd much rather be able to opt out than watch them spend it into oblivian.

Also, I think you're incorrect on the State AND private pensions... General Motors, nurses union, state unions, teacher's unions, etc are not solvent... are they?

More solvent than a lot of so-called "private" unions such as SEIU, UAW, etc., whose funding is 60 percent (or less) of liabilities.  Depending on the state (and yes, the more liberal the state, the more underfunded, so the trent goes) it can be, but not nearly as bad.

I don't have a whole lot of time left, but I'll find something at Cato or Tax Foundation to back that assertion.

[bkg]

Yes, you can say no.  So can lenders, no matter how much pressure they're getting from ACORN.  Notice we're pumping tens, if not hundreds, of BILLIONS of dollars into the housing market, yet foreclosures still aren't going down.  Wonder why?

You have some reading to do. Start with a logic course - you say on one hand we have a problem with foreclosures and then want to yank the deduction away... You're arguing against yourself.

Then go read CRA and the follow-on legislation to learn about the fines and regulations associated with redlining. The pressure wasn't from ACORN, it was from the friggen feds.

And GFY with your "fairness".  BOTH parties are to blame for our current financial crisis, and it's going to take BOTH parties working together to get us out.  Your "go-it-alone" approach is doomed before it even gets out of the gate, assuming it even gets that far.

Yo'ull have to quote the "go-it-alone" point of my argument, because I never said that. Not sure where you got it from???

[bkg]

You mean "whine", don't you?  Seems that's what you're best at.  And not just on this thread.

Dude... chill. Seriously. This could be an interesting discussion....

[NHSparky]

Dude... chill. Seriously. This could be an interesting discussion....

Fair enough.  Subtlety isn't one of my strong points.  Hell, it isn't even one of my weak points.

But to clarify the "go it alone" charge, it would be foolish to think that EITHER party, Dem or GOP, will simply gut spending even to a real decline in dollars without 1--a nearly veto-proof majority in both houses of Congress, 2--howling from the American people a LOT louder than what we hear even now, trains running on time and all that.

Basically, the average American doesn't understand the pain, feel it, and most sadly, care.  We are agreed on one MAJOR point--the amount of pain we're feeling right now isn't anywhere NEAR what we WILL be feeling or inflicting on those down the road.  As much as I hate to quote Krugman, he does make some interesting points in his column that we may be headed for a THIRD Depression at our current rate.

We're jittery enough as it is, and evicerating spending is akin to dropping the trap door on a condemned prisoner before they find a way to get the noose out from around their necks.  There is NO replacement for SS for a lot of folks 45-50 years and older, and pulling money out of SS via privatization without other options or measures to lessen the blow of that is only going to make matters that much worse.

Back in 1950, there were 9 workers for every person on SS.  Today, that number is 2.5 to 1, and still decreasing.  That's simply not sustainable, but cutting people off at the knees isn't going to work without large segments of society collapsing.

[NHSparky]

You have some reading to do. Start with a logic course - you say on one hand we have a problem with foreclosures and then want to yank the deduction away... You're arguing against yourself.

Then go read CRA and the follow-on legislation to learn about the fines and regulations associated with redlining. The pressure wasn't from ACORN, it was from the friggen feds.

Yo'ull have to quote the "go-it-alone" point of my argument, because I never said that. Not sure where you got it from???

No, read the entire statement.  Eliminating the deduction COUPLED WITH reducing the tax rate will actually keep total federal tax burden for someone making 100K or less roughly the same.  Think of it as not giving that interest-free loan to the government every year.  Me, I have no choice unless I somehow change my filing to Single-6 or 7, in which case great big flags fly up.  I have to pay it in, and then file to get it back.  I don't like that.  It's money I could use RIGHT NOW.

Then, it will discourage people from getting into homes they can't afford in the first place, and 1--stabilize the housing market specifically, 2--improve the economy as a whole by actually LOWERING foreclosures.

BTW--the "friggin feds" put CRA on steroids because of the actions of whom, again?  Do a Google on "red-lining" back in the early 90's and you'll see what I mean.

[bkg]

No, read the entire statement.  Eliminating the deduction COUPLED WITH reducing the tax rate will actually keep total federal tax burden for someone making 100K or less roughly the same.  Think of it as not giving that interest-free loan to the government every year.  Me, I have no choice unless I somehow change my filing to Single-6 or 7, in which case great big flags fly up.  I have to pay it in, and then file to get it back.  I don't like that.  It's money I could use RIGHT NOW.

I don't give loans - it's a matter of doing the duductions correctly. But I agree that simplification is desparately needed. What I don't agree with reducing taxes only as an offset for increased taxation. I also don't agree (at all, frankly) in putting an arbitrary income number on it.... we have way too many income limits for tax credits as it is.

Then, it will discourage people from getting into homes they can't afford in the first place, and 1--stabilize the housing market specifically, 2--improve the economy as a whole by actually LOWERING foreclosures.

How? You're just offsetting the tax. Taking from Peter to pay Paul. And while you may have a point for future acquisitions, what abou the millions who would see that deduction go away and likely not have an offsetting tax break elsewhere? Theoretically, your idea could work, but it would require strict implementation and still result in massive price drops in homes... Which ultimately, is a tax.

BTW--the "friggin feds" put CRA on steroids because of the actions of whom, again?  Do a Google on "red-lining" back in the early 90's and you'll see what I mean.

CRA was in place long before redlining.  And Redlining is NOT a bad practice - it's actually a very good practice. The lack of redlining is what helped get us into this mess....

[bkg]

We're jittery enough as it is, and evicerating spending is akin to dropping the trap door on a condemned prisoner before they find a way to get the noose out from around their necks.  There is NO replacement for SS for a lot of folks 45-50 years and older, and pulling money out of SS via privatization without other options or measures to lessen the blow of that is only going to make matters that much worse.

Back in 1950, there were 9 workers for every person on SS.  Today, that number is 2.5 to 1, and still decreasing.  That's simply not sustainable, but cutting people off at the knees isn't going to work without large segments of society collapsing.

You're advocating the continuization of Keynsian economics in one statement and then calling against it in another. Spending MUST stop. Even the EU knows that now. I hate to ask it again, but how do you pay back $13T w/o massive spending cuts? As long as we are at ~100% of true GDP (private sector - including gov't spending is bullshit), we're at a tipping point, which you readily admit in your last sentence. Is it fair to cut people off? Probably not. But is it fair for an entire country to collapse because we're not willing to cut spending? No.

[Hawkgirl]

And yet you jump right the **** in, head first.

Consider yourself on ignore.  Have fun spreading your bitterness around.

[GOP Congress]

Let me be clear here. Although it's not in my control, I would like to refocus this thread back to its original intent: What actions should a Congress under significant conservative GOP control in both the Senate and the House perform, once they are sworn in?

Obviously, there are probably dozens of bullet point items that need to be tackled. But I sense that there has been a lack of focus on what the GOP Congress SHOULD do. In addition, I'd like to compare what this Congress should do compared to what the "Contract with America" '94 class did, and avoid the mistakes that that session made. And I completely agree with Hawkgirl: once you get to the point of disagreeing on the small shit, that decommissions the mission of this thread by default.

To that end, we can work with the bullet points given earlier. But I want to avoid the empty campaign sloganeering or edicts, and instead address the actual procedure that the Congress will have to follow, or perhaps create, especially with regard to a very extremely anti-GOP Congress mainstream media and a potentially activist federal judicial circuit.

Thanks for understanding.

[NHSparky]

Consider yourself on ignore.  Have fun spreading your bitterness around.

Damn, my life no longer has any meaning...(sniff)

And bitterness?  Sounds like you're the one with sour grapes, hon.  Maybe you'll feel better after a nice game of kickball--I mean soccer.