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

[NHSparky]

Oh good Lord...

The dumbing down of America is complete.  A so called conservative is defending SSI.

The Republic is ****ed.

Oh, GFY, you drama queen.  I never "defended" perpetuating it, but you're going to have to come up with something that's going to enable those who have contributed to it for DECADES to recoup their contributions.  I've been for privatizing SSI, or at least encouraging more private investment similar to 401(k)s.

So for you to claim I'm for SSI, is a strawman, not to mention shows you don't look very bright at all.

Yeah, let's just cut everybody off--**** Granny, the old bitch!

[Carl]

Hang on folks,I think we have a issue with terms.

Is SSI referring to Social Security or Supplemental Security Income which is related but also much different?

[NHSparky]

Hang on folks,I think we have a issue with terms.

Is SSI referring to Social Security or Supplemental Security Income which is related but also much different?

I'm referring to Social Security.

What a GOP-led Congress needs to do is undo the changes which have damaged our security FIRST, then those which have damaged our economy...

In a generic sense, what we need to work on first are the changes which have occured most recently, and as we go along, work on issues which have plagued us for longer periods of time.  Just saying, "No more SS for you!" tomorrow isn't realistic, but incrementally changing the system so that it becomes more of a privatized system and gets the government out of the Ponzi scheme it created is more realistic and smarter than just slamming on the brakes and saying, "Oh I'm willing to take the pain."

The people who say that the loudest are usually the ones who are either affected the least, or will start squealing first (and loudest) when the "change" hits them.

[Carl]

I'm referring to Social Security.

What a GOP-led Congress needs to do is undo the changes which have damaged our security FIRST, then those which have damaged our economy...

In a generic sense, what we need to work on first are the changes which have occured most recently, and as we go along, work on issues which have plagued us for longer periods of time.  Just saying, "No more SS for you!" tomorrow isn't realistic, but incrementally changing the system so that it becomes more of a privatized system and gets the government out of the Ponzi scheme it created is more realistic and smarter than just slamming on the brakes and saying, "Oh I'm willing to take the pain."

The people who say that the loudest are usually the ones who are either affected the least, or will start squealing first (and loudest) when the "change" hits them.

The only reason I put that out is so that there isn`t an argument as far as apples and oranges.
Supplemental Security Income  is somewhat more prone to abuse because it based not on a universal enrollment but by certain criteria.
Social Security is on its own right arguable for many reasons,to me the first is that the eligibility age was set higher then life expectancy when started.

[formerlurker]

SSI -- disabled and indigent.    This covers the severely disabled (pays for housing, etc.) and those who milk the system and claim they are disabled.

SSDI -- disabled.    Your monthly payment is a % of earnings/what you paid into SS.     Abused?  yes.   However not as much.

SS -- call it what it is, a tax.   We definitely won't be seeing this when we retire.  

[bkg]

Yeah, let's cut all those SSI, military retiree, et al, benefits to 1/4 what they are today, what the ****, right?

Are you SERIOUSLY agreeing with that statement?

Almost 14 TRILLION in debt. Please explain to me how, without doing what I believe needs to be done, we are going to not only stop the growth of the debt, but REVERSE it to the point of survivable levels.

I'd like a reasoned answer to that, please.

[bkg]

Oh, GFY, you drama queen.  I never "defended" perpetuating it, but you're going to have to come up with something that's going to enable those who have contributed to it for DECADES to recoup their contributions.  I've been for privatizing SSI, or at least encouraging more private investment similar to 401(k)s.

So for you to claim I'm for SSI, is a strawman, not to mention shows you don't look very bright at all.

Yeah, let's just cut everybody off--**** Granny, the old bitch!

And you call ME a 100%-er? Where exactly did I say "cut everybody off?"  I'll wait while you point that out for me.

Also, if you paid any attention at all to the mathematics of it all, you'd know that rarely does a person get back what is paid in.

You'd also know that SS is pushing (what is it now?) well over 25 Trillion - T.R.I.L.L.I.O.N. in unfunded liabilities. How do you plan for us to pay for that?

What portion of our annual budget goes to entitlements? Not just SSI, but ALL entitlements? Including things like farm subsidies, energy subsidies and the like? All of those hand out that "the rich" pay for that are not just in SSI.

[bkg]

The only reason I put that out is so that there isn`t an argument as far as apples and oranges.
Supplemental Security Income  is somewhat more prone to abuse because it based not on a universal enrollment but by certain criteria.
Social Security is on its own right arguable for many reasons,to me the first is that the eligibility age was set higher then life expectancy when started.

Good point - I've been using them interchangeably, which I shouldn't have, because they all fall under the same umbrella and are all an entitlement.

[GOP Congress]

I'd have to say that we are all in agreement that the economy is the first order of business, behind defense of course.

Yes, we have to cut, cut, cut. and we also have to deal with Obama who will do his damnedest to screw up the works as much as possible. MSNBC will be proclaiming how the veto pen will save America or some crap like that.

The bottom line is that the next Congress will be critical not so much in reversing everything, but to ensure that we stop everything COLD, while keeping the bleeding to a minimum. During this time period, we need to ensure that we put out our tax cut proposals to the American public, that we tell them HOW and WHY they will work, and that we unequivocally need presidential support to get them through.

Therefore, the key, in my opinion to how effective the Congress will be is to ensure that we don't promise the moon. We WILL be hated, vilified, and smeared by what's left of the mainstream media. It will be incomubant on our representatives to constantly keep up a dialog with their constituents on the REAL reasons that the economy isn't rebounding, etc. Keep in mind that the next wave of economic strife is about to hit next year, and the Obama Administration will do its damnedest to keep the economy weak, so he can blame the republican congress, and try to get back power in 2012.

To that end, we will be looking at this from the same angle as a Japanese kamikazi / Islamic suicide bombers (hey, secret service Google term alert). We have to stay above the fray, and we can't promise too much too soon as far as actually getting things done. As everyone must know, Obama has manipulated the BP disaster to maximize the damage that the oil spill caused, so he can milk it for all its worth. Don't think he won't do the same once the tax cuts expire and take another 10% of the economy with it.

I'll be formulating the Executive branch effect on a republican congress in the next couple of weeks.

[bkg]

Almost 14 TRILLION in debt. Please explain to me how, without doing what I believe needs to be done, we are going to not only stop the growth of the debt, but REVERSE it to the point of survivable levels.

I'd like a reasoned answer to that, please.

Still waiting for an answer here....

[bkg]

And you call ME a 100%-er? Where exactly did I say "cut everybody off?"  I'll wait while you point that out for me.

Also, if you paid any attention at all to the mathematics of it all, you'd know that rarely does a person get back what is paid in.

You'd also know that SS is pushing (what is it now?) well over 25 Trillion - T.R.I.L.L.I.O.N. in unfunded liabilities. How do you plan for us to pay for that?

What portion of our annual budget goes to entitlements? Not just SSI, but ALL entitlements? Including things like farm subsidies, energy subsidies and the like? All of those hand out that "the rich" pay for that are not just in SSI.

And here...

[NHSparky]

Newsflash, genius--some of us are paying for that "unfunded liability" and don't have time to respond to your drivel as quickly as you like.

Notice where I said we need to START privatizing SS and getting younger workers into their own retirement funds?

While you might be able to eliminate most farm and energy subsidies with minimal damage to the economy, you can't say the same for military retirement/medical and SS.  The effects of cutting those off cold turkey would be devastating, to say the least.

Oh, and good luck maintaining a competent military and professional NCO/officer corps when they realize they'll be working for nada after they retire.

Didn't think that far ahead, did ya?  Nah, didn't think you did.

[DumbAss Tanker]

...For instance, an everyday example of that 'Hubris' which a GOP Congress needs to avoid would be to think that people care enough about your opinion to want to argue with you on the internet, once it's clear that both you and the person you want to argue with disagree completely on something.

Cutting back Federal spending, or programmed future spending more importantly, is very important, but it can't be done in a way that violates law or equity itself; you can't for instance change the military retirement system on those who have already retired, you can't turn off Social Security on those already vested in it, and you can't just default on bonds.  What CAN be cut is current, unvested 'entitlement program' payments, pay schedules, subsidies, pork projects, and the HCR mandates (But that last one won't be feasible until there is either a GOP President or a veto-proof GOP Congress, i.e. not until at least January 2013 if then). 

The other part of the problem is that the Federal spending involved is a major input to the economy in a very distributed and invisible way, for instance the large sums spent on school subsidies add up to a lot of net jobs out in the wider economy, not just faculty and staff but service industries like food service suppliers as well.  Careless chainsaw surgery could have very drastic unintended consequences, the Democrat fiscal bomb has to be defuzed with great care.  Going after it with a blunt instrument or going off on a purely Social Conservative program is exactly the kind of hubris that caused Gingrich's ultimate failure as Speaker. 

[docstew]

1.  Cut federal spending across the board with the possible exception of the military.

2.  Lower taxes across the board.  Completely and permanently eliminate the death tax.

3.  Secure our geograpical borders.

4.  Enforce the existing laws concerning illegals found in this country and those that are hiring illegals.

5.  Rescind as much of the new healthcare reform as possible.

6.  Drastically reduce foriegn aide.

fify

[formerlurker]

Newsflash, genius--some of us are paying for that "unfunded liability" and don't have time to respond to your drivel as quickly as you like.

Notice where I said we need to START privatizing SS and getting younger workers into their own retirement funds?

While you might be able to eliminate most farm and energy subsidies with minimal damage to the economy, you can't say the same for military retirement/medical and SS.  The effects of cutting those off cold turkey would be devastating, to say the least.

Oh, and good luck maintaining a competent military and professional NCO/officer corps when they realize they'll be working for nada after they retire.

Didn't think that far ahead, did ya?  Nah, didn't think you did.

Eliminating military retirement would prompt a draft because not many would serve -- or stay past initial commitment. 

[Lacarnut]

I know that the changes needed will cause a lot of pain.  I'm willing to not only impose that pain, but to endure it personally.


Are you under the mistaken assumption that fixing the damage incurred by the asshole politicians will be pain free?

Freedom isn't free and it is painful to implement and defend.

It is not the fault of taxpayers who have contributed to the SS fund for many years that the greedy politicians spent all the money rather than putting it in the fund as originally designed. So cutting my SS that I contributed to for many years by 75% is f...insane.

You want pain. Raise the age up and increase taxes. How is that for a little pain.   

[GOP Congress]

Obviously, there are a lot of micro-issues we need to take care of once we take over Congress. However, we have to ensure that we are not enmeshed in the minutae that we let the overall objective of returning the US back to Constitutional authority get out of our grasp.

The plain fact is that we will be inheriting the biggest mess, the biggest albatross of any governmental agency in history. That is why it is IMPERATIVE that we enter the new session with a TEAM, not a disparate group of individuals who will scheme to better their own interests.  For the most part, that is why I'm proud of the overall candidacy group this coming cycle; they all recognize that this is a ******* WAR we are in, not just a political fight. We are at war not just with terrorists, but with people who will give their very lives to take out everything we hold dear. People who will sell out for political purpose and pseudo control based on fear and hatred, like the Democratic Party, are just as detrimental and dangerous as those terrorists who fly our planes into buildings.

In short, there are no room for individual races. And like a CONVENTIONAL war, the enemy will offer bribes and incentives for us to "turn on our own"...and in the same context, anyone who runs as a republican but, in fact, plays both sides of the fence for personal gain is, in my eyes, just as much of a traitor as those in uniform who rat out their own military units to the enemy.

I am not exaggerating. I am being consistent to the oath I took in 1976 to defend the Constitution of the United states from all enemies, foreign and domestic, and incorporating it to public service. RINOS at best are ignorant of the real objective at hand; worse, they use the association with the GOP to "leverage" their own individual agenda at the expense of the US Constitution.

Frankly, if you are in business, you make the rules as far as your own associations and your own productive efforts. You follow the laws that the government puts out, so you have as great an incentive to ensure the government stays OUT of your business by maintaining an ethical, but competitively agressive stance. BUT...if you are IN the government, that same ethical stance, means you AGGRESSIVELY enforce the rules, but NOT use the rules to YOUR advantage. To that end, the definition of good government is to allow the GREATEST amount of freedom with the LEAST amount of interference while maintaining the general welfare and defense of the state.

OK, I'm being a bit esoteric here. To simplify, we need to ensure that we return this government back to its constitutional roots, remove government shackles, reduce overall corruption, and enforce our laws; once we prosper again, we rigorously export these principles to as many people we can around the world. But we have to get our OWN house in order first. And that starts with a Constitutional Congress. And the constitutional congress starts in January, 2011, with the election mandate we present on November 3 of this year.

[rich_t]

Oh, GFY, you drama queen.  I never "defended" perpetuating it, but you're going to have to come up with something that's going to enable those who have contributed to it for DECADES to recoup their contributions.  I've been for privatizing SSI, or at least encouraging more private investment similar to 401(k)s.

So for you to claim I'm for SSI, is a strawman, not to mention shows you don't look very bright at all.

Yeah, let's just cut everybody off--**** Granny, the old bitch!

That's why I said phase it out.  I never said just up and cut everyone off.

[bkg]

Newsflash, genius--some of us are paying for that "unfunded liability" and don't have time to respond to your drivel as quickly as you like.

Notice where I said we need to START privatizing SS and getting younger workers into their own retirement funds?

While you might be able to eliminate most farm and energy subsidies with minimal damage to the economy, you can't say the same for military retirement/medical and SS.  The effects of cutting those off cold turkey would be devastating, to say the least.

Oh, and good luck maintaining a competent military and professional NCO/officer corps when they realize they'll be working for nada after they retire.

Didn't think that far ahead, did ya?  Nah, didn't think you did.

STill hurling insults and still refusing to answer the question or put forth a workable solution. I usually see that when a person has nothing to offer, but still wants to be right.

And you're not paying for "Unfunded" liabilities... You're paying for "funded" liabilities... There's a difference... big one.

Where did I say cut anything from the military?

You're throwing out so many red-herrings that it's becoming laughable. So I'll ask one more time - where am I wrong? And what is YOUR plan to eliminate the ~$14T debt?

[NHSparky]

You said cut entitlements, genius.  How else would you classify military retirement pay and VA benefits?

You're only "insulted" because you've been exposed for your shallow thinking.  Not my fault you can't see past the surface of a problem.

Bottom line, the issues which got us to this point are legion and not fixable with a mission statement or bullet points.  You want easy answers to complex issues.  Sorry, I'm not here to blow sunshine up your ass.

[rich_t]

What I said is:

1.  Cut federal spending across the board with the possible exception of the military.

2.  Lower taxes across the board.  Completely eliminate the death tax.

3.  Secure our geograpical borders.

4.  Enforce the existing laws concerning illegals found in this country and those that are hiring illegals.

5.  Rescind as much of the new healthcare reform as possible.

6.  Drastically reduce foriegn aide.

And for the record, I'm not at all insulted.  It's amusing that you seem to think so.

Nor am I looking for simple answers to complex problems, but I do know we have to start somewhere and no matter what is done some folks aren't going to like it.

[rich_t]

It is not the fault of taxpayers who have contributed to the SS fund for many years that the greedy politicians spent all the money rather than putting it in the fund as originally designed. So cutting my SS that I contributed to for many years by 75% is f...insane.

You want pain. Raise the age up and increase taxes. How is that for a little pain.   

The politicians have already done that over the decades since SS was 1st implemented and I won't be at all surprised when they do it again.

That won't change the fact that it is still IMO going to go bankrupt.  Especially if this country keeps bleeding jobs.

[NHSparky]

The politicians have already done that over the decades since SS was 1st implemented and I won't be at all surprised when they do it again.

That won't change the fact that it is still IMO going to go bankrupt.  Especially if this country keeps bleeding jobs.

Not nearly as much as they SHOULD have.  If they had stuck with raising as life expectancies rose, if a person started drawing SS at age 65 in 1937, the age should be 77 for men, and 82 for women today.

As it is, my age for "full" benefits only changed once--from 65 to 67.  I can still draw reduced benefits starting at age 62.

[rich_t]

Not nearly as much as they SHOULD have.  If they had stuck with raising as life expectancies rose, if a person started drawing SS at age 65 in 1937, the age should be 77 for men, and 82 for women today.

As it is, my age for "full" benefits only changed once--from 65 to 67.  I can still draw reduced benefits starting at age 62.

You and I must be in the same age bracket as far as SS retirement benefits go.

In 1967 the average life expectancy (both sexes, all races) was 70.5.  That means they were expected (read forced) to pay into the system for their entire working lives yet only be expected to draw benefits for 5.5 years under your scenario.  Hardly seems reasonable to me.

That is one of the reasons why I think that SS needs to be phased out over the next 20 years or so.  Expects too much pay in for the pay out.  Couple that with the fact that even if they raise the percentage and retirement age, the FED will still find some way to FUBAR the program.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/nvsr52_14t12.pdf

*note: The tables in the above link only go up until 2001.

[bkg]

You said cut entitlements, genius.  How else would you classify military retirement pay and VA benefits?

You're only "insulted" because you've been exposed for your shallow thinking.  Not my fault you can't see past the surface of a problem.

Bottom line, the issues which got us to this point are legion and not fixable with a mission statement or bullet points.  You want easy answers to complex issues.  Sorry, I'm not here to blow sunshine up your ass.

I'm still waiting for you to offer something more tangible than whining and moaning about my opinion... At this point, I conclude, after having asked a number of times, that you have nothing to offer...

"Retirement pay..." that's brilliant...