snarking.slug 1 day ago
Beginning late 2007 through 2009 our economy shrank. Credit markets closed. Working class consumers, who had been living off of credit instead of wage increases, lost access to credit. Their homes, the most often used source of collateral, began to lose value rather than produce double digit increases in equity, every year. When consumers started defaulting on loans, the banks turned to their hedge investments. Those insurance policies had been collateralized, too. Our largest banks became insolvent.
The government stepped in and propped up the banks. The government was on the hook for consumers' deposits due to FDIC and other mandated insurance agencies. They were some money up front so the entire system didn't crash (if depositors couldn't get to their money, all was lost.).
Smaller banks were bought by the insolvent big banks, so the banking infrastructure shrank. The labor infrastructure hasn't shrunk. The worker still needs to earn a weekly paycheck to pay the bills.
If we begin "right sizing" and cutting spending, who feels the pain? Why are the workers the losers (while the bankers profit at every point)?
The government stepped in and propped up the banks. The government was on the hook for consumers' deposits due to FDIC and other mandated insurance agencies. They were some money up front so the entire system didn't crash (if depositors couldn't get to their money, all was lost.).
Smaller banks were bought by the insolvent big banks, so the banking infrastructure shrank. The labor infrastructure hasn't shrunk. The worker still needs to earn a weekly paycheck to pay the bills.
If we begin "right sizing" and cutting spending, who feels the pain? Why are the workers the losers (while the bankers profit at every point)?
snarking.slug 1 day ago
We often here, cut social programs because we can't afford them. Why start there? What did the workers do that earned that pain? What did average Americans do to earn this debt? Why do we look to the ordinary citizen?
Why should we take it lying down?
Why should we take it lying down?
TheScott 1 day ago
+4 Votes
I don't know that I have heard a ground swell of disapproval from democrats in specific and Americans across the board telling Obama DIRECTLY..... either clean up the banks and jail some felons or you won't get re-elected. I haven't heard a very large voice about the FDIC continually failing banks, even today, that are 30 and 40 % underwater. The FDIC mandate is swift action and that means monitoring a bank that is sick by 3%.... not 40%. If the people will not hold their elected officials to fix the problems and stick to the rule of law, the only way to deal with the debt is to get it from the people who, apparently, don't care....
I know that is a simple and pointed reply but it is the effect of not holding the feet of your representatives to the fire...(I am not pointing the finger at people of either party as both are to blame) What I hear from the left is that they hold the Presidents accountable for his promises on Gay Rights... best take care of law and order first. less
I know that is a simple and pointed reply but it is the effect of not holding the feet of your representatives to the fire...(I am not pointing the finger at people of either party as both are to blame) What I hear from the left is that they hold the Presidents accountable for his promises on Gay Rights... best take care of law and order first. less
snarking.slug 1 day ago
+3 Votes
Points all well taken.
As an electorate, we're acting like enablers. We won't address the big problem, in the room. Democrats don't want to be critical because Republicans are nothing but critical.
The status quo isn't a sane option. Romney has demonstrated that he solves problems by spending other people's money. Obama has done the same. How can expect them to govern by any other principle?
We have to make money, in politics, poison. Take money and risk re-election. Take money and risk ever getting elected. We have that power. By choosing Democrat or Republican, we're enabling some very sick people to continue doing what they've been doing for over 150 years.
As an electorate, we're acting like enablers. We won't address the big problem, in the room. Democrats don't want to be critical because Republicans are nothing but critical.
The status quo isn't a sane option. Romney has demonstrated that he solves problems by spending other people's money. Obama has done the same. How can expect them to govern by any other principle?
We have to make money, in politics, poison. Take money and risk re-election. Take money and risk ever getting elected. We have that power. By choosing Democrat or Republican, we're enabling some very sick people to continue doing what they've been doing for over 150 years.
Rumpled 22 hours ago
+3 Votes
Snark:
By now you already know that I won't vote for either of 'em in national / federal elections -- they are the problem and have been for years -- Whigs finally went away when voters finally quit voting for 'em.
BTW: nobody cares about working stiffs -- they just want:
(1) to fleece / live off their toil and debt enslavement
(2) for working class kids to fight their wars
(3) to operate a 'for profit' justice system off them
Anybody that matters that wants to rock the boat gets the Spitzer or Kennedy treatment -- Cesar Chavez was wise to get off the streets move into a less vulnerable guarded secure compound at Keene, Calif.
By now you already know that I won't vote for either of 'em in national / federal elections -- they are the problem and have been for years -- Whigs finally went away when voters finally quit voting for 'em.
BTW: nobody cares about working stiffs -- they just want:
(1) to fleece / live off their toil and debt enslavement
(2) for working class kids to fight their wars
(3) to operate a 'for profit' justice system off them
Anybody that matters that wants to rock the boat gets the Spitzer or Kennedy treatment -- Cesar Chavez was wise to get off the streets move into a less vulnerable guarded secure compound at Keene, Calif.
louman 1 day ago
+4 Votes
gottaloveit 1 day ago
+5 Votes
http://www.wheredidmytaxdollarsgo.com/tax_payers
Income security.
S.S.
Medicare
Net interest.
National defense.
All of the above need severe reforms.
Income security.
S.S.
Medicare
Net interest.
National defense.
All of the above need severe reforms.
Maxyasgur 1 day ago
+2 Votes
Be honest gotta, by reform you mean cut, and likely, cut very deeply. Inherent in your comment, I see an attitude I'm sure you will say is not there, that attitude is called, "Not My Problem". At whatever age you are right now, you probably assume you will never make an investment mistake, you will never be seriously injured and unable to work at that no matter what, you will have no need for those hated social programs that are robbing you money you could invest now at 90% gains.
Maxyasgur 1 day ago
+2 Votes
SS- perhaps one of the most hated programs out there. Suppose we take it away or drastically cut benefits. Have you remote thought about what that means 30 years from now? The generation that you and I belong to has drastically seen it's earning power evaporate. What are we going to say 30 years from now when these people don't have enough to live on? The answer of course will be, Not My Problem. You should have saved and invested better because if you are broke, you were obviously lazy.
Maxyasgur 1 day ago
+1 Vote
Medicare- Something that makes me bitter is that while people are employed and paying into the for profit system of health insurance companies, they are at their healthiest points. When they are no longer working and incurring the most costs, their healthcare costs are dumped on the taxpayer. This is only one of the many problems with insurance today. What the people who hate this system believe is again, Not My Problem. Or, the next best alternative which is to say just go to the emergency room and dump the cost on the states just so it's off the federal tax system.
snarking.slug 1 day ago
+1 Vote
We've had two wars (for over 10 years, for one of them) OFF BUDGET!!!!!
There is no peace dividend coming their way.
If we add the tax cuts given the wealthy, yes, a lot of "spending" has been done on the wealthy. Yes, we get to count the cuts. I'm leveraging Reagan's own model on defense spending. His DOD said that if we fail to INCREASE defense spending, as planned, we were UNILATERALLY disarming. So, yes. planned expenditures are part of government. Planned revenues are part of government, too. Cutting the taxes, already on the books is equal to spending.
There is no peace dividend coming their way.
If we add the tax cuts given the wealthy, yes, a lot of "spending" has been done on the wealthy. Yes, we get to count the cuts. I'm leveraging Reagan's own model on defense spending. His DOD said that if we fail to INCREASE defense spending, as planned, we were UNILATERALLY disarming. So, yes. planned expenditures are part of government. Planned revenues are part of government, too. Cutting the taxes, already on the books is equal to spending.
snarking.slug 1 day ago
SS also puts money in the pockets of retired folks. They'll spend it. They can't take it with them. They have to draw down 401Ks, too.
Medicare is built into most retirement plans. If it ends, do I (I'm nearly 50) have enough time to earn enough money to cover the costs not covered by the Ryan plan's voucher? That is a game changer. A voucher will be HUGELY inflationary. Medicare caps costs (as much as it can).
Medicare is built into most retirement plans. If it ends, do I (I'm nearly 50) have enough time to earn enough money to cover the costs not covered by the Ryan plan's voucher? That is a game changer. A voucher will be HUGELY inflationary. Medicare caps costs (as much as it can).
gottaloveit 22 hours ago
+4 Votes
Max,
No, not end, but true reform. We do not need military bases all over the World either. Everything is going to have be downsized and I would even consider raising the cap on S.S. contributions for higher earners. Pretty much the rest has to go except for the poorest of the poor.
No, not end, but true reform. We do not need military bases all over the World either. Everything is going to have be downsized and I would even consider raising the cap on S.S. contributions for higher earners. Pretty much the rest has to go except for the poorest of the poor.
louman 1 day ago
+4 Votes
Max,
The point is, we can no longer afford the current spending on entitlements. We will need to address the issues sooner or later as they consume more and more of our tax dollars. Notice I didn't say revenue as that is what is earned. We both know government earns nothing.
I regress, Social Security, raise the tax? Lift the cap? Means testing?
Medicare, same issues.
Medicaid. It's not as bad as the states fund 40% of medicaid. It will need to be addressed if O care is left to stand by the Supreme Court. Can't add million to the rolls without an impact to the states. Little thing ignored and dumped on the states. Higher state taxes? Reduced services? Reduced state contributions to the school systems?
Where we go with all of the above will determine the course of the nation. Reform or tax, neither is pretty but to preserve the programs, no other choices.less
The point is, we can no longer afford the current spending on entitlements. We will need to address the issues sooner or later as they consume more and more of our tax dollars. Notice I didn't say revenue as that is what is earned. We both know government earns nothing.
I regress, Social Security, raise the tax? Lift the cap? Means testing?
Medicare, same issues.
Medicaid. It's not as bad as the states fund 40% of medicaid. It will need to be addressed if O care is left to stand by the Supreme Court. Can't add million to the rolls without an impact to the states. Little thing ignored and dumped on the states. Higher state taxes? Reduced services? Reduced state contributions to the school systems?
Where we go with all of the above will determine the course of the nation. Reform or tax, neither is pretty but to preserve the programs, no other choices.less
Maxyasgur 18 hours ago
The reason I don't agree with the belief we can't afford it is because there are no honest discussions about what do we want and can we make that work. For you and gotta here, perhaps there is an admission that removing the system entirely is not the way to go. For people like Paul Ryan, I make no such assumption. We aren't being given choices of what else we can cut to keep SS and Medicare, so the end result is, we've got to cut spending to THESE programs because we can't afford them. Show me cuts in farm subsidies, cuts in military spending, closes in loopholes for corporate taxes and then I might buy the argument. What I see in this argument is that we can't afford what helps people, but we can afford subsidies that help corporations.
snarking.slug 12 minutes ago
SS, include more income as subject to the tax. President Reagan commissioned Alan Greenspan to devise a solution for SS. He submitted a plan that taxed approx 90% of all income. Since then, the income has been reassigned to the top wage earners. Because SS tax only affects the first $110K (that's near where the number is now), any money that is earned over $110K isn't subject to the tax. As a result we've stopped taxing nearly 9% of the nation's income.
A conservative solution would be to raise the bar to include 90% of the nation's income, just like Greenspan and Reagan did. That makes the program self sustaining for many years to come.
A conservative solution would be to raise the bar to include 90% of the nation's income, just like Greenspan and Reagan did. That makes the program self sustaining for many years to come.
louman 1 minute ago
snark,
A band aid at best. Raising the bar is great the only problem is that it will hit employers for half the tax. Maybe raise the limits over 10 years. Yes, that will affect the small business person. Especially high tech earners as they tend to make more. That will curtail hiring a bit. Means testing. Someone is frugal, saved, lived a frugal life style to be told to bad, no SS for you while the grass hoppers dance on.
A band aid at best. Raising the bar is great the only problem is that it will hit employers for half the tax. Maybe raise the limits over 10 years. Yes, that will affect the small business person. Especially high tech earners as they tend to make more. That will curtail hiring a bit. Means testing. Someone is frugal, saved, lived a frugal life style to be told to bad, no SS for you while the grass hoppers dance on.
Twinsdad 22 hours ago
+2 Votes
Perhaps the approach to "cutting" should be a tad different. I, for one am tired of us policing and saving the entire planet, all its religions and all of its leaders. We need to close all our military bases execpt the main transportation hubs (cut way back on the staff of these bases) and only continue meddling in the Middle East (as an observer i.e. actual naval presense) and maintain our presense in the Korea conflict.
We, in five years time could save 1/2 trilion or more, if we scaled back the head count of our military. Next "We" need to stop robbing the entitlements, they need to left alone.
So, we, in 10 years time could balance the budget and fund the entitlemts if... if we shrink the military AND leave the United Nations.
We cannot afford to fund the U.N. any longer less
We, in five years time could save 1/2 trilion or more, if we scaled back the head count of our military. Next "We" need to stop robbing the entitlements, they need to left alone.
So, we, in 10 years time could balance the budget and fund the entitlemts if... if we shrink the military AND leave the United Nations.
We cannot afford to fund the U.N. any longer less
Maxyasgur 18 hours ago
+3 Votes
On the military, I am in full agreement with all of you. We have way too many troops protecting empire.
LiveStrongest 8 minutes ago
Our Debt is so massive that we need to cut spending in all areas and tax those that work but pay no Federal income tax. Start at 5%.
louman 25 minutes ago
Only when we go over the cliff (think Greece) will the leaders in Washington figure that out.
No comments:
Post a Comment