1 No way I'm giving up my social security.  It is literally my money.  It's sitting in a lock-box somewhere.  Piles of 10s and 20s.  Al Gore has the key.

2 This whole idea that young folks are paying in to fund my retirement is bull.  I funded it, at a rate of $0.20 per week, for 38 years.  Don't ask me how it became $900 a month in perpetuity.  It's literally the same money.

3 Good.  Even if it's 80% symbolic, it's 20% not, and we need to start somewhere.

4

And furthermore, I don't think that the young folks' ability to get a tattoo, drink the Exctasy and get hopped up on goofballs in some sex dungeon is something that America should get into.  I was in the War, you know.

5 Klein is wrong. If they really thought this would appease the masses then they would have saved it and made it some sort of grand jester for Boehner and McConnell  to roll out in January.  Instead this is to buy them the time they need to do some real cutting. Without it people would be breathing down their necks from day one. You got till October and the new budget guys. Use the time wisely.

6 Do you see these 20-pack cartons of paper towels?  I would have to buy four a month instead of my usual 8.  And storing them in those self-storage lots isn't cheap, you know.  I would normally just put them in the closet, but it's been filled up by old shoes and balls of string I've been saving.  You know, just in case.  You never know.  And get your filthy hands off the money that I legally paid into the system set up by FDR for people just like me!

7 Making it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing.  Thanks, Milton Friedman!

8 Amending IRA's to allow a vastly increased deposit limit - with a "small fee" combined with a similar reduction on that specific individual's  eventual payout does two things.

One: The fee/tax would be going into fixing the -current- problems.

Two: The reduction in payout will (sloowly) depower the third rail entirely.

9 I earned the right to chain-smoke in the Indian casino!  I lived through the Depression!  I was in the War!!!  If anything, they should increase Social Security so I can play longer.  These slot machines don't feed themselves, you know.

10 gesture not jester..damn spell check.

11 Newt Gingrich wants me to eat cat food and die!!

12 For most older folks messing with SS is political suicide for anyone who goes there without some iron clad grandfather clauses in any changes, so I suspect we won't see much SS reform for anyone older than 40.  But for folks younger than that, look out for big changes in retirement ages and even bigger witholdings from paychecks.

13 Congressional Earmark Theater

Jim Inhofe, looking out the window at pitchfork-toting hordes, turns to Mitch McConnell and says, "looks like we're surrounded."

McConnell replies, "what do you mean 'we,' Jim"?

fin

14 Sorry, Mistah Kotter

15 Spending reduction isn't the only argument against earmarks, nor is it the best one.  The most important argument, in my humble opinion, are how toxic earmarks are to the process.  The smokey-backroom-dealing they enable results in a lot of really bad legislation getting passed. 

16 A necessary corollary to this process will be to lose tremulous weaklings and accomodationists like the Turkey Wattle, he of FristLottian Might

17 >>>But for folks younger than that, look out for big changes in retirement ages and even bigger witholdings from paychecks. Changing the age at which they get benefits, or reducing their benefits, doesn't help all that much. they're not the problem. The problem is the current crop of boomers about to go into retirement, because there is such a big population bulge. The problem comes in the next thirty years. Tinkering around with 30 year olds' beneifts (which come thirty five years out) is no solution. Hiking their taxes, sure! But I don't know if they're going to go for that.

18

The very fact that we've spent so much time and energy arguing over earmarks, a $15B droplet inside a $4T budget, is strong evidence that the TEA movement is already losing, and the 112th Congress will be much like the ones that have come before it.

Fuck earmarks.  Literally fuck the whole topic.  It's fluff.  It's arguing over how mnay angels can dance on the head of a pin while Mohommed is chopping off your heads.

Either you go straight for the throat, or we're not going to get anywhere. 

Look at the 111th Congress.  They passed the Obama slush fund on like January 22nd.  If we're not going to gut the federal government in January, then we've already lost the initiative.

19 I think we're overlooking a really obvious solution: make Monopoly money legal tender.

20

The problem with earmarks is not that they cost too much in and of themselves, but they are used as bribes for Congressmen to sign on to much bigger projects.

Without the Cornhusker Kickback and the Louisiana Purchase, Obamacare would never have happened.  Multiply that by 100 for all the wretched spending bills that get through Congress.

As far as the symbolic stuff -- Corporation for Public Broadcasting, National Endowment for the Arts -- cut that too.  Just because it's pennies doesn't mean it shouldn't be cut.  In fact, if the best argument is that it's too miniscule, then it shouldn't have been in the budget in the first place.  Moreover, lots of stuff is justified by comparison.  "We have X, why not Y?"  Cut it all.

21 I am against doing away with the frivolous honorary resolutions though...at least until  after Love a Moron Month.

22 19 I think we're overlooking a really obvious solution: make Monopoly money legal tender.   Sounds like a lot of work.  We'd have to keep printing it and printing it.  Better idea:  Make leaves legal tender.  That way, nobody can use the argument about money growing on trees anymore.

23 @12 - You may well be right, but, as Ace stated, seniors Certainly won't accept any cuts to their current (or soon-to-be) benefits unless we've slashed everything else we can first.

Some of the ones currently on SS might allow for Defense to be cut after their SS benes, but the Baby Boomers probably won't.  They're just not as fond of the military.

And, Ace is also right that you have to start at the easy stuff first- for lots of reasons.

I think the world may end.  Ace was right about (at least) two things in the same post.  Hurry, Ace!  Double post this or Armageddon will begin at midnight!

24 Newt Gingrich wants me to eat cat food and die!!

Posted by: Epstein's Mom at November 15, 2010 05:04 PM (G5JPI)

Ah think yer gonna lahkitt!

25 You have to hike the ages now for the Boomers. If they are going to be the biggest hit against it they should pay into it the longest. I'm 46 BTW. I already know how completely screwed I am.

26 I think we're overlooking a really obvious solution: make Monopoly money legal tender.

I like the cut of your jib.

27 It is one thing to muster the courage to vote against something unpopular, and "earmarks" have been demonized because abuse of them became so rampant.  There are no organized constituencies advocating for generic earmarking, so it is easy to vote for the meaningless symbolism of banning them.

There will be well-organized and well-funded constituencies fighting against any real cuts, though, bet on it.  And a lot of people will cave, relying on this vote to save their butts.

And because voters are basically stupid - they only recently elected Obama and kept Democrats in control of Congress from '06 - the symbolism will be enough for some of  those who will rely upon it.

28 This is the natural way to attack a big problem: Easiest stuff first, somewhat harder stuff next, hard stuff next, forbiddingly hard stuff last.

Discipline means doing the shit you least want to do first.  Make those big draconian cuts up front and save PBS for dessert.

29 >>>Either you go straight for the throat, or we're not going to get anywhere. I disagree. A dog doesn't go right for the throat. First it goes for an arm, or knocks you down. Only when you're in a bad position does it go for the throat. The "Go For the Throat" solution -- that is, take care of entitlements first -- i find to be a silly non-solution. 1. It won't happen. So demanding we do entitlement first is just a give-up in the first place. 2. It *sweetly avoids* the issue of cutting everything else, because, hey, if we could just have the fantasy solution of fucking over seniors as hard as possible we wouldn't have to cut anything else. Well, I want to cut other stuff ANYWAY. So I do want to get to that stuff. Even if I could magically just take this all out of the hides of seniors, I wouldn't want to -- I'd want to put that off so I could take care of the smaller stuff first. To make sure it IS taken care of.

30 >>>You have to hike the ages now for the Boomers. If they are going to be the biggest hit against it they should pay into it the longest. I'm 46 BTW. I already know how completely screwed I am. Yup. "Now" or "within four years" being the important terms.

31 Truman's got it. Look at the big numbers and work your way backwards. Rescind Ogabe's agenda in reverse order. Because trillionz is bigger than billionz.

32

21 I am against doing away with the frivolous honorary resolutions though...at least until  after Love a Moron Month.

Me too.  Hey, when you're thinking of poassing a real law, pass a resolution instead.

33 This is actually sort of an opportunity for people who like a smaller, more traditionally-within-constiutional-bounds government. People were fine about ignoring the prudence of growing the government into a behemoth when it seemed cost-free to do so. Well, now it's not cost-free. Now's the time to focus people's mind on this issue and get them to make some decisions they've avoided making.

34 Posted by: Truman North at November 15, 2010 05:08 PM (G5JPI)

I've gotta say I disagree.

Oh, in the medium-long run, earmarks don't matter, but they're a huge psychological win.

It's not a one-to-one or anything, but take a look at Dave Ramsey's books, or listen to his radio show a couple of times.  He makes a big deal about paying off your smallest debts first.  This does a couple of things: it frees up money NOW (or, at least, very quickly) to help pay off further debt, AND it's a huge "pick me up" when you're tired of eating Ramen- again- because you're not putting anything new on credit.

We'll, we're kind of in that spot, as a nation.  We need to go on the Mac&Cheese/Ramen Noodle diet.  To make that palatable, we need immediate, visible wins so that we can stomach the fifth helping of ramen in seven days...

35 I agree with Ace.  It's the frog in the pot.  Cut CPB and NEA and just ratchet it up.  Because if the all or nothing approach fails, we are screwed.  If you cut the fat, it's gone for good, the problem is that these small things get their hooks in and we can never get them out.

36 >>> Truman's got it. Look at the big numbers and work your way backwards. Rescind Ogabe's agenda in reverse order. Because trillionz is bigger than billionz. This is what I meant in my "Consider, second:" paragraph: The large number of people who are cocooning themselves with a comforting fiction that our problems can be fixed just be repealing 'Ogabe's agenda." Actually, t-bird, this has been a time-bomb that has been coming for 30 years now. "Ogabe" did not create the demographic imbalance in SS and Medicare. Yes, we do have to repeal "Ogabe's" agenda -- and that is the stuff I call "The easy stuff." That is first step stuff. I agree it needs to be done. Hopefully once it is done you will open your mind to the possibility that much more needs to be done than *just* that.

37 Not so fast on that, I think. Consider: It is natural that before we get to the tough stuff (and after that-- the really tough stuff) we have to get to the easy stuff, right? Oh for sweet fuck's sake, of course. This is elementary. If the beltway fossils like McConnell cannot lift their dicks a millimeter on earmarks, then we're wasting our time. Can't have it both ways; one cannot argue "Earmarks are a tiny part of the budget with no repercussions!" and then say "So leave earmarks alone!" It would be like saying "Bob's problem is drinking; so don't complain when he drinks beer, it has far less alcohol than Val-U-Rite." Not that actual drinking could ever be a problem. Any more of a problem than gutting hoboes in the basement.

38 You! Ace of Spades! Get off my damn lawn!

39

This post is exactly right and pretty much what I've been screaming for months. We're never going to get entitlement reform past the grumpy olds without everybody else giving up a lot of other stuff, including defense. And in order to bring the Left to the table, we're going to have to agree to some tax hikes.

Thing is, if we do hike taxes and bring in some extra revenue that way, the Left will insist we spend it, and their history of keeping to these bargains is piss-poor. They cannot be trusted.

40 You know, when the stimulus was being debated (albeit briefly), the question no one wanted to ask was "what if this trillion dollar piece of shit doesn't work?" Now we kinda know.

41

Oh for sweet fuck's sake, of course. This is elementary. If the beltway fossils like McConnell cannot lift their dicks a millimeter on earmarks, then we're wasting our time.

Tell you what, you complain that we aren't getting a touchdown on every play while the rest of us kick field goal after field goal.

A few billion here, a few billion there and soon we're talking about real money.

42
I'll tell you why Phillip Klein is wrong.

"Take care of your pennies, and your dollars will take care of themselves."


To put it another way: We need to get back to a time when a million dollars was *a lot of money* to members of Congress.  They're talking in terms of billions as if it were nickels & dimes.

43 Allen_G: I'd put it like this: When there are all these many, many cases of wasteful/unnecessary spending, everyone can continue pointing at everyone else and saying, "Why don't you cut THAT stuff FIRST?" See, they all can say that. Seniors can certainly say that (with the greatest moral force, and if not moral force, the greatest political import, and that's what counts). So we have to cut whatever can be agreed to be cut first first, so we start reducing the number of things people can point to and demand that that (not MY subsidy!) be cut first. At some point the momentum reverses. Instead of rolling the ball uphill with resistence we roll downhill with acceleration, because we can turn to everyone left and say, "We've cut all this other stuff; what special right do you have to be spared?"

44 My NYC doctor is a lefty. Saw him last week. He told me (not quite meeting my eyes) that he tells his patients who are 80 and over to just forget it: "your warranty is expired." He confided that he gives them palliative care only.(!!!)

Most of them are Chinese.

This guy is SO going to be onboard with the death panels.

45 The first thing we need to do is get rid of California. 
After that, everything else will fall into place.

46 Well put, Ace.

We have a lot of idiots who really feel like Epstein's Mom on our side. (I have no idea if he's joking or not)  And I have said it before and will again.. You go telling seniors to go fuck themselves and you will start a political shitstorm like nothing you've ever seen.

Banning earmarks is a necessary starting point in getting them and every other American on the side of cuts.  Without it, challenges of "Hypocrisy!" will be all we will hear.

Two quick points.. future SS stability, IMHO, will be more easily attained if we stop spending the surpluses NOW.

Second, and much larger point.. Stop thinking in zero sum mode..  When we can figure out how to grow this economy, we will have more revenues to play with (my preference would be to pay down the debt instead of going on endless spending sprees when and if that time comes).  We need to set up hard and fast rules now while things are lean.  No one would be willing to go for a balanced budget amendment when we have surpluses coming in.

47 @41... I think that's what he was saying- it's proof, not necessarilly of the Republican's faithfulness, but at least of their listening.

If they won't listen, we're screwed.  So, if this is what it takes to remind them that we didn't vote FOR them as much as AGAINST the democrats- then I say kill earmarks.

48

44 My NYC doctor is a lefty

Is his name Mengele, by any chance?

49 As an added plus, maybe after cutting a few easy items, it'll start to get addictive.

50 Tell you what, you complain that we aren't getting a touchdown on every play while the rest of us kick field goal after field goal.

A few billion here, a few billion there and soon we're talking about real money.

Agreed.  And AD, your earlier point about how they are used to buy votes on these super fucked up bills was spot on.

51

we will be able to use the current senior vote to "adjust" the entitlements for the future seniors ...  and since alot of future seniors know that the entitlements will not be there for them by the time they become seniors the future seniors may also vote for some changes ...

we are not yet to a point where we have to ask current seniors to take a cut ...

52 The first thing we need to do is get rid of California. After that, everything else will fall into place. Good luck with that. And I live there. We WILL devour you. We are the enemy.

53 >>>Two quick points.. future SS stability, IMHO, will be more easily attained if we stop spending the surpluses NOW. But there really isn't a surplus in some separate account. Basically we "keep the surplus" by keeping general government spending low. There is no separate account, not really. The "surplus" just gets spent on current government spending like any other tax money.

54

As a start, let's just start flipping back through past budgets until we find one that equals estimated tax reciepts.

Then start chopping departments and line items on it to go positive and pay down the debt.

55 Changing the age at which they get benefits, or reducing their benefits, doesn't help all that much. they're not the problem. The problem is the current crop of boomers about to go into retirement, because there is such a big population bulge.

The problem comes in the next thirty years. Tinkering around with 30 year olds' beneifts (which come thirty five years out) is no solution.

Hiking their taxes, sure! But I don't know if they're going to go for that.

Posted by: ace at November 15, 2010 05:08 PM (nj1bB)

Ace, I don't disagree with your post, but without some serious increase in payroll witholdings in the very near term SS is going to go broke quick, and suck up more and more of Federal tax dollars outside of the dedicated SS contributions.  Cutting benefits and increasing taxes is the only way to do it, and this is the important part, if you want the system to stay the way it was intended to be.  Maybe SS needs to be morphed into something else, maybe like a contributary 401K.  I dont have the answer to that.

Seniors currently drawing SS have already taken a defacto 10-15% cut in benes because of no COLA increase in two years.  Core inflation has remained low, but the expenses Seniors typically face have risen in excess of 10% for the last few years.  Things like prescription meds, health care, home heating oil, etc, are going up at double or more the inflation rate.

56 You have to drag the beast to the ground before going for the jugular. Have you never seen Wild Kingdom? Not that new shit - the old stuff with Marlin Perkins and the venerable Jim Fowler. Anyway, if you won't start with the stuff that doesn't matter, then how can you move on to the bigger stuff? And if the smaller stuff doesn't matter anyway, then why not take it out now? It doesn't matter? Then you won't mind if we take that new shrimp hatchery, right Mr. Paul? If earmarks don't fucking matter, then shut the fuck up and let get rid of the fucking things already!

57

 When we can figure out how to grow this economy

Brilliant idea of Rand Paul (yeah, yeah, I know, a lot of his ideas range from completely impossible to completely insane): Let all agency regulations sunset in 2 years and have to be reauthorized by Congress.  Cut down on regulation, watch the economy take off.

Related: Federal progressive surtax on legal fees.  But that idea is mine.

58

earmarks require no focus or energy ...  ban them ...  if they are so insignificant then nobody will fight to save them ...

 

59 We have to have -goals- beyond just slashing though.

The IRA system is currently insufficient to replace Social Security. Make it sufficient without either making it a Ponzi scheme or requiring legions of bureaucrats.

Slashing Obamacare is key. But setting up federal "Individual Medical Account" along the exact same lines as IRAs is the start of a replacement low-cost plan.

60 Let's try to summarize. The argument for earmarks is simply "Give us our earmarks, so we can get elected again and drive forward our noble fiscal conservatism which may never include my special projects!" The proponents of earmarks cry "We can't help you conservatives if we don't get re-elected by delivering pork!" That is a feature, not a bug. If we cannot persuade our citizens to forego goodies paid for out of other people's pockets, even "little" goodies, we're pissing in the wind. A spendthrift tells you "I promise not to buy another new car" and has not proven his integrity on this yet with a record of behavior over time. However the same spendthrift refuses to forego buying a new pair of shoes every week. Do you really think there is any room to reason with such a person?

61 Let all agency regulations sunset in 2 years and have to be reauthorized by Congress. Cut down on regulation, watch the economy take off. THIS.

62 If you like your Social Security you can keep your Social Security.

63

Related: Federal progressive surtax on legal fees.  But that idea is mine.

You sound like some kinda racist cracker talking like that.  I swear you people are out to get me.

64

Not to be a dick about this, but seniors are going to be our greatest allies for cutting everything else, all the stuff that must be cut anyway, which they're going to insist be cut first, leaving them for last (and leaving them with as little pain as possible). When we've taken care of all of that we can then talk to seniors, too.

But we've got to get all this other stuff done first, anyway, so let's just start doing it.

Ace, every once in a while, you justify my undying support for you. I am a senior. And the above statements by you are exactly right. I know many seniors who voted this year in my district that did not vote in any previous off-year elections. And our congresscritter is as conservative as you can get. They didn't vote him out, they voted to let people know they are paying attention. Seniors may forget some things, but when people start talking about cutting Medicare or SS to the bone, they REMEMBER. We vote in huge percentages, all the poll-takers show it.

Most of us have children and grandchildren, we don't want to see them get the shaft, either. Let our kids put money into private funds, but don't saddle them with unsustainable debt. We want to see all kinds of cuts before we start talking about doing it to our SS. That's why so many of us voted. Many of us are in agreement with doing away with department of education, etc. Cutting the military, not so much. And government employees should be paid at the same rate as private employees.

Congress touches the Third Rail at it's own peril.

65 Let's also put to rest the argument that hasn't been made at my writing of this comment but likely will.  That being that earmarks aren't the only way Congress sticks in bribes to legislation to pass shitty bills.  well of course its not the only method, but it certainly is one of them.  And its a well known one, and saying they'll just stick their bribes in another way isn't justification to let them continue with it.

66 You go telling seniors to go fuck themselves and you will start a political shitstorm like nothing you've ever seen.

A hand-held EMP device that disables Hoverounds would do wonders against such a shitstorm.  I'm just saying.

67

I just spent the last hour tooling around on the NYT generator. Then I moved onto the inflation thread. Now this.

Too much f*%$ing math on this blog today.

68 Basically we "keep the surplus" by keeping general government spending low. There is no separate account, not really. The "surplus" just gets spent on current government spending like any other tax money.

Posted by: ace
------------
Well, there IS an account where the IOU's are kept.. so some sort of accounting is doen to keep track.

All's I'm saying is there should be a requirement that some amount be put away to keep the system solvent.  If cuts and reforms can reduce that amount, so be it.

69 I'm glad you guys still remember me . . . or at least something I said.

70 Another reason the earmark ban idea is good:

It forces politicians to pick sides.

It's long past time to repeal and replace much of the Republican party.  Earmarks are a useful shibboleth.  Let's see who our real friends are.

71 laceyunderalls needs Excedrin. Who has some? Apparently that is the new prescription for cancer patients over 65 under ObastardCare.

72 The solution to me seems simple: we need to cut Seniors first. A one-time, 50% across-the-board cut in our amount of seniors allows us to balance the budget while preserving the current SS payment amounts. Everybody wins.

73 This problem has been around for a lot longer than 30 years. What we are dealing with both fiscally and philosophically, are the results of the programs put into place to "fix" the Great Depression. Uncle Miltie explains. http://tinyurl.com/36ykh3r We have to change the mindset if we are ever going to fix this thing once and for all.

74 ace, I'm completely open to SS reform. My dad taught me in the 70's that there will be nothing left for me, so I've valued it. That's why I think SS is the easy stuff. Just freeze things and it will go away. Maybe put in a 1040 clause: "In anticipation of a massively irresponsible and inflationary Congress, we're asking you to pre-pay your SS benefits. Please check here to contribute as much as you'd like to later receive."

75 I want to change the tome in Washington.  I want to end all of this backscratching and nest feathering. And as soon as my back gets sufficiently scratched and my nest sufficiently feathered, I'll do it.

76 A one-time, 50% across-the-board cut in our amount of seniors allows us to balance the budget while preserving the current SS payment amounts. Everybody wins. That, sir, is a devilishly good idea.

77

Too much f*%$ing math on this blog today.

Posted by: laceyunderalls needs Excedrin. Who has some? at November 15, 2010 05:32 PM (pLTLS)

AmishDude will help.  And for only a small but outrageous fee.

78 I am at the point I don't care what gets cut.  As citizens we should say, you collected $2.1 trillion in taxes last year, this year you get to spend 1.8 trillion.  Use it for earmarks, military, SS whatever you want. The difference is for debt reduction.

You see, the problem is that there isn't an actual budget based on revenues, its based on what is already being spent.  If only individuals could say I lost my job, and my new one only pays 75% of the last, therefore I spent $3,000 on vacations last year, I am only going to increase that by 5% instead of 10%, even though I am massively in debt.

79

Related: Federal progressive surtax on legal fees.  But that idea is mine.

Not if I steal it starting right now.

But seriously, that's actually a brilliant idea that will never get done because DC is run by lawyers.

80 The solution to me seems simple: we need to cut Seniors first.

A one-time, 50% across-the-board cut in our amount of seniors allows us to balance the budget while preserving the current SS payment amounts.

Everybody wins.

I'm willing to sacrifice a mother-in-law.

81 Related: Federal progressive surtax on legal fees. But that idea is mine. Finally, a tax increase I fully, loudly, tumescently support.

82 I'll see your mother -in-law and raise you another mother-in-law, two fathers-in-law, a r-tard brother-in-law and a few cousins.

83 Might I suggest a windfall profits tax upon legal partnerships, corporations, and sole proprietors? Any judgment that returns more than $250K into a lawyer's pocket gets taxed at 95%.

84 O/T but sort-of budget related: I was playing around with the NYT budget thing and had a question: what are the reasons behind keeping or not keeping tax breaks on employer health insurance? I am young and stupid, so please be nice.

85 Oh yes, I fully expect another SS reform (the 4th) next year. It will take the form of both a tax increase AND eligibility increase through age and means testing which is just another tax increase on the rich except that it will not be indexed to inflation (even if it was counted correctly).

After that, just like the first 3 SS reforms they will spend 125% of the tax increases and the "reforms" will reform nothing.

The only reform that I will support is to allow it to fail and die.

86

A penny saved is a penny earned -- Amish is right.  The small things do add up eventually -- the smaller programs, much like earmarks, have hidden costs beyond the surface budget.

The surtax on legal fees would be an interesting proposition -- but nah, won't happen.

87 >>You have to drag the beast to the ground before going for the jugular. Have you never seen Wild Kingdom? Not that new shit - the old stuff with Marlin Perkins and the venerable Jim Fowler. I loved that show as a kid. Marlin would stand off camera narrating and Jim would wade in to tackle some exotic, often deadly animal. I remember one episode vividly. Marlin is speaking in his measured monotone while Jim is standing in the middle of some small river in the Amazon wrestling with a giant anaconda. The snake was totally wrapped around Jim and was squeezing the crap out of him and trying to drown him at the same time. I was literally screaming at the TV, Stop talking and help him! Then Marlin did one of his seamless segues to Mutual of Omaha Insurance.... just like Jim uses his Bowie knife to protect him from the anaconda, Mutual of Omaha protects you and your family...... Great f'ing show.

88 what are the reasons behind keeping or not keeping tax breaks on employer health insurance?

Tax breaks????? You mean subtracting a cost of doing business from your net profit?  I don't call that a break, I call it real accounting.

89 After that, just like the first 3 SS reforms they will spend 125% of the tax increases and the "reforms" will reform nothing. You erred in your estimate. They will spend 175% of the tax increases and the reform will consist of an offer of reach-around. Only an offer, mind you.

90

But seriously, that's actually a brilliant idea that will never get done because DC is run by lawyers.

That's the beauty of it.  It doesn't have to pass.  Just the self-serving opposition to it will be ugly enough to turn people off. 

They have more lawyers than we do and even then, ours are less a part of the DC/Ivy League Lawyer Elite Class than theirs.

I think a whole book could be written on this tendency of our modern era to rely on specialization, which manifests itself in electing "experts" when we should be electing representatives.  The other book would be titled "You Learn All The Wrong Lessons In Law School".  Chapter 1: Life is not a zero-sum game.

If you subscribe to the American Conservative University podcast, check out the most recent show which is audio of a John Stossel show which features an interview with Geoffrey Feiger extolling the virtues of trial lawyers.  Made my blood boil.  He makes slugs say, "That guy's too slimy for me."

91 Ace, thanks for the mention in the main post.  Makes me feel a little funny.  Like when we used to climb the rope in gym class.

92 Great f'ing show.

Posted by: JackStraw at November 15, 2010 05:45 PM (TMB3S)

Thankyou;

Now watch Jim wrestle the 30 Ft. Anaconda, while I sit in the saftey of the truck...

93 Just wanted to say this right out of the gate.  I am now embarrased by OK's senator  Inhoffe.  He's an old blue-blood who's kept the farmers in western OK rolling in fed subsidies.  Maybe it's time for him to be seriously primaried.  By the way, Ace.  I agree with you 100% on this post.

94

I hate to play the class warfare card, but a fix to the SS sacred cow should probably start with the wealthy.  It would be easier to pass and would open the door for other adjustments.

The income base wage (maximum amount subject to SS taxes) should probably be raised a bit and a rather generous means test applied- it doesn't make sense to pay benefits to multi-millionare retirees or those still working past retirement age and making a large salary.

I know the argument against doing it- they paid into the SS "trust fund" (which isn't a trust fund) and thus should get benefits too.  Thing is, the SS tax is just that- a tax- and people need to be reminded of that.  Unlike private retirement accounts where money is paid in before retirement and then withdrawn over time after retirement, Current benefits are paid from current contributors, just as with welfare or any other form of benefit.

That said, I'd rather SS was scrapped completely and privatized, but that ain't going to happen.

95 How come these guys just don't get it?!?

I mean, in the business world, the greatest contract you can get is a government contract.  Yeah, there's red tape and all, but it's the friggin CASH COW!!!  PAYDAY!!!!!!  Plus, the government is the most inefficient entity on the PLANET and everyone knows it.  It's blind, dumb and stupid all at the same time.  They sit up there in their comfy chairs and think they're the smartest in the world when they're actually the ones that are too dumb to see what's going on and too stupid to fix it.

Fuck, I hate that I started paying attention to politics.......I mean, really.

96 At some point the momentum reverses.

I've been staring at this sentence for a long time, trying to figure out what the hell it's about.

When has what it apparently refers to—a state, having swelled, peacefully recedes—ever happened? There's certainly no American precedent for it. This government, the least evil one ever yet launched, has never shrunk by so much as a fucking dime. Is there an example in the entire history of the world? One? There isn't.

In real life, there are no unique events. And you predict...incalculable trillions of them? (Each dime is at least one.) Because "momentum?"

Newton is not rolling over in his grave. And we're going where we've always been going—where everyone always has gone. There's no other place.

97

hurray for Ace!

what hope is there that the Repubs can do anything if they can't even do this?

98

Maybe it's time for him to be seriously primaried.

Meh.  He's no Lindsay Graham.  A lot of these pro-pork Republicans are realizing there isn't any money left.  If pork's what makes them squishy, they'll be on board without much trouble.

Inhofe has shown he can learn.  This kind of behavior should be rewarded.  Possibly with a cookie.

99 When did this place become the Wall Street Journal?

100 >>>what are the reasons behind keeping or not keeping tax breaks on employer health insurance? I am young and stupid, so please be nice. At this point I would say it's because the tax break is included in the equilibrium of pricing the cost of employees. If you dramatically reduced the tax breaks, employers might start ending paying for employee health insurance. There is a theory that companies that do this would just increase salary a fair amount and tell employees "Okay, now buy your own," which is actually a better regime than the current one. (Individuals buying their own, rather than having insurance as a benefit of employment.) But I have to think there would be such disruptions over this and such a political firestorm that, whether this system is ideal or not, a disorderly change from it (ending employer tax breaks) would be A Bad Thing. As far as "tax breaks," I am not sure if these are special tax breaks or just normal "subtract your costs from your earnings" methods of calculating profit. The left has a bad habit of calling a normal corporate deduction for an expense a "special tax break" or "loophole." Like, when oil companies depreciate the cost of an oil well. This is normal-- if you buy a warehouse full of goods, you depreciate the value over time as you sell it all off. That's how companies figure their real profit. Their real profit is not merely their income -- the income has to be adjusted for the costs it took to get that income. They scream about this with oil wells, even though the "stock" of an oilwell decreases over time and the costs of obtaining it must be reflected in the accounting books. Whether that's going on here I don't know. I know they do this an awful lot.

101

One of the issues that NO ONE is touching yet, is that Federal Law has become so complicated, that No one can understand it.

Funny how the Constitution is only a few pages long... yet is the basis of our law... while the laws Congress now puts out are thousands of pages long, and written in Legalese vice English.

Heck... look at the tax code... its so complex and convoluted that the IRS can't correctly answer question about it...

One issue the Repubs could fight on, and WIN, is to uncomplicate federal law.

102 >>>The surtax on legal fees would be an interesting proposition -- but nah, won't happen. If a company or a doctor is harassed by a lot of rent-seeking lawsuits, you want to slap them with an additional penalty on top of that?

103

@98

Pork makes me squishy. Especially BBQ. mmmmmm

104 Firstly, why should we have COLA adjustments under SS at all from this point in?  Lock benefits, and let them diminish vs. inflation (as well as any decreases and limits in other revisions to the program).  SS needs to decrease to zero, ultimately, but giving recipients a raise while the program is bankrupt is simply done out of electoral fear.

105

94 Unlike private retirement accounts where money is paid in before retirement and then withdrawn over time after retirement, Current benefits are paid from current contributors, just as with welfare or any other form of benefit.

Perhaps seriously cutting or doing away with Social Security for those over a certain annual income level (I'd go with $1 mil) would inspire people to get behind getting rid of the whole damn Ponzi scheme and setting up a new privatized thing.

106
Now's the time to focus people's mind on this issue and get them to make some decisions they've avoided making.

Posted by: ace at November 15, 2010 05:15 PM (nj1bB)

That might actually drive some of the "public service" types out, especially when they find out that the trough is closed.

107

This government, the least evil one ever yet launched, has never shrunk by so much as a fucking dime. Is there an example in the entire history of the world? One? There isn't.

 

Uh, well there was that 1 cent per phone call tax that was put in place to fund the Spanish American War that was finally repealed 138 or so years after the war ended, so we got that going for us.

108

Posted by: oblig. (literally) at November 15, 2010 05:53 PM (x7Ao

So do we just give up?  No.  Just because it has never happened does not mean that it is impossible.  There has also never been a political movement like this that has put pressure on the two parties to quit fucking around.

What you say is true of the past but it does not have to be the reality of the future.

109 95 How come these guys just don't get it?!?

I mean, in the business world, the greatest contract you can get is a government contract.    Posted by: Sponge at November 15, 2010 05:53 PM (UK9cE)   Not always true.  The Government is often slow to pay, and always wants to change the Terms of the contract somewhere midstream... especially if there is an election during the job, which leads to some new Political Appointee being suddenly in charge..

110

Meh.  He's no Lindsay Graham.  A lot of these pro-pork Republicans are realizing there isn't any money left.  If pork's what makes them squishy, they'll be on board without much trouble.

Inhofe has shown he can learn.  This kind of behavior should be rewarded.  Possibly with a cookie.

 

I don't know.  Perhaps he's been in DC so long that he's become tone-deaf.  There shouldn't really be any doubt by anyone in congress what this election was all about.  Most, especially repubs, know this.  I'm beginning to think that some are just getting to old to change.

111 "At some point the momentum reverses.

I've been staring at this sentence for a long time, trying to figure out what the hell it's about.

When has what it apparently refers to—a state, having swelled, peacefully recedes—ever happened? There's certainly no American precedent for it. This government, the least evil one ever yet launched, has never shrunk by so much as a fucking dime. Is there an example in the entire history of the world? One? There isn't.

In real life, there are no unique events. And you predict...incalculable trillions of them? (Each dime is at least one.) Because "momentum?"

Newton is not rolling over in his grave. And we're going where we've always been going—where everyone always has gone. There's no other place."

 

then we have to be the first to find another place, or we repeat the age old cycle of liberty and tyranny and america is not exceptional and the Founders were fools.

the government can be made smaller and less powerful without revolution or collapse, we have the means to do it - The Constitution - it was designed with that very purpose in mind we just have to trust it, and use it.

112 you know that's all great that he buckled but i would still vote him out... any of these idiots who couldn't read the writing on the wall well before today don't really get what's going on and are part of the problem.....

113

102 Ace,

No - the idea would be to STOP such frivilous lawsuits by placing a windfall profits tax on the plaintiffs that win over, let's say, $10 million. The lawyers in THOSE cases, for asking for so much money, would have their legal fees taxed.

114 >>>That might actually drive some of the "public service" types out, especially when they find out that the trough is closed. no it wouldn't. The rallying cry will be "But we could be making so much MORE in the private sector! We're doing this out of the goodness of our own hearts! And you're punishing us for it!" To which I'd say, "Well then take this as me freeing you from that self-imposed cage -- thank you for your service, and I must now insist you make that shit-ton of money you claim you can make in the private sector. *You're welcome.*" But they won't go. 90% of them are there because of the job security, not the salary per se, and not because they want to do a public service. 90% are incompetents who are in the federal system because they can't get fired from it, which is not the motivation of a go-getter who can command top dollar from a private firm.

115 we have to force the orginal intent of the Constitution down the throats of the Elite, force them to accept our vision for fear of losing their status.

116 It's "depletion" for oil wells (or timber or natural gas or minerals), not depreciation. /accounting pedantry

117

If a company or a doctor is harassed by a lot of rent-seeking lawsuits, you want to slap them with an additional penalty on top of that?

Two things.  First, they already are.  Malpractice insurance.  All of this is happening right now.  In fact, this sounds very much like the argument for a protection racket.

Second, it wouldn't apply to the awards, it would apply to the take that the lawyer gets.  There are a number of lawsuits that are motivated by lawyers trying to make a buck.  Class action lawsuits are the worst in this category.  Most members of the class get a book of coupons in the mail.  A few get a substantial award and the lawyer buys a multimillion dollar mansion.

Third, it's a progressive tax.  Lawyers who make a reasonable fee doing reasonable work such as mortgage refis wouldn't even be touched.  It's the "file 10 lawsuits, hope for one huge award" lawyers who would get hit.

But it's also basic economics: You tax something, you get less of it. 

118

So the 2% earmarks would save isn't important.  It's used to bribe congressmen and senators into voting for bullshit bills.  If your worried about a bureaurat spending the money reduce the bill by 2%.  In fact maybe the bullshit bill will sit on the shelf. 

The soap Tide has been around for what, 80 years or so? Every year it's "NEw and Improved".  By now using tide to wash your clothes should cause your washing machine walk out, take your clothes of you, wash, dry and hang them up but no! I still through out stained gray clothes and yellowed skivies.  Same thing with government.  After 200 + years we shouldn't need congress to be in session for more than about 1 week a year.

119

 The Government is often slow to pay, and always wants to change the Terms of the contract somewhere midstream

Pray I do not alter it any further...

120

No, Truman is not right.  As a business owner, I've had to make spending cuts during this recession.  We had to make cuts to salaries but not before cut out the small stuff like company picnics, christmas parties, 401k matches, etc. Next, layoffs (the coasters first).  Then, and only then, can you move to deffer salary increases, and finally, pay cuts.

You must. I repeat, must make the small and symbolic cuts first or there will dissention.  Apply these same rules to the Gov't.

121

As a business owner, I've had to make spending cuts during this recession.  We had to make cuts to salaries but not before cut out the small stuff like company picnics, christmas parties, 401k matches, etc. Next, layoffs (the coasters first).  Then, and only then, can you move to deffer salary increases, and finally, pay cuts.

Brilliant, WishRich.  That's right on the money.

122 Out vile sock.

123
-- billions and billions are [not] real money, provided you live in the 47% of the population who suck from others and don't pay taxes.  What's the problem with a few billions here and there when someone else is picking up the tab?  You taxpayers are just so clingy and scared.

124

the government can be made smaller and less powerful without revolution or collapse, we have the means to do it - The Constitution - it was designed with that very purpose in mind we just have to trust it, and use it.

Posted by: Shoey at November 15, 2010 06:01 PM (ehKDD)

But with the only arbiter of Federal Power, being the Federal Government... throught the already corrupted Supreme Court precedents... there will have to be some outside force to bring things back into Constitutional lines.

When the Senate went from being the States house, to being another Peoples House (ie, they were popularly elected vice State appointed), we subverted the system...

When the Federal and state Grand Jurys went from invetigative groups, to just being led by Attorney Generals... we allowed on more protection to go...

When we cannot SUE Federal Officials for Not doing their Jobs??? Because a Federal Court says we can't?

When there is no Mechanism for "Petitions of Redress"...

NO Government EVER has given up Power voluntarily... and we have given up many of the mechanisms the Founders put in to protect us... soooo...

I think its going to get messy very very soon.

125 Trillions of dollars of debt. Serious differences on how to cut the deficit. And the biggest play on talk radio today. F*ing air port screening.

126 But they won't go. 90% of them are there because of the job security, not the salary per se, and not because they want to do a public service. 90% are incompetents who are in the federal system because they can't get fired from it, which is not the motivation of a go-getter who can command top dollar from a private firm.

Posted by: ace at November 15, 2010 06:02 PM (nj1bB)

The real reason why statist big government is a guaranteed epic fail right there.

It's populated by the wrong kind of opportunists, the  non incentivised.

127

You must. I repeat, must make the small and symbolic cuts first or there will dissention.  Apply these same rules to the Gov't.

 

I'm all for pushing that large dildo into the government's ass slowly....slowly.  As long as we keep pushing.  And savor every grunt and scream.

128 I may not be here in 15 years.  If we're going to have a civil war, let's do it now and not pass that along also to the children and grandchildren.

129 Either you go straight for the throat, or we're not going to get anywhere.

Dude we've got two months before we are driving the bus. A little conversation to the pols about hey, I know those little candies are only 30 calories but we expected you to be living on rice cakes and multivitamins for a while so keep your hands OUT of the candy jar.

It is just tone setting. Nothing more.

130

I'm going to put ear marks in terms morons can understand:  Earmarks are

K-Y Spending.  It's the spending that makes it possible for Congress to ram other things up your ass.

 

It's the lubrication that makes it possible for these dildoes to vote for more spending and more regulatiion.  It primes the pump for bad governance.

131

11 I agree -- no guarantees, but we at least need to give it a freaking shot.  Otherwise we do wind up going down the road every other society has gone before.

That sounded remotel Trekkie didn't it?  Do I get a cookie (can it please be oatmeal raisin w/ walnuts)?

132

Perhaps seriously cutting or doing away with Social Security for those over a certain annual income level (I'd go with $1 mil) would inspire people to get behind getting rid of the whole damn Ponzi scheme and setting up a new privatized thing.

I doubt it, but it would be a start.

We're probably stuck with SS for all eternity, but gradually reverting it back to it's intended purpose- providing income to poorer retirees who couldn't get by without it- might be a bit easier.

Tough choices are going to have to be made regarding SS, but it'll be easier to sell if we're not paying benefits to the retiree pulling in $150,000 of interest income a year. 

Eliminating SS would be an almost impossibly tough sell politically, but protecting benefits of low-income seniors at the expense of high-income retirees would be a start. 

Seniors are the wealthiest demographic in the country.  I'm pretty sure that Social Security wasn't intended to cover the payments on a new Cadillac and RV, but that's what it's used for as often as not.  Social Security transfers wealth from the younger and poorer to the older and richer, and that needs to change.

133

The real reason why statist big government is a guaranteed epic fail right there.

It's populated by the wrong kind of opportunists, the  non incentivised.

Posted by: ontherocks at November 15, 2010 06:14 PM (HBqDo)

France, Greece and Spain, anyone?

134 Hey, Congress!  We're going to be watching you.  Watching you closely.  You fuck up.  You're gone.

135

That sounded remotel Trekkie didn't it?  Do I get a cookie (can it please be oatmeal raisin w/ walnuts)?

Posted by: unknown jane at November 15, 2010 06:19 PM (5/yRG)

You"ll take plain oatmeal and like it, or we"ll primary your butt out in "12.

136 O/T and sweet jeebus:  On Fox just saw a sucky G.E. commercial for electric cars, featuring loads of fun-loving, wispy hipsters, driving their little clown car and then having a festive bonfire on a beach.

G.E., we bring douchebags to life.

137

Posted by: Minuteman at November 15, 2010 06:19 PM (502+o)

Romeo13's definition of Earmarks...

Politicians bribing each other with Taxpayer money.

138 OT, but check out Michelle Bachman on fire at http://polipundit.com/

Girl is looking MUY Bueno.

139 from the younger and poorer only occupying 1 cell to the older and richer, and that needs to change.

FIFY.

140 134 Hey, Congress!  We're going to be watching you.  Watching you closely.  You fuck up.  You're gone.

Posted by: Soona at November 15, 2010 06:22 PM (xM8Uq)

And as Gov. Christie so aptly put it... "We'll help you pack"...

141 Seniors will have to be *very* careful about how strident they get about things.  From a government's point of view, they are reliable voters, but they are also the famed "useless eaters" that Socialist systems ultimately despise.  Play their cards right, they might be the driving force behind a lot of reforms.  Play them wrongly, and they're going to be the victims of a lot of reforms.

142

The solution to me seems simple: we need to cut Seniors first.

I say the first Seniors we cut are the ones in Congress who are old enough to be collecting Social Security.  Pass a law/amendment saying that any Congresscritter who runs for office after they pass that age will forfeit ALL benefits - no health care, no retirement, no pension, NADA.

And the ONLY way that you are going to get any kind of Social Security reform is to educate the public about what the government is taking away from them by force.  If SS was privatized, you can bet that people would be getting a much better return on their investment, that money would be THEIRS to use as they see fit, and it anything that remains would be transferred to their heirs when they die. 

And also inform the public that companies have to match their employees' SS "contributions" 100%, that when it was set up, it was as unpopular as Obamacare, and that when it was set up people weren't expected to live more than ONE YEAR past the age they were eligible to start collecting it.

This doesn't get to be taken away from Seniors - if there's not enough in the system RIGHT NOW to cover them, then the government has to start cutting back services and selling off assets.  No excuses.  If that money isn't there, then the government is guilty of ong-term embezzlement, plain and simple.

The first legislator who is brave enough to stand up and speak that truth will be the most popular person in the country overnight.

143

 I'm pretty sure that Social Security wasn't intended to cover the payments on a new Cadillac and RV,

 

No?  Really?  _{*calling Caddy dealership to cancel order*}

144 136 O/T and sweet jeebus:  On Fox just saw a sucky G.E. commercial for electric cars, featuring loads of fun-loving, wispy hipsters, driving their little clown car and then having a festive bonfire on a beach.

G.E., we bring douchebags to life.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at November 15, 2010 06:24 PM (UOM4

Did said hipsters worry about how much pollution was created making the electricity for the car ride? 

I honestly hope its true that "An Elephant Never Forgets," and that a President Palin or Rubio or whoever 2 years from now goes after the likes of George Soros and G.E.

145 G.E., we bring douchebags to life.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at November 15, 2010 06:24 PM (UOM4

And to further derail the O/T train, I was shocked when what I thought was another hysterical AGW flick advertised on TWC was anything but.

Any word on it?

146 It's a TARP!

147 ace, the health insurance tax break is a break mostly the employee gets. the cost of employer provided health insurance is not counted as taxable income. it's a remnant of wage controls from WW2. they could get raises but could get additional bennies.

148

Any word on it?

Posted by: ErikW at November 15, 2010 06:29 PM (qg3IW)

Oops, it's called Cool It.

149

Also OT, but still fiscal news.

Per Drudge, California oks in state tuition for illegal aliens.

 

150 We the people need to see a List of the pile of shit that needs to meet the axe along with the cost of each.
Is there a working list of actual items to be considered for cutting layed out in some orderly fashion ? See the program see the dollars kind of thing.

Someone whip up some kind of simple to read and understand chart listing these items. Might look like a giant family tree kind of paper to be the standard go-to for keeping this up front on the peoples agenda.

   like grocery shopping when there's a lot of stuff to get cross it off the list. and set up a national reversed debt clock to track it.

That's 1 trillion dollars saved or created



 

151

The first legislator who is brave enough to stand up and speak that truth will be the most popular person in the country overnight.

Posted by: Teresa in Fort Worth, TX at November 15, 2010 06:27 PM (D4mx0)

Cut/Jib/Newsletter and preferred form of caffeine/alcohol intake?

152 96 - ..."When has what it apparently refers to—a state, having swelled, peacefully recedes—ever happened? There's certainly no American precedent for it."

Um, somebody hasn't been watching enough Beck.    Look into the Harding and Coolidge administrations for an example.  We could do that again, but with the Progs even more entrenched it would be much harder.  Starting smaller and building momentum thus has a certain logic to it.

I'm all for ending earmarks for one minor reason.  John McCain would be forced to STFU because his one obsession would become a non-issue.  Of course it wouldn't stop every Sunday talking head show from scheduling his monthly appearances anyway so they can have a Democrap Progressive and a RINO Progressive on and call it balanced.

After the immigration thing it is hard to slam AZ too hard for sending that fool back to Washington, but damn!

153 O/T and sweet jeebus:  On Fox just saw a sucky G.E. commercial for electric cars, featuring loads of fun-loving, wispy hipsters, driving their little clown car and then having a festive bonfire on a beach.

G.E., we bring douchebags to life.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at November 15, 2010 06:24 PM (UOM48)

 

And then right after that, a push for Romney for president.  *GAK* 

I'm hoping the Tea Party stays strong.  We need a good candidate this time.

154 And right on cue, NOW refuses to consider any cuts to SS.

155

I honestly hope its true that "An Elephant Never Forgets," and that a President Palin or Rubio or whoever 2 years from now goes after the likes of George Soros and G.E.

Posted by: CoolCzech at November 15, 2010 06:28 PM (tJjm/)

When you say "go after," you don't mean an authorization to sieze Soros' assets and assassinate him, do you?

Because I'm totally behind that.

156 Ace, sorry. But, AmishDude and you are wrong. Cutting earmarks is a net negative. It doesn't cut the budget and it limits one of the few oppportunities for direct citizen participation in government. The government employees are tickled pink tonight - no more pesky citizens telling, the experts, what to do. What this does is get rid of a transparent process, it does not get rid of the KY stuff like the CornHusker Kickback or the Louisanna Purchase. They weren't earmarks.

157 OT Side bar shite

Re Public Intelligence
TSA Passenger Screening Body Scanner Stimulus Package Report

Working hard all week, No time for surfing, Crazy talk, I know, Don't know if anyone linked to this.

158

@57: "Related: Federal progressive surtax on legal fees.  But that idea is mine."

How about we pay all public employees the same rate as prisoners in state prisons are paid (federal employees get the nationwide average).  Watch those gummnint budgets drop like a paralyzed falcon.  Granted, we'd still be overpaying for the acual level or service we get, but hey, it's a start.....

159 All of the dangerous moments from Mutual of Omaha.

The anaconda is towards the 16 min mark.

I remember the cheetah one.  I still think they were on drugs. 
Mostly testosterone, something that modern males seem to lack.

160

@70: "Let's see who our real friends are."

Six hundred million screaming Chinamen?

161

I'm very afraid that the Republicans getting out in front of some anti-SS campaign is gonna get them taken to the woodshed again. It's not like the average senior, with his/her average $1,100 a month check is living the high life.

I don't plan on retiring.  The so-called "retirement" myth is a socialist idea to begin with.  I had a great uncle who clued me in on this.  We don't have to retire.  If you like the standard of living that you have while you're working then don't retire.  There's few employment positions that I know of where one has to retire at a certain age.

162 If they really wanted to "reform" SS the first thing they should do is totally eliminate "disability" payments since over half of the budget going out is for that.

And yes, drug addiction is a "disability".

163

When you have to make cuts in your budget at home, what do you cut first?    The shit you can live without the easiest.    Then, you move to the stuff that will be a little painful, but you can learn to live without.   Next comes the harder stuff, but you still have the basics you need.    Only after all that has been cut to the bare bones, and you find that you still can't make ends meet do you finally realize and accept that, well, maybe, I'll have to sell this house that I love so much, and make do with just one car.

Ace is right.    Cut out all the so-called small stuff first, then move to the slightly painful stuff.   Keep cutting 'til you have to deal with the harder cuts.   At that point, people will understand much easier what must be done, and will be more willing to sacrifice their piece of the pie, if they see that they're not the only ones that have had to sacrifice.  

 

164 I'm really surprised at the responses here, and frankly a little disappointed. You are all acting within the constraints identified by the New York Fucking Times!!! Who says those are the proper things to cut? i didn't see the DOE or the EPA or Homeland Security on the list as line items, just a 10% cut in all employees, with all of the inherent evel continuing. A 5% cut to the money to the states!!! WTF? How about a 100% cut of money to the states. How about rolling back the other 'entitlements' that are conveniently missing. How about no food stamps and welfare and other 'entitlement' programs that are not programs that have been paid into by the constituents for decades? How about we drag out the politicians that DIDN'T set up that fracking lock box for SS and run them out of town on a rail, or take them to court and try them for illegal and immoral activities like spending money on worthless shit instead of investing it wisely. And defund the TSA.

165 135 Uhm, village warlord wannabes do not get primaried...now give me the damn oatmeal raisin/walnut cookie or I'll up the ante to chocolate chip macademia tollhouse (this is actually a good example of how we should run our foreign affairs with some countries imho).

166

My company cut 20% of staff in ALL departments. I say we start by making the government do that.

167

The first legislator who is brave enough to stand up and speak that truth will be the most popular person in the country overnight.

Bush tried but couldn't do it while holding both houses of Congress.  Even if he did, Obama and Pelosi would've reverted the changes by now. 

It's like income taxes- all most people look at is the bottom line when they fill out their taxes.  They'll be happy about a $1000 refund (of their own money) while barely looking at the $9000 they paid in.

Likewise, the 6.2% they see deducted from their paycheck (they don't think about the other 6.2% employer "contribution") is something they've gotten used to, but the prospect of having to plan for retirement without relying on SS would be looked at as a major financial burden.

I doubt that any number of Ross Perot style graphs would get people out of the mindset that they're entitled to "free" government money.

 

168

The government employees are tickled pink tonight - no more pesky citizens telling, the experts, what to do. What this does is get rid of a transparent process, it does not get rid of the KY stuff like the CornHusker Kickback or the Louisanna Purchase. They weren't earmarks.

 

That's why the House has to cut appropriations for the funding that supports earmarks.  We need to remind them of that.  It can be done.

169 OT

Heh, and today's "That's what she said!" quote of the week is from today's Monday Morning Quarterback column:

"The package for Tim will continue to grow, and we'll expand it. We like what we've seen in him, a lot."

170 I still don't trust McConnell -- wasn't he giving us a song-and-dance about how earmarks don't really cost any more blah blah blah -- just last week? But at least he pulled his head out of his butt long enough to lie to us about being against them. We shall see. I hope we don't get Trent Lotted again but this is the Stupid Party we're talking about. I know exactly how Charlie Brown felt, getting suckering into trying to kick that football one more time but getting the same old results...

171 Is that Janet Napolitano in the camo gear? When do we get her swimsuit edition of the top headlines?

172

Bush tried but couldn't do it while holding both houses of Congress.  Even if he did, Obama and Pelosi would've reverted the changes by now.   

Posted by: Hollowpoint at November 15, 2010 06:45 PM (plsiE)

Ummm... Bush's own spending plans GREW the Government... TSA? DHS? No child left... he just had different priorities than the dems... but he was still a Big Government guy.

The problem is that for the last 40 or so years, the arguement has been which direction to grow the Government, not whether it should be grown or not...

173

Ace, sorry. But, AmishDude and you are wrong. Cutting earmarks is a net negative. It doesn't cut the budget and it limits one of the few oppportunities for direct citizen participation in government.

Spending less money doesn't cut the budget???

And unless by "direct citizen participation" you mean "biggest campaign contributors", earmarks don't exactly enhance the democratic process.  See: Jack Murtha.

If it's worthy of federal taxpayer dollars, they can submit a separate bill to fund it.  If it's for the Senator Porkmeister Memorial Bike Path in his district, let his district local / state government pay for it.

Enriching campaign contributors and bribing voters with their own money needs to stop.

174 McConnell has to go. He's still a rino. My reference?

See Juan Mcshame circa six weeks before election.

What happens in six weeks?

175 Ummm... Bush's own spending plans GREW the Government... TSA? DHS? No child left... he just had different priorities than the dems... but he was still a Big Government guy.

The problem is that for the last 40 or so years, the arguement has been which direction to grow the Government, not whether it should be grown or not...

True, but he did try to make the argument for partial privatization of SS and the idea got shot down in flames.

Social Security is referred to as a "sacred cow" for reason.

176 I still don't trust McConnell -- wasn't he giving us a song-and-dance about how earmarks don't really cost any more blah blah blah -- just last week?

Posted by: cali grump at November 15, 2010 06:48 PM (hL0k

I don't trust him either. He blows with the wind, to hell with him.

177

I'm pretty sure that Social Security wasn't intended to cover the payments on a new Cadillac and RV, but that's what it's used for as often as not. 

Show me a statistic that proves that, Hollow. I am a senior, and I know lots of seniors. Lots of them. The majority of them are using Social Security to pay bills, and not bills for Cadillacs and RVs. (and i also have a father-in-law who is very wealthy, and still gets SS).. Not saying it doesn't happen, just saying not the majority.

178

168  Then perhaps it's time to scare the electorate into seeing reason.  Sounds awful, could be risky, but if we don't do something about the deficit, if we don't reduce spending we are going to wind up in a very bad place -- a place I'm sure most of the public would not want to be in.

It isn't like the progressives haven't been using scare tactics after all.

179 I wonder how many emails & phone calls McConnell got like mine?    I wasn't exactly PC about letting him know that he should enjoy his last term.

180

You see any of the 'late night' lawyer commercials where they are trolling for 'disability' clients? Anyone that can't put 2 + 2 together...

 

And what happened to the guy wearing the zoot-suit with the question marks all over it?  You know, the one that was selling a disturbingly thick book full of government hand-outs.  Is he still on?

181

In a welfare program, a senior would have to make all assets disappear before being able to collect one thin dime after decades of contribution into the system. House? Can't have. Car(s)? Gone. Money in the bank, or other retirement/pension plan? Then you don't qualify. That means decades of contribution into the system by two out of the three classes only flow to one class. Is that what you really want?

In a word- yes.  However, no one is talking about such a strict means test that only those without any assets or income would be eligible. 

Social Security is already a welfare system, with the exception that the more wealth you've earned, the more you get.  The money you paid into the system?  Already spent.

As far as the "decades of contribution", it's no different than any other welfare program such as food stamps, ag subsidies, welfare, etc.  You contributed to those programs for decades too, but that doesn't mean you're entitled to get the benefits regardless of income.

 

182 Soona - yes, you have to cut the top level budget and appropriations bill - other wise the bureaucrats will spend the money without political direction.  Nancy stopped earmarks this year in the House as a bit of political theater - did less money get spent? (everyone seems to forget this) I fear our stalwart Senators may think a little meaningless circus will sate the appetites of the tea party. 

These aren't budget cuts, they have nothing to do with sausage making that produced the Cornhusker Kickback and the Louisana Purchase, and they represent a step backwards - not forwards.  If anyone thinks this is good idea then the we are truly boned, it indicates that the conservative movement can be distracted easily using a loaded term of the art. Look for lots of silly handwaving, apparently it's what we like rather then paying attention to the details.

183

Show me a statistic that proves that, Hollow. I am a senior, and I know lots of seniors. Lots of them. The majority of them are using Social Security to pay bills, and not bills for Cadillacs and RVs. (and i also have a father-in-law who is very wealthy, and still gets SS).. Not saying it doesn't happen, just saying not the majority.

OK, "as often as not" probably isn't accurate; "too often" is what I should've said.  I don't have raw numbers, but I'd guess at least 25% of those currently recieving SS benefits could very easily get by without.

184 I'll up the ante to chocolate chip macademia tollhouse (this is actually a good example of how we should run our foreign affairs with some countries imho).

Posted by: unknown jane at November 15, 2010 06:45 PM (5/yRG)

All right Your Lordship, on what basis do you assume gourmet cookie leverage?

Hint: threats of violence are futile as my stash is most appropriately stashed. And foreign affairs, like any affairs are best kept secret, IMnotsoHO.

185 Hollowpoint - you don't like a memorial bikepath - then vote your guy out.  That money is going to get spent, only now it is going to spent on what some mid-level flunky in the DoT has determined is the 4,204th budget priority - a bikepath advocated by a lobbyist, suggested by some university study, and a town in Massachusetts who is willing to work the process. 

Cut the budget.  This doesn't cut the budget.  Has nothing to do with it.  The fact that Nancy did it should tell you something. 

What Murtha was doing was wrong, it doesn't mean that every Congresscritter used the process to enrich their family members.

186 mikeyslaw, you will be on the Protected Rolls under JeffCare.

187

If it's worthy of federal taxpayer dollars, they can submit a separate bill to fund it.  If it's for the Senator Porkmeister Memorial Bike Path in his district, let his district local / state government pay for it.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at November 15, 2010 06:54 PM (plsiE)

The real key... and one that most pundits, and people miss.... is that Federal Tax dollars must be spent for the "GENERAL WELFARE".

Please explain how a this Memeorial bikepath, fits under this LIMITATION of how to spend tax dollars??? ie... how does this help the General Welfare?  The Welfare of the entire country?

188 190 Hollowpoint - you don't like a memorial bikepath - then vote your guy out.  That money is going to get spent, only now it is going to spent on what some mid-level flunky in the DoT has determined is the 4,204th budget priority - a bikepath advocated by a lobbyist, suggested by some university study, and a town in Massachusetts who is willing to work the process. 

Posted by: Jean at November 15, 2010 07:34 PM (CPefM)

Dang US Constitution..... Taxes must be spent for the GENERAL WELFARE... please explain how this bikepath helps me out in Colorado?

189

Eliminating pork is like replacing the 16oz Coke you drink every day at lunch with a glass of water.

It won't get you down to your fighting weight, but it's an easy 1st step toward losing that gut.

And honestly, if you won't even take this simple step, then what chance do you really have of not being a morbidly obese fatass with type 2 diabetes?

190

Hollowpoint - you don't like a memorial bikepath - then vote your guy out.  That money is going to get spent, only now it is going to spent on what some mid-level flunky in the DoT has determined is the 4,204th budget priority - a bikepath advocated by a lobbyist, suggested by some university study, and a town in Massachusetts who is willing to work the process. 

Cut the budget.  This doesn't cut the budget.  Has nothing to do with it.  The fact that Nancy did it should tell you something. 

What Murtha was doing was wrong, it doesn't mean that every Congresscritter used the process to enrich their family members.

Why do you assume that the money will be spent anyways?  We're talking about federal spending that can and should be cut.  Pork- earmark or otherwise- should be at the top of the list, regardless of what percentage of the budget it represents.  No one is suggesting the money spent on earmarks and other pork be spent elsewhere, we're suggesting it not be spent at all.

 Too often it's used as legalized bribery or kickbacks.  If it's worthy of spending taxpayer money on, it's worthy of being voted on.

Why are you so in love with earmarks?  Do you live in Alaska and dependant on the federal teat or something?

 

 

191 Why are you so in love with earmarks?

Because:  RON PAUL!!!!!!!!!

192

189 Because the alternative to the gourmet cookie (if you don't grant my rather reasonable request for a simple oatmeal/raisin/walnut one) is a lovely turtle biscotti, which will be all the better to use when soaking up you and your family's blood  (which, come to think of it, sounds even more appealing than the oatmeal or the chocolate chip cookie, so maybe cancel the first two requests and move on to the third option).

Always have at least 3 options dontcha know

193

Always have at least 3 options dontcha know

Posted by: unknown jane at November 15, 2010 08:03 PM (5/yRG)

Oh Yeah, put, call and straddle (depending on market conditions & timing).

IYKWIMAITYDon't

Blood soaking turtles? Jeesh.

194 Forgive me for not reading the rest of the comments, late to the party, etc. Forgive me if it is an empty gesture, but I think everyone who paid into the system should get theirs. I will take nothing. If you end the program right now, I would take nothing and continue to pay into it until all is reconciled. If, from this moment on, all benefits not earned are stopped, I will gladly pay for the democrats thievery. This is an empty gesture since I will be doing it anyway. However, if you old people will stop voting for the same old scare tactic, they'll make you eat dog food, they hate you ( don't look while I, the liberal who cares about you so much spends the "lockbox" on putting a crucifix in a jar of urine), assholes, I will continue to pay for your benefits until I am dead. You choose. You have been through enough to know who the snake oil salesmen are, but you let them tell you how evil mr rich man is, while they pick your pocket. Disgusting. It is your choice. Believe that it will be hard, or delude yourselves into the easy way out, and get the same result. Reality sucks, doesn't it?

195 Here's a couple tough cuts that are past due :

Eliminate prevailing wage requirements until unemployment is 4% and budget is balanced. Until then, we just can't afford this excess.  

Pass a Private & Public Equalty Act.  If public sector (government) jobs pay and benefits are X% above equivalent private sector jobs and benefits, the public sector jobs and benefits are cut by 10% of the difference each year until equality is reached.  This includes those on public sector pension benefits.  The PPEA overrides any existing and future public union and individual contracts. 

All Defined Benefits Retirement Plans need to be made illegal and converted into investment related retirement accounts.  Existing Defined Benefit plans are converted according to how much the worker/company put into the account and when that was 'invested', then growth tracked according to Dow Jones or other reasonable commonplace private sector investment tracking tool.  In other words, no last year big pay raises to falsely inflate one's retirement benefits by a high wage at retirement.  Make retirement planning market sensitive so that folks with these retirement accounts are made sensitive to how government action make negatively effect their investments and retirement -- like high corporate taxation and taxation of interest, capital gains, etc.  Yes, this includes politicians and other bureaucrat retirement plans, as well as private sector plans (union and otherwise) where the taxpayer may end up on the hook to make good on underfunded plans.  FACT -- The taxpayers and their kids and grandkids just don't have the money to bail out these hopeless underfunded programs...  

It's a start...   The average Bubba is having a hard enough time finding a job, let alone paying for all these marketplace insensitive excesses.

196

199 Somehow I believe you took my attempts at levity (which was prompted by Amish's comments about giving out cookies to senators) as commentary on the topic -- you were mistaken; it really was just joking about a freaking cookie.

So I do apologize if my lame attempts at light joking did not carry through, but if you're just wanting to get nasty with me for some reason -- please, let's cut to the chase and get this over with, shall we?

197 but if you're just wanting to get nasty with me for some reason -- please, let's cut to the chase and get this over with, shall we?

Posted by: unknown jane at November 15, 2010 09:26 PM (5/yRG)

No apology necessary, I don't do nasty.

I have however, raised ugly to an art form and can do it in my sleep.

198 I have always heard that most brides love long wedding dress up games for girls. dress up games for girlsEven if you have short hair, you may want your hair to appear more full and sassy instead flat to your dress up games for girls. This gallery has many short curly hairstyles for men in 2010. Earlier Curly haircuts are adopted by bridesmaid dresses. bridesmaid dressesNow its the hot trend among boys. You can find many hairstyles here and you can easily choose which one suits you bridesmaid dresses雪花秀.

199 mcconnell reminds me of the kid who got beatup for his lunch money in grammer school

200 203  Ok then, you want to get ugly, rather than nasty, with me then?

201 No mention of Heritage Foundation's proposal for $340billion in cuts? Its a good start. My favorite - $45 billion from eliminating the Fed Dept of Education. Positive ripple effects from eliminating the regulations and unfunded mandates to the states and potentially some of the states' deadwood paper shufflers handling them too.
BTW, up to 85% of SS payments are already taxed as ordinary income - you can find it at ssa.gov. Currently, you pay tax on your half of the 12.4% withheld in Algore's lockbox and implicitly on the employer's half too. Then you'll get to pay tax again -  not even a FIFO exemption of what you've already been taxed on. I'm 60. Tell ya what - just give me my half of what I've put in for 38 years without any 'interest', keep that 'interest' and the employer's side too (in my case, that's also been me for 34 years, most at max contribution levels).  Lump sum, please.  Is that goddamn enough for you?

202 iPad Video Converter supports users to playback the converted files on other portable devices as: iPod, iPod Touch, iPod Touch 2, iPod Nano, iPod Nano 4, iPod Classic, iPhone, iPhone 3G, Apple TV, PSP, PS3. iPad Video Converter is a great software for iPad lovers to convert videos to iPad with super fast speed and high quality. Its easy-to-use interface makes iPad to videos conversion routine very simple. And also it can keep the original quality of video files. Mac iPad Converter is so far the best Mac iPad software, which is specially designed for Mac iPad users to convert video to iPad with super speed and high quality. Video Converter for iPad software can supports apple's iPod, iPod nano, iPod touch, iPod classic, iPhone, iPhone 3G, iPhone 3GS, Apple TV, and the latest iPad. Many other media players and mobile phones are also supported.