November 27, 2010
— Open Blogger Alan Simpson(R-Balls of Steel) has been speaking bluntly about the Debt Commission.
But Simpson said that while every interest group that testified before his committee agreed that the mounting federal debt is a national tragedy, they would then talk about why government funding to their area of interest shouldn't be touched."We had the greatest generation -- I think this is the greediest generation," he said.
We are going to be hearing a lot of this when the Commission releases it's final plan. Special interest groups who want the debt cut, but howl when it is there program that is getting cut. The coming cuts are going to be painful and none of us are going to be spared, but we don't really have anymore options. The medicine always tastes terrible.
Lazy Exit Questions: Are there areas in government that you think shouldn't be cut at all? Are any of you collecting SS or will be soon and think you shouldn't have to take a hit, but the younger generations should?
Posted by: Open Blogger at
10:20 AM
| Comments (110)
Post contains 183 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: Ms Choksondik at November 27, 2010 10:25 AM (3jZ02)
Posted by: RoadRunner at November 27, 2010 10:25 AM (KOt+X)
Posted by: da kine at November 27, 2010 10:26 AM (yxTbk)
Posted by: Don at November 27, 2010 10:28 AM (RiU19)
Alan Simpson, a brand of greed you can believe in.
Posted by: Journolist at November 27, 2010 10:28 AM (LwLqV)
"Are there areas in government that you think shouldn't be cut at all?"
Nope. The only debate is how much to cut per area.
You can just give me every penny back I've had stolen from me paid into SS and not steal collect another cent.
Shoot, I'll take it back without interest.
Aw hell, just keep it and just stop stealing collecting it from me from here on out.
Posted by: Burn the Witch at November 27, 2010 10:30 AM (fLHQe)
Ideas: needs-testing Social Security, and gradually raising the age over a generation so that the payments-start age is that which corresponds to life expectancy when the program was launch--maybe 75 or 80?
Kill farm subsidies quickly.
I can't name more than ten federal programs off the top of my head; may I haz menu, please?
Posted by: ParisParamus at November 27, 2010 10:31 AM (gMzAL)
The military. Only the military. We might have to freeze them for, say, 5 years, though. Cut everything else back to 2000 levels. Make the Bush tax cuts permanent. Eliminate the Capital Gains tax, and inheritance tax, and lower the corporate tax to 1% below the Canadian and Irish taxes, whichever is lower.
Do that and wait a year to see the results. Then cut more from individual departments and programs, in a targeted fashion.
Posted by: Josef K. at November 27, 2010 10:34 AM (7+pP9)
Fuck you Simpleton, unlike yourself and a few tens of thousands like you, we actually worked for a living, and didn't receive a check signed by the federal government.
Posted by: Unclefacts, Confuse A Cat, Ltd. at November 27, 2010 10:34 AM (eCAn3)
One of the things the debt commision is looking at is the Military retirement system... they want to change it so you don't get anything until age 60.
Its interesting that they are NOT talking about the Government employee retirment system, where you CAN get retired after 30 years, and collect.
So its possible that a 30 year military retiree who entered the Service at age 18... would NOT be able to collect his retirment for the 12 years between 48 and 60... while a Government Employee who Piloted a F'n DESK... would.
Just wrong IMO.
Posted by: Romeo13 at November 27, 2010 10:36 AM (AdK6a)
I'm currently on unemployment, and it would be painful but I'd support some cuts there. Of course I'd rather have a job but none are forthcoming.
Posted by: BeckoningChasm at November 27, 2010 10:37 AM (bvfVF)
Posted by: Unclefacts, Confuse A Cat, Ltd. at November 27, 2010 10:38 AM (eCAn3)
Posted by: Romeo13 at November 27, 2010 10:39 AM (AdK6a)
I had a crazy Idea. Offer people the option to Opt out of the program if they are younger than say....(something around middle age with a sliding scale of benefits recieved on retirement based on how many years you were paying the system and a voluntary option to just say "I won't need any benefits, just keep it and leave me alone")....Many would opt out. Let people who opt out invest pre-income tax dollars in a retirement account. I'm sure I missed tons of details and nuance but I think all this crap is too nuanced already.
Posted by: Don at November 27, 2010 10:40 AM (RiU19)
Posted by: ParisParamus at November 27, 2010 10:45 AM (gMzAL)
Don't really know what to do with the ones who don't have a retirement,because they DONT have enough to save, only enough to exist on. Maybe that could be the justification for SS, the numbers sure would be less.
I agree with Josef, leave the military alone--the price isn't that great for the benefit. As for the rest, freeze spending at 2005 levels, and see where that takes us.
Posted by: irongrampa at November 27, 2010 10:45 AM (ud5dN)
Posted by: Mystery Meat at November 27, 2010 10:46 AM (9AJat)
I'm 53 and all the federal gov't has done for me (outside of defense, which I fully support), has been to give me a pain in the ass. Stories of waste and incompentence are legion, yet nothing gets done.
If the whole damn thing was cut 50%, I'd celebrate.
Posted by: HoundOfDoom at November 27, 2010 10:47 AM (CFrIf)
Posted by: Picric at November 27, 2010 10:48 AM (t95Y0)
And the REAL way to take care of this debt?
Roll back spending to 2008 levels... and then get the EPA and such out of the way so we can actually USE our resources.
We COULD grow our way out of this, but only by Cap'ing spending, then creating the conditions for growth...
Posted by: Romeo13 at November 27, 2010 10:48 AM (AdK6a)
15 Here's a start, no one who is a federal employee of any kind should be paid one thin dime more than the lowest paid serviceman or woman.
This is an unserious approach, but I guess it was meant tongue-in-cheek. How many people want to fly on a plane with ATCs who are paid that little in control? How many want to go to trial with a Federal judge who is paid that little? Do you really think that an MD at the CDC can be paid like that?
The real hard nut of the problem is to first figure out what government should be doing and then pay to get quality people to do it.
Posted by: pep at November 27, 2010 10:48 AM (PSzeI)
I think we need to just cut everyone - I'd rather not cut the military, but I could accept some cuts if it was necessary to get the rest of the cuts through. In my ideal world, we cut every department back to 2000 funding levels for next year. For every year after that, cut the funding back one more year: i.e., 2012 level is 1999, 2013 level is 1998, etc. This sends a clear signal to the Chinese and Japanese (our largest bondholders) that we are serious.
Starting in 2012 we cut or eliminate whole programs. In 2017 - after the elections - we eliminate whole departments (energy, education, etc.)
By 2020 we should be operating with a budget smaller than we had in 1975. Combine that with making the Bush tax cuts permanent, ending the capital gains and inheritance taxes and keeping the corporate tax rate below that of Canada and Ireland, and you'll see the economy come back big time.
Posted by: Josef K. at November 27, 2010 10:48 AM (7+pP9)
Posted by: jeannie at November 27, 2010 10:49 AM (lYqM/)
Posted by: SurferDoc at November 27, 2010 10:50 AM (o3bYL)
Posted by: ben at November 27, 2010 10:50 AM (9Qxlb)
Posted by: cali grump at November 27, 2010 10:50 AM (hL0k8)
Posted by: Pissed off at November 27, 2010 10:50 AM (tWO8i)
All govt pensions (local, state, federal) should be eliminated immediately, including for those who are currently getting them - that includes especially Alan Simpson himself.
Anybody who is on a public pension right should be dumped into the social security system.
The money saved from not paying all those govt leeches our hard-earned money for their fat pensions would float social security for the near term. Long term, we're all toast.
Oh, and the current number of govt employees at every level should be cut in half. And what we pay the half that's left should be half of what they are making - only exceptions are those in uniform (military, police, fire).
Posted by: Boots at November 27, 2010 10:51 AM (neKzn)
Posted by: jainphx at November 27, 2010 10:52 AM (ew5pX)
Regarding military retirement, it's a fucking insult. You don't do 20-30 years in the military and come out without any problems. Most of the guys I know who retired had fucked up backs, shoulders, knees, you name it. They can't jump straight into a lot of physical jobs, and that pension check often gives them enough cushion to cover going back to school, or taking a lower paying job that they can do. Meanwhile, my cousin's husband can retire from the police force in 20 years with 100% of his paycheck as his pension, plus perks. I would be fine with offering military retirees with 20 years of time the option to delay receiving their pension checks until 65, and allowing them to get 70% instead of 50%.
Regarding Social Security, current recipients and those 55+ should get no cuts. 45-55 should receive at 75%, 35-45 should receive at 50%, and under 35 should not expect to receive any pension. 35-55 can opt to delay receiving social security until they are 72, and will receive a 25% bump in their monthly check.
Posted by: Alex at November 27, 2010 10:53 AM (yY28H)
--Yeah, pay for our armed forces in combat.
Posted by: logprof at November 27, 2010 10:53 AM (BP6Z1)
We had, my wife and I, employer-group coverage, but with high deductibles, until I took early retirement over ten years ago. Were able to continue under COBRA until I turned 65 and went on Medicare, but my wife, a couple years younger, had to buy individual coverage and will do so for one more year. Cost is over $1,400 monthly. She enters Medicare in 12 months.
The Advantage plans are in the crosshairs, and I expect to see my costs rise dramatically soon, after 2011. If they kill it completely for me, I will buy one of the Medigap policies, probably the least expensive one, and if today's costs are a guide, can expect to pay about $200 monthly. My wife will do same.
So, we are already seeing trimming. Are we willing to endure more? Yes. How much more? We don't know.
Prior to my aging into Medicare and SS monthly income, we had about $1500 monthly in health care costs, including premiums for coverage, and our own out of pocket. We were well covered for catastrophic illness or emergency care. We had no SS income.
We were OK. Would we forego all now? Hey, maybe, if it brought back the kind of economic growth we had before.
Posted by: Sent-From-My-Commodore 64 at November 27, 2010 10:55 AM (4sQwu)
Posted by: jainphx at November 27, 2010 02:52 PM (ew5pX)
Add in the transfer of all Non Military and Non used Federal Land to STATE ownership? Especialy out West? So they can manage their OWN Resources???
Intersting question.... could a STATE use Emminent Domain, to seize unused Land from the Federal Government?
Posted by: Romeo13 at November 27, 2010 10:56 AM (AdK6a)
Posted by: jainphx at November 27, 2010 10:57 AM (ew5pX)
Posted by: cali grump at November 27, 2010 10:58 AM (hL0k8)
Posted by: Uncle Jed at November 27, 2010 10:58 AM (AOt54)
Posted by: Alex at November 27, 2010 02:53 PM (yY28H)
THIS^
We need to tinker with the age you can receive benefits, and the amount of benefits, by age. Once this is accepted, we will have turned a corner.
One other thing. We have to eliminate the SS tax. If we cut off SS for under 35s, there's no way they are going to pay the tax. We'd then, set up a system where anyone who hires or employs an over 35 worker will pay a penalty (the SS tax) for doing so. Employers would have to know the age of their employees, so they could pay SS tax, or not.
Does anyone doubt that companies would be shedding over 35 workers left and right? It is tough enough to get a job at 40 or 50 - this would make it even harder.
Whatever we do, we better think through the consequences very carefully.
Posted by: Josef K. at November 27, 2010 11:03 AM (7+pP9)
Posted by: navybrat at November 27, 2010 11:03 AM (Q+uIe)
Posted by: t-bird at November 27, 2010 11:04 AM (Pm93V)
Posted by: navybrat at November 27, 2010 11:06 AM (Q+uIe)
We are paying far too much for the real service levels we are getting.
Posted by: 18-1 at November 27, 2010 11:06 AM (bgcml)
Posted by: Comrade Arthur at November 27, 2010 11:06 AM (MX3bq)
Instituting a new tax policy is assumed. I think that most younger workers, knowing that they weren't going to be receiving SS, would demand a greater employer contribution to retirement plans, so I'm not as worried about 35+ workers getting the shaft. But yes, most of the cost would be shifted to the governments main books.
Posted by: Alex at November 27, 2010 11:08 AM (yY28H)
I got the impression Simpson was saying the younger generation of leeches on all these entitlements are the greedy ones, not the old bags.
Posted by: Soothsayer with Cranberry Sauce at November 27, 2010 11:08 AM (uFokq)
Posted by: astonerii at November 27, 2010 11:08 AM (cRQbJ)
That said, most of my generation is pretty worthless as well.
Posted by: Grayson at November 27, 2010 11:08 AM (B+sJU)
Posted by: cackfinger at November 27, 2010 11:09 AM (TUBcJ)
fuck them all.
Posted by: hueydiamondpooty at November 27, 2010 11:10 AM (qI72i)
Posted by: Josef K. at November 27, 2010 11:10 AM (7+pP9)
Posted by: Comrade Arthur at November 27, 2010 03:06 PM (MX3bq)
One of my favorite questions to ask those who wish to cut defense R&D...
"Do you really think the Japenese would have attacked Pearl Harbor, if we had already deployed the F-86 Saber Jet in 1938?"
Because that is about what we did when we cancelled the F-22.
Deterence is not cheap, but it does cost much less than the War it deters...
Posted by: Romeo13 at November 27, 2010 11:10 AM (AdK6a)
Posted by: jainphx at November 27, 2010 11:12 AM (ew5pX)
Oh God yes!
Have the government incorporate their pensions into SS....if it is good enough for everyone else...
Posted by: 18-1 at November 27, 2010 11:14 AM (bgcml)
Make the military pension system the standard. 50% at 20 years, 75% at 30 years, and 100% at 40 years of service. Go with the average salary over the final four years, and cap the yearly income to say $60k, plus adjustments for inflation, and readjust the baseline every ten years. This cuts off the high end earners, while not screwing the low end earners, and you can throw in my plan above to allow people to delay receiving their pension in exchange for a bump in the amount they receive.
Posted by: Alex at November 27, 2010 11:20 AM (yY28H)
Set them against each other.
Posted by: AmishDude at November 27, 2010 11:23 AM (BvBKY)
Posted by: eman at November 27, 2010 11:23 AM (kn74g)
I'm 38, but I think that the government should cut everything else before medicare and Social Security. I have been paying for that crap for 20 years and I won't get what I payed in, but I sure as hell don't want to take another haircut.
Everything else is special interest. I'm a geologist living in the Pac Northwest, but heck even the USGS, seismic hazard work, is more of a "special interest" than the two programs every citizen gets a cut in.
Posted by: Roy at November 27, 2010 11:27 AM (EuD1c)
Posted by: Daryl Herbert at November 27, 2010 11:27 AM (44N9a)
But that's it. If you're under 50, though some money will still be taken from your payroll (it should be reduced sharply), you will not be getting SS.
I have no idea what to say about MediCare, mostly because I haven't looked at it the way I've looked at Social Security. But admitting the bankrupt nature of Social Security and winding it up would probably be a huge savings.
Again, I emphasize that I am under 50, and I am more than willing to take the hit.
Posted by: Dianna at November 27, 2010 11:28 AM (mKMj1)
Posted by: eman at November 27, 2010 11:28 AM (kn74g)
The distinguished gentle-virus eman makes a sensible proposal.
It's sorta like attrition, which is a wonderful way of downsizing without really hurting anyone.
Posted by: Soothsayer with Cranberry Sauce at November 27, 2010 11:29 AM (uFokq)
Posted by: jainphx at November 27, 2010 11:29 AM (ew5pX)
Posted by: John Skookum at November 27, 2010 11:41 AM (4Gvu1)
Posted by: jainphx at November 27, 2010 11:41 AM (ew5pX)
Stop subsidizing my losses through bailouts and tax write offs(rewarding me for fucking up).
Stop trying to use taxation and subsidy and price controls to direct my activities towards whatever stupid fad you've been conned into thinking is "settled science" this week.
Stop running things that don't need you to run them or even be involved wit them.
Stop running the health care system. Stop trying to vastly expand the part of the health system that you run. Stop trying to sign me up for a badly disguised privately run global taxing initiative, created by dishonest authoritarian whack jobs, who insist that computer models, that can't predict current events from past data, and a corrupted peer review process, somehow PROVE beyond any possible doubt, that CO2 is a massive immediate threat to human life, that justifies almost ANY and EVERY political initiative.
Stop trying to govern at a national level where and when any and all stuff like land use and maintenance, water pumping, and energy production occurs and using small local arthropods or unsupported theories about where owls will and will not roost to do so.
Stop using the food market to produce energy.
Stop trying to mandate the pace of technology development and adoption.
Stop ignoring nuclear power as a solution to clean energy.
DEAL with your own fucking border. Learn to tell over the line basket case neighbors like Mexico "Fuck you! Either solve you own problems or throw away your sovereignty and ask for emergency restructuring help, and GET YOUR DAMNED HAND OFF OF MY TITS because THEY ARE NOT YOUR TITS and WAKE UP because in case you haven't worked it out, I CAN PUNCH WAY THE HELL GODDAMN HARDER than YOU CAN. "
That ought to lower spending very quickly.
OMG You literally write ever goddamn thing i was thinking including I CAN PUNCH HARDER THAN YOU CAN. except maybe DONT MAKE MY MAN TEACH YOU HOW TO DO IT RIGHT.
I am laughing so hard i nearly spit coffee on my keyboard.
failing this plan, Im with Ryan. And im handicapped and likely to take some discomfort here and there but it sure beats the US collapsing.
Posted by: Gushka at November 27, 2010 11:46 AM (93zw2)
What gets my cackles up is how each department expands their charter into areas that have nothing to do with the intent of their department, or are expanded by Congress into areas not within their charter. That includes the DoD. So much money is doled out by special appropriations that it bloats that department's budget and, in addition, creates a distraction from that department's primary mission. I had to deal with that kind of crap in the military myself.
If I were President I would have every person in every section, every section in every office, every office in every agency, every agency in every bureau, every bureau in every service, and every service in every department justify their existance according to the Constitution, according to statute, according to regulation and according to usefulness. If they cannot justify all four requirements for existance they would be submitted to Congress for deactivation (just like military units are) and defunding.
Posted by: Minuteman at November 27, 2010 11:48 AM (502+o)
Right. Because all Ponzi schemes rely on recruiting a fresh crop of suckers.
Posted by: Andy at November 27, 2010 11:49 AM (Gcnuc)
Posted by: eman at November 27, 2010 11:53 AM (kn74g)
Posted by: jainphx at November 27, 2010 11:55 AM (ew5pX)
So, step one, on day one, to do everything possible to defund ObamaoCare. I'm not even sure how that can be done, but it needs to be done. There can't be any doubt in anyone's mind that ObamaoCare will be a footnote, inoperative, rump piece of legislation.
Posted by: ParisParamus at November 27, 2010 11:56 AM (gMzAL)
Posted by: av at November 27, 2010 11:57 AM (uCXFC)
The areas where the government is actually doing its constitutional duties efficiently and in a cost effective manner.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at November 27, 2010 11:59 AM (61b7k)
Posted by: Minuteman at November 27, 2010 12:05 PM (502+o)
In other words cut it all. Cut spending, cut taxes, then cut spending again.
Posted by: John Galt at November 27, 2010 12:06 PM (NLWij)
No, the military should lead the way in cuts. To paraphrase Samuel Johnson, the prospect of being hanged focuses a man's mind wonderfully. As the military knows, you don't get real results unless you push hard for them. If the Defense Dept can't identify a mere 5% slice of their combined budget to cut without compromising national security, then, frankly, they're just not trying.
I'm a strong believer in defense, but this isn't 1938, and we haven't been starving the military for the last couple decades. The substantial wide-ranging spending decreases we need will never happen until the armed forces budget is also on the table. Call it politics if you want, but it's the cold reality.
Posted by: GalosGann at November 27, 2010 12:10 PM (evvN+)
Example plan: "The X Department is going to have a 10% cut in payroll for non-field-agents in every year we project or have a budget shortfall. You can personally receive your non-cut pay this year if you personally fire a non-field agent."
Posted by: Al at November 27, 2010 12:10 PM (MzQOZ)
Posted by: eman at November 27, 2010 12:13 PM (kn74g)
I'd still be up for benefit cuts except for one small thing: There will be no "shared sacrifice". The flaming bastards in Washington will keep getting fatter while the senior citizens starve or are condemned to death by the "death panels". "Too old to pay taxes to your betters in Washington? Then just die, scum."
When the a$$holes in Washington give up some of their pie, I'll give up some of mine. But they will never be willing to do that until there is absolutely no other option except their deaths.
Until then, F- them.
Posted by: GaryS at November 27, 2010 12:34 PM (WFVmk)
Posted by: railwriter at November 27, 2010 12:36 PM (WovsE)
I'm one of those dirty rotten senior citizens that everyone likes to curse. Thing is, I'll be 71 in a couple of weeks and I'm still working and paying SS. And I've been paying into the SS for 56 years, at or near the maximum for most of the last 25 years.
I'd still be up for benefit cuts except for one small thing: There will be no "shared sacrifice". The flaming bastards in Washington will keep getting fatter while the senior citizens starve or are condemned to death by the "death panels". "Too old to pay taxes to your betters in Washington? Then just die, scum."
When the a$$holes in Washington give up some of their pie, I'll give up some of mine. But they will never be willing to do that until there is absolutely no other option except their deaths.
Until then, F- them.
I'm not cursing you, please don't take it that way. However, I am making the point that every keeps yelling "make cuts" but when it comes to their program, well, it's too important.
I agree with Ace's theory that we cut EVERYTHING else first, and then and only then, make some reforms to social security.
It needs to be an all of the above proposition.
I don't fault you for taking social security, you did pay into it your whole life and you didn't have an option. However, you do have to keep in mind that people my age will pay into it our entire lives as well, but we're probably not going to get anything back.
Posted by: Ben at November 27, 2010 12:53 PM (DKV43)
I just think we need to really change the mentality that Social Security is a retirement plan. It's isn't. It was never meant that way. It was meant to suppliment your retirement. You should be able to retire comfortably without Social Security. Too many people retire with no savings and then become wholly dependent on social security. That is a problem. Even FDR didn't intend for it to become what it is now. The age set for collection was above the life expectancy back then.
Posted by: Ben at November 27, 2010 12:57 PM (DKV43)
Posted by: CoolCzech at November 27, 2010 01:06 PM (tJjm/)
Raise the SS collection age by 1 month per year until it matches new life expectancies. Then index it.
Start offering younger workers the option to opt out of part of their payments and invest in private retirement accounts instead.
But first, before we spread the misery ... everyone employed by the federal government takes a haircut.
They've had it best, so they lead the way in the "shared sacrifice."
No more guaranteed pensions. Fuck that. I lost mine in 2007. Do a 401k like the rest of us.
Congress takes a 25% pay cut and loses their lifetime health care bennies and fat pensions.
Everyone starts living under the same rules.
And government unions get outlawed. You're here to serve us, bitches. If you don't like the idea of public service then GTFO and make it on your own in the private sector.
Posted by: Warden at November 27, 2010 01:18 PM (V6HDd)
That was before Hope & Change came to America. Thanks to Barry Hussein Soetoro Obamadinijad I no longer have the maximum amount stolen from me each year.
I guess there's a silver lining in everything if you look hard enough.
Posted by: TexBob at November 27, 2010 01:22 PM (7cXE7)
That's got my vote. I'm not the smartest person around and I don't have much idea how the whole thing works, but I do know that the large majority of the farmers I know have teenagers who drive better cars than I do. Poor farmers, my butt.
Posted by: katya, the designated driver at November 27, 2010 01:22 PM (HI9xm)
I agree with Truman North (comment 1). This medicine is only taken voluntarily when it is taken at gun point.
Place scare quotes around either or both "voluntarily" or "gun point".
Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie at November 27, 2010 01:31 PM (NKiqb)
Posted by: CoolCzech at November 27, 2010 01:37 PM (tJjm/)
Neither one is actually performing a truly federal function.
Posted by: Michael at November 27, 2010 01:46 PM (JtKsy)
Posted by: Anachronda 6 at November 27, 2010 01:46 PM (6fER6)
Means test for SS recipients. It has to be done.
Posted by: vagabond trader at November 27, 2010 02:11 PM (0Ygm5)
Make the military pension system the standard. 50% at 20 years, 75% at 30 years, and 100% at 40 years of service....
Posted by: Alex at November 27, 2010 03:20 PM (yY28H)
Sounds good to me. As a federal agent, my pension after 25 years will be @34%, 39% after 30 years, but I must have done something wrong, because I keep reading about the unbelievable government pensions.
Posted by: elliot at November 27, 2010 02:13 PM (AtROK)
Posted by: railwriter at November 27, 2010 02:21 PM (WovsE)
Posted by: sum-yun guy at November 27, 2010 02:26 PM (HwdLC)
Welcome to our website
===== http://www.1shopping.us/ =======
accept paypal and free shipping
We need your support and trust!!!
Dear friends, please temporarily stop your footsteps
To our website Walk around A look at
Maybe you'll find happiness in your sight shopping heaven and earth
You'll find our price is more suitable for you.
And we shall be offer you free gift about MP4 if you more order.
===== http://www.1shopping.us/ ========
Posted by: xixi at November 27, 2010 02:47 PM (TrVxe)
Posted by: Huggy at November 27, 2010 03:00 PM (Cc08U)
Dude: Alan Simpson was in the US Senate for what 20 years or so while it, the House and whoever was president looted the social security fund.
1- why did they even ask this old crotchety bastard to be on this sham commission? Because he had an R after his name that is why.
2- He and many other long serving Congress critters should be defendants in front of afederal grand jury probing him like a TSA agent to find out why he thought stealing soc sec funds and using for welfare, Dept of Educa, Energy etc was OK.
3- I am 58 years old and have paid in over $350K in last 35 years. I want them to grant freedom to everyone under 45 to put half of their money in a private account.
4- Yes fixing the theivery will take a tax increase. BUT they must fix this PONZI scheme so it does not happen again in 30 years. And yes soc sec is a PONZI scheme when they take my money and give it to some retiree.
Everyone needs to wake up. Make this and medicare solvent even if they have to scrap most of the other federal handout departments like educ, energy, welfare, school lunches, commerce dept, HUD, foreign aid, etc.
I
Posted by: AJ Lynch at November 27, 2010 03:06 PM (0laTV)
Posted by: arnonerik at November 27, 2010 04:38 PM (mmI0p)
Posted by: jainphx at November 27, 2010 04:42 PM (ew5pX)
Alan Simpson opinions are like assholes. He is one.
Posted by: kansas at November 27, 2010 05:17 PM (2/XJV)
Posted by: Fiftycal at November 27, 2010 07:27 PM (Deems)
Posted by: sexypig at November 27, 2010 07:54 PM (1o1/F)
Posted by: Steve In Tulsa at November 28, 2010 05:20 AM (f7ylG)
Al Simpson's remarks are merely the 2nd salvo at seniors, the theft of Medicare Funds under the guise of insuring the uninsured (illegal aliens) was the first!
Posted by: dscott at November 28, 2010 06:30 AM (gaD9p)
"I'm not saying the government ain't too big - I say we need to ditch BOTH DoE's - but going after federal employee compensation is barking up the wrong tree, for the most part. You get what you pay for."
Coolczech,
I'm a gov't employee making close to 100K, but I work my ass off for it. I work with a couple of other people who do the same. The biggest problem, and the way to cut gov't spending on employee salaries, is that there are a significant number of useless morons that are protected by the unions that drag the rest of us down. You could pay me twice my current salary, and still save a LOT of money by getting rid of the asswipes that don't do anything or are incompetent. In fact, my job would become a whole lot easier and I could get more done if it wasn't for them.
What's that old rule? 20% of the people do 80% of the work? Well, when it comes to government employees, I think we should pay the 20% a little bit more, but get rid of the 80% that aren't earning their pay.
Posted by: Former Lurker at November 28, 2010 09:39 AM (ZOl9N)
Posted by: pd at November 28, 2010 04:05 PM (ZR8/4)
Posted by: pd at November 28, 2010 04:07 PM (ZR8/4)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.3054 seconds, 238 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.








Posted by: Truman North at November 27, 2010 10:24 AM (HLGCA)