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

[Lacarnut]

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.

SS could be fixed and made whole if we would do 1 single thing and that is go back to when this program was started. All of these add on benefits like widows, children,illegals, etc. are adding huge costs. Raise the age limit and go back to what the program was originally intended. The program might stand a fighting chance then. Also, put the money in the Trust Fund rather than in the General Fund. Politicians that raided and spent our money are criminals in my opinion.

[Hawkgirl]

Raising the age limit is ridiculous.  By the time one is ready to collect..they would probably be dead.  Who wants to work right up until they die?  What about the golden years?

Remove spouses and children....that's what I would like...I would highly object to raising the age limit.  I've paid into SS since I was 15.  By age 62, I want to retire, and yeah, I want my money. 

[Lacarnut]

Raising the age limit is ridiculous.  By the time one is ready to collect..they would probably be dead.  Who wants to work right up until they die?  What about the golden years?

Remove spouses and children....that's what I would like...I would highly object to raising the age limit.  I've paid into SS since I was 15.  By age 62, I want to retire, and yeah, I want my money. 

If I were you, I would not like that idea either. Cutting benefits and raising taxes may be the only other solution. The system is taking a beating with 12 million people unemployed now.

[NHSparky]

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... 

How many times do I have to quote your earlier post?

Whazza matter?  Does my use of facts and logic to blow your shit out of the water leave you all butt-hurt?

Good.  Come correct next time then.

And answer my question--if military retirement pay is not an entitlement per your definition, what is it then?

[bkg]

How many times do I have to quote your earlier post?

Whazza matter?  Does my use of facts and logic to blow your shit out of the water leave you all butt-hurt?

Good.  Come correct next time then.

And answer my question--if military retirement pay is not an entitlement per your definition, what is it then?

You make me giggle. I'm still waiting for your "solution" that cuts our $13T+ debt w/o cutting entitlements. Still waiting. Have a feeling I'll be waiting a long time.. I won't hold my breath.

But fine, let's play your game. Exclude Military retirement. Now what? You okay with cutting non-military entitlements? Or are you going to argue that Social Security can't be cut? Can we cut Medicare? Or do we have to keep that as well?

How about I ask it this way: What entitlements would you allow to be cut?

[DumbAss Tanker]

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.

Yeah, but it actually was a lot more reasonable once you take into account what the historical FICA tax rate was, back in the day.  You didn't pay very much in over a long working life, and you didn't collect SS all that long -"You" being the actuarial statistic 'you' back then, not 'you' in particular now.

The whole scheme didn't really take account of increasing life expectancy or expansion of benefits very well, and reacted slowly to those increases in obligations, but ultimately the FICA tax rate ballooned to several times what it was a mere three or four decades ago, still below the power curve of the growth of program obligations, though. 

[Lacarnut]

You make me giggle. I'm still waiting for your "solution" that cuts our $13T+ debt w/o cutting entitlements. Still waiting. Have a feeling I'll be waiting a long time.. I won't hold my breath.

But fine, let's play your game. Exclude Military retirement. Now what? You okay with cutting non-military entitlements? Or are you going to argue that Social Security can't be cut? Can we cut Medicare? Or do we have to keep that as well?

How about I ask it this way: What entitlements would you allow to be cut?

I gave several suggestions. However, it look like all you want to do is argue. BTW, I would not cut military retirement or SS (the original plan without the add on for children, spouse, illegals, etc) FYI, Medicare premiums and COSTS  will go up and benefits will go down under Obamacare. 

[bkg]

I gave several suggestions. However, it look like all you want to do is argue. BTW, I would not cut military retirement or SS (the original plan without the add on for children, spouse, illegals, etc) FYI, Medicare premiums and COSTS  will go up and benefits will go down under Obamacare. 

Was'nt directed at you, Lacarnut. Was directed only at the sparkly-one.

Not cutting SS may not be an option - it's all but bankrupt.

[NHSparky]

Was'nt directed at you, Lacarnut. Was directed only at the sparkly-one.

Not cutting SS may not be an option - it's all but bankrupt.

Okay, then I'll say it.  You're just blathering on for the sake of hearing your own voice.

You can't answer my questions, you won't consider any of my answer, you just want to be a contrarian "ista" POS.

Frankly, I'd rather punch myself in the nuts than try to discuss anything with you--it would be less painful and would eventually fade away.

ETA:  You're just butt-hurt that you made an overreaching blanket statement and got caught on it.  Admit it, and we can all move on and be one big happy family, m'kay?

[rich_t]

Yeah, but it actually was a lot more reasonable once you take into account what the historical FICA tax rate was, back in the day.  You didn't pay very much in over a long working life, and you didn't collect SS all that long -"You" being the actuarial statistic 'you' back then, not 'you' in particular now.

The whole scheme didn't really take account of increasing life expectancy or expansion of benefits very well, and reacted slowly to those increases in obligations, but ultimately the FICA tax rate ballooned to several times what it was a mere three or four decades ago, still below the power curve of the growth of program obligations, though. 

True...  The SS tax was about 2% when it 1st started IIRC.  It hasn't kept up with increased life expectancy and has had a lot of "add ons" that are deducting from the over all fund as well.

[bkg]

Okay, then I'll say it.  You're just blathering on for the sake of hearing your own voice.

You can't answer my questions, you won't consider any of my answer, you just want to be a contrarian "ista" POS.

All of your questions were answered. I'm still waiting for your plan, but I'd settle for a post that was filled with somethign other than insults..

Frankly, I'd rather punch myself in the nuts than try to discuss anything with you--it would be less painful and would eventually fade away.

Awesome - use the ignore option.

ETA:  You're just butt-hurt that you made an overreaching blanket statement and got caught on it.  Admit it, and we can all move on and be one big happy family, m'kay?

Again, you make me chuckle. I said cut entitlemtns - yes. I said that. I even offered to pull all military retirement off of the table. Still waiting for you to offer a solution to cutting the debt w/o cutting entitlements.

[Hawkgirl]

Entitlements WILL have to be cut in order to bring down the deficit.  It's just a matter of which ones. 
Europe didn't go along with Lord Zero's plans to spend more money...they even said they're looking into cutting entitlements.  Pork projects also have to be nixed.

[bkg]

Entitlements WILL have to be cut in order to bring down the deficit.  It's just a matter of which ones. 
Europe didn't go along with Lord Zero's plans to spend more money...they even said they're looking into cutting entitlements.  Pork projects also have to be nixed.

You know it's a strange time when the Europeans start lecturing the USA to cut spending and entitlements... We've gone way off-course...

[Hawkgirl]

You know it's a strange time when the Europeans start lecturing the USA to cut spending and entitlements... We've gone way off-course...

Yes, and Canada was one of them, following Merkel who looked at Obama like he was an idiot when he suggested a worldwide Stimulus plan.

[Hawkgirl]

Here's more...

G-20 nations pledge to cut deficits despite Obama's push for stimulus
By Sam Youngman - 06/27/10 05:40 PM ET
 
President Barack Obama's push for continued global stimulus in light of a tenuous economic recovery was largely pushed back at the G-20 as world leaders agreed to focus on deficit reduction.

Obama and his team have repeatedly warned that while the worst of the crisis has passed, the recovery is still "uneven and fragile" and ongoing stimulus efforts are needed.



But European leaders, led largely by German Chancellor Angela Merkel, have pushed back on increased spending as deficits rage out of control.

Those European leaders appeared to win out over the weekend at the G-20 summit in Toronto as the world's leaders agreed to cut deficits in half by 2013.

LINK

[bkg]

Yes, and Canada was one of them, following Merkel who looked at Obama like he was an idiot when he suggested a worldwide Stimulus plan.

Don't worry, he'll cut the deficite in half by end of 1st term. 

At the end of the day, entitlements have to be nixed. There's no other way around it.

[formerlurker]

And even now, a freeze would still destroy the nation. Hard decisions need to be made, and the hardest one will be laying off 60% of the gov't employees while simultaniously cutting entitlments down to 1/4 of what they are today... I don't know that there is any way around these two items if we want the economy to survive.

Entitlements are not defined.    60% of the government employees?    again not defined.

Civilian employees (full and part time) -- 2,768,886
DoD  -- 1,137,568  active duty alone.

Cutting 60% of that total is 2,344,000 or so people (pretty much all of the federal civilian full time staff).   The feds being self-insured for unemployment, meaning your cost savings would be only half of their salary until they found another job.   

Yeah that is totally realistic.   I can see it happening........   

What can they do?    require a balanced budget.  Eliminate pork (line item veto).   Medicare fraud is completely out of control as it is a system run by the government.  Contract this out to people who deal with provider fraud well (private insurance carriers).   I think the amendments of bills is completely out of control, and would like to see that somewhat overhauled.    Social Security -- the political suicide discussion no one wants to have?   needs to be tackled, and I honestly don't even know where to begin that will bring the results that are tenable.   

In other words, a realistic start. 

[GOP Congress]

I'm going to ask a question related to disciplinary actions, perhaps investigation into criminal activity. Having said, earlier, that our primary focus shouldn't actually be on prosecutions at this time, especially because of the time and resources it may cost valuable time for proposing and enacting any bills, I believe that there is some merit in emotively let out some hits here.

So, what committees need to be started, what is the substantive motive behind the committees, and who are the targets of these committees?

One of many, that comes to mind is finding out where all the stimulus money went to, and what money was used to fund the 2010 election in certain Democrat, and perhaps Independent and RINO republican, races.

[Lacarnut]

: 

What can they do?    require a balanced budget.  Eliminate pork (line item veto).   Medicare fraud is completely out of control as it is a system run by the government.  Contract this out to people who deal with provider fraud well (private insurance carriers).   I think the amendments of bills is completely out of control, and would like to see that somewhat overhauled.    Social Security -- the political suicide discussion no one wants to have?   needs to be tackled, and I honestly don't even know where to begin that will bring the results that are tenable.   

In other words, a realistic start. 

I have not heard a peep from the Magic Negro about all those hundreds of millions of savings from prosecuting crooked Medicare/Medicaid doctors and health care professionals. By now the savings should be rolling in hand over fist.  I guess Holder is too busy suing BP and the state of AZ.

[formerlurker]

I'm going to ask a question related to disciplinary actions, perhaps investigation into criminal activity. Having said, earlier, that our primary focus shouldn't actually be on prosecutions at this time, especially because of the time and resources it may cost valuable time for proposing and enacting any bills, I believe that there is some merit in emotively let out some hits here.

So, what committees need to be started, what is the substantive motive behind the committees, and who are the targets of these committees?

One of many, that comes to mind is finding out where all the stimulus money went to, and what money was used to fund the 2010 election in certain Democrat, and perhaps Independent and RINO republican, races.

Committees?   Lord, no thanks.    I can do without the millions spent on political grandstanding.

Let the GAO do an accounting of stimulus funds.   The US DOE's OIG did an abbreviated version on the stimulus funds that were supposed to be spent on education -- which of course it wasn't.    They only targeted a handful of states however (MA included).

[formerlurker]

I have not heard a peep from the Magic Negro about all those hundreds of millions of savings from prosecuting crooked Medicare/Medicaid doctors and health care professionals. By now the savings should be rolling in hand over fist.  I guess Holder is too busy suing BP and the state of AZ.

Yep.   As long as the feds are running Medicare, there will always be rampant provider fraud.

[NHSparky]

True...  The SS tax was about 2% when it 1st started IIRC.  It hasn't kept up with increased life expectancy and has had a lot of "add ons" that are deducting from the over all fund as well.

Yup--1 percent each from employees and employers, and on the first $3000 of wages.

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/ProgData/taxRates.html

[NHSparky]

All of your questions were answered. I'm still waiting for your plan, but I'd settle for a post that was filled with somethign other than insults..

Awesome - use the ignore option.

Again, you make me chuckle. I said cut entitlemtns - yes. I said that. I even offered to pull all military retirement off of the table. Still waiting for you to offer a solution to cutting the debt w/o cutting entitlements.

Tell ya what--when YOU can come up with something other than, "**** everyone!" then I might give a shit what you have to say.

And as far as ignore?  Nah, you're fun to watch, in a train-wreck sort of way.  You throw shit against the wall without any realistic idea of what you're talking about. 

IOW, you sound like a ****ing Paulbot.

[bkg]

Tell ya what--when YOU can come up with something other than, "**** everyone!" then I might give a shit what you have to say.

And as far as ignore?  Nah, you're fun to watch, in a train-wreck sort of way.  You throw shit against the wall without any realistic idea of what you're talking about. 

IOW, you sound like a ****ing Paulbot.

Once again, insults and no answers. You're MO is becomming clear - you have no answers so beat your chest and demand a different answer from someone else... the "I don't have to do it - YOU do it" is immature. Please quote where I said "**** everyone."

I'm still waiting for you to tell me your plan to cut $13T in debt - it's clear you are in full-on support for gov't spending and entitlements, so where are you planning to get the savings? What is your plan for cutting gov't spending? Where are you going to get $13T? When will NHSparky make a tough decision - seems thus far you're simply not capable of ackknowledging that transfer payments are a huge issue, and only getting bigger. But in your world, we just conitnue to grow the spending.. and put your head in the sand when dealing with the economic truths?

So what's your answer?

[Eupher]

This thread ain't in FC yet?