You fix the Budget! by m52nickerson

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

WOW - that was easy. I wonder if any tea-baggers here will notice how little is saved by cutting spending - except for military spending of course.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 8, 2011 12:16 PM

DALEK!

I have to ask, how did you do it?

Part of the reason I posted this was to see how close, or far, people where to each other.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 8, 2011 12:24 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Took huge chunks out of the military (well, back to Clinton-era levels) and weapons development, made rich people pay more for social security and cut their benefits some, eliminated tax loopholes and earmarks, increased tax rates on those making more than $250,000 annually, and those kinds of adjustments - just good housekeeping, really. Mine was ~40% spending cuts and ~60% taxes.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 8, 2011 12:31 PM

DALEK!

Mine was 32% reduction and 68% increases. I did not reduce the military as much as you. I did have cuts in foreign aid and the farm subsidies.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 8, 2011 12:43 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

Funny how the Jew York Times fails to include the only options that would actually succeed:

1. Immediately end the 6 wars in the Mid East for the jews

2. Immediately nationalize the jewish foreign private "Federal" Reserve Bank that steals 100% of fed income taxes

3. Immediately close the borders and deport 50-million illegal aliens on welfare, stop paying jewish aliens $30,000/year Social Security pensions who naver worked in USA and never paid US taxes

4. Tobin 1% sales tax on $150-Trillion in jewish Wall Street trades would eliminate all other taxes

5. Make quadrillion$ in jewish derivatives a felony, again

6. Stop paying mega corporations billions of taxdollars a year welfare EACH to move their factories to commie china (GE, GM), when they pay zero taxes on billions in profits

7. Stop Warren Buffet from paying himself $35-Billion/year personal salary, tax free

8. Arrest everyone who wants a tax on lifesaving carbon dioxide so oil company owner Al Gore can buy more jets and mansions

9. Arrest the Obama regime and hang em high until their heads pop off, like Saddam Hussein

10. Ban all jewish religions for requiring pedophile rape by rabbis, arrest all rabbis and seize their assets for conspiracy to commit pedophilia

11. Stop all foreign aid welfare to the jewish central banks, starting with Israel

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 8, 2011 12:44 PM

YINYANG

You were busy trying to get yourself lit on fire. It happens.

This is my plan:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-gr
aphic.html?choices=03t246qt

Basic summary: 65% taxes, 35% cuts, didn't even touch the "Domestic programs and foreign aid" category, made almost all my cuts to the military. Not a politically feasible plan in the real world, and not sure how well it would work if it was enacted, but I'm okay with it hypothetically.

When I was going down the list, I originally capped Medicare growth, which saves the most money by 2030 by far, but I'm not sure what the consequences of capping growth are on individuals with Medicare and Google didn't help enlighten me. Would anyone care to explain what capping Medicare is and what the impact would be on, say, my grandparents?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 8, 2011 12:50 PM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-gr
aphic.html?choices=nmtvg54k

Fun to play around with. I got us a $250bn surplus for 2015, and a $780bn surplus by 2030.

36% revenue increases, 64% spending cuts.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 8, 2011 1:03 PM

DALEK!

I think the one thing I didn't do that everyone else did was reduce the size of the US fleet. I just don't like that idea simple because the US naval fleet is the main projection of US military power.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 8, 2011 1:05 PM

DALEK!

Quote:
Originally posted by yinyang:
This is my plan:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-gr
aphic.html?choices=03t246qt

Basic summary: 65% taxes, 35% cuts, didn't even touch the "Domestic programs and foreign aid" category, made almost all my cuts to the military. Not a politically feasible plan in the real world, and not sure how well it would work if it was enacted, but I'm okay with it hypothetically.

When I was going down the list, I originally capped Medicare growth, which saves the most money by 2030 by far, but I'm not sure what the consequences of capping growth are on individuals with Medicare and Google didn't help enlighten me. Would anyone care to explain what capping Medicare is and what the impact would be on, say, my grandparents?

It simple means that the Medicare program can't spend anymore money then it did in the year capped. That means that if medical cost go up medical will have to provide less coverage as to not go over the cap.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 8, 2011 1:24 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

My choices included raising taxes on everyone, and cutting the US fleet.

There are some things NOT in the choices, though, that would REALLY make a difference. Like PN said, how about ending the wars of choice. Implementing single payer health care? Significantly reducing our 800+ military installations around the world?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 8, 2011 1:38 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

I too found the menu unappetizing. I would have included single-payer, having the government able to bargain over drug prices, removing us from Iraq and Afghanistan entirely, reducing our overall global military footprint significantly etc. OTOH I would have the government spend MORE on infrastructure, alternate energy, education, environmental remediation, and I seriously would get the US involved in Fukushima. After all, we are downrange.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 8, 2011 1:50 PM

DALEK!

Not having some of those options is unfortunate. Of course some of those don't have a clearly defined savings.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 8, 2011 6:02 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Hmm, some options I WOULD have selected were off the table, mind you.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-gr
aphic.html?choices=nmt105qk

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 8, 2011 6:04 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
I think the one thing I didn't do that everyone else did was reduce the size of the US fleet. I just don't like that idea simple because the US naval fleet is the main projection of US military power.

That's WHY I'd cut it - when you have a hammer, every problem starts lookin like a nail, look at local police and how much MORE they use SWAT or Tacteam, once they get the nice shiny toys ?

And as PROVEN, where I live, when we *take* the nice shiny toys AWAY, that shit stops, cause it ain't so fun no more.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 8, 2011 6:06 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

They didn't have my favorite option: Increase taxes on everyone who thinks taxes should be increased.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 9, 2011 7:36 AM

DALEK!

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
I think the one thing I didn't do that everyone else did was reduce the size of the US fleet. I just don't like that idea simple because the US naval fleet is the main projection of US military power.

That's WHY I'd cut it - when you have a hammer, every problem starts lookin like a nail, look at local police and how much MORE they use SWAT or Tacteam, once they get the nice shiny toys ?

And as PROVEN, where I live, when we *take* the nice shiny toys AWAY, that shit stops, cause it ain't so fun no more.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

I can see that, but I can also see situation that need responces as well.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 9, 2011 7:37 AM

DALEK!

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
They didn't have my favorite option: Increase taxes on everyone who thinks taxes should be increased.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

Unfortunaly that is not how democracy works.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 9, 2011 10:59 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-gr
aphic.html?choices=dmx245pc

Mine came out 57% taxes to 43% spending cuts. That's as close as I could get to 50/50 without cutting anything I thought necessary or increasing taxes I believed unfair.

Ended up with a surplus of $264 billion by 2015, $28 billion by 2033. Would like to have done better, but I'm a moderate-liberal, I'm happy to have ANY surplus without hurting too many.

Frem did better than I, with a 53/47% split, then Kiki on the other side with a 60/40% split

Frem: Curious why you would cap Medicare while continuing Medicare benefits for those with higher incomes? Your percentages came out somewhat the opposite of mine, with higher spending cuts than tax increases, which is interesting. You wouldn't reduce military overhead, too, which I found interesting. That section had some stuff I thought was pretty good in it, including " This option would also take some benefits, like housing allowances, into account when tying military raises to civilian pay raises. Currently, increases in those benefits come on top of pay raises. [u\The military would also reduce the length and frequency of combat tours. No unit or person will be sent to a combat zone for longer than a year, and they will not be sent back involuntarily without spending at least two years at home."

Mike, you were harsher than me, with a 36/64% weighted in cuts! But you enacted medical malpractice reform, which I'm leery of, and increased Medicare age to 68. Given the cost of health insurance, I'm not for that. You capped Medicare too, which I wouldn't do; Medicare pays little enough as it is, and the cost would just be passed on to the individual. Same with Social Security...CEOs can stay behind their desk a lot longer than janitors, so I don't see making it any tougher on the janitors.

I learned something today: The Bowles-Simpson plan, eliminating loopholes and reducing taxes isn't as bad as I thought it was.

Ying, You were even harsher than some of the rest of us, with a 65/35% weighted in favor of taxes.

Wow, Nick, you were harshest of all: 68/32% weighted in favor of taxes!

Makes me feel better. Also puts the lie to my "hating the rich", I tried to cut them some slack while trying to cut more. Of course, both of you came out with much bigger surpluses, too...

We all came down heavily against the military, I note, and pretty much all raised taxes on the rich and returned taxes to Clinton era. Interesting.

I agree it would be really great if the other suggestions were there:

Ending the wars of choice.
Implementing single payer health care
Significantly reducing our 800+ military installations around the world
Having the government able to bargain over drug prices
Removing us from Iraq and Afghanistan entirely
Reducing our overall global military footprint significantly
Government spend more on infrastructure
Government spend more on alternate energy
Government spend more on education
Government spend more on environmental remediation
Get the US involved in Fukushima

A true liberal, you are, Kiki! ;o) I agree with most of those, tho' I think the education system needs to be revamped rather than more money thrown at it, and I don't think trying to get involved in Fukushima would be viable.

Good suggestions, all, tho'. I'd REALLY have loved to see single-payor in there to get an idea what it would cost/save.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 9, 2011 11:10 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Since none of our righties seem to want to play, I tried to think like a rich rightie and do it. No military cuts, no tax increases, major cuts in government (which, they probably wouldn't notice, would increase unemployment). Came out 4/96% in favor of spending, and didn't totally reduce the shortfall...in fact by 2015 still left us with a deficit of $153 billion. By checking "Use Alternative for Inflation" I managed to cut the long-term deficit, just, but can't show it because of that short-term deficit. I dare anyone else to balance it with far-right thinking, would love to see how they do it.

There's follow-up at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/21/weekinreview/21leonhardt.html

Quote:
Reduce the size of the military rather than reduce pay for noncombat members of the military. Impose a millionaire’s tax rather than cut deductions for high-income households. Cap the growth of Medicare spending rather than raise the eligibility age.

These were among the choices made by readers who completed the online you-fix-the-deficit puzzle that accompanied a Week in Review article last Sunday. Since the puzzle went online, there have been more than one million page views, and more than 11,000 posted Twitter messages about the puzzle, most including their own solution. The Times analyzed those solutions, each of which cut at least $1.345 trillion from the 2030 deficit, to get a sense of readers’ choices.
This sample is obviously not scientific. But many readers asked for a tabulation of the responses, and taken together, they offer a glimpse of specific preferences within two groups: those who far prefer spending cuts, and those who want to mix cuts with tax increases. The responses also point to a deep divide between those two sides, illustrating why a solution is difficult.
The single least popular choice was allowing the expiration of the Bush tax cuts on income below $250,000 a year. Fewer than 10 percent of the solutions included that option. But when it came to tax cuts for incomes above $250,000, people’s opinions appeared to diverge according to their political views. Those who preferred spending cuts — a conservative group, in all likelihood — generally wanted this tax cut to remain in place. Among those who closed the deficit mostly with tax increases — probably a liberal group — the expiration was the single most selected policy.

The most popular option among all respondents? Reducing the military to less than its size before the Iraq war — included in about 80 percent of the solutions posted to Twitter. But cutting pay and benefits for the military was a choice of only 40 percent.

Given that Twitter users skew young, one arguable surprise was the reluctance to raise the eligibility age for Social Security (above 67, as is now scheduled) or Medicare (above 65). The four options that would have increased those ages, to either 68 or 70, were all among the 10 least popular. Making other changes to those programs — like reducing Social Security benefits for high earners and capping Medicare growth by cracking down on high-cost hospitals and doctors — received more support.

In the last week, readers and bloggers have also suggested dozens of cuts that did not appear among the puzzle’s options. Anthony Tedesco, in an e-mail, argued for a tax on sodas and a higher federal tax on alcohol. On Wednesday, a bipartisan group led by Pete Domenici, a former Republican senator from New Mexico, and Alice Rivlin, a Democratic budget expert, released a deficit plan that included a soda tax. It would raise about $15 billion a year in today’s dollars, roughly as much as eliminating farm subsidies or cutting foreign aid in half.

Others wanted more aggressive versions of existing options. Some readers, for example, wanted to cut entire departments, like Agriculture and Education. As is, the puzzle allows readers to cut aid to states 5 percent, cut the pay of civilian workers 5 percent, reduce the size of the federal work force 10 percent and eliminate 250,000 government contractors. Together, those options would close 7 percent of the 2030 budget gap. A larger set of cuts to domestic programs other than Social Security and Medicare might close 15 or 20 percent.

On the tax side, Felix Salmon, a commentator for Reuters, wrote that the options hewed too closely to the current code. He said he wished that he could have imposed a wealth tax or abolish, rather than reduce, the mortgage deduction. Mr. Salmon also suggested subjecting all income to the payroll tax that finances Social Security, rather than merely raising the ceiling on taxable income beyond the current level of $106,800, as the puzzle included.

The puzzle remains online, and version 2.0 may lie in the future. Comments continue to be welcome. Given how far Congress seems from enacting any deficit-reducing proposal, this debate will probably be around for a long time. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/21/weekinreview/21leonhardt.html

Also very interesting. We should send in some of our suggestions and see where it goes, eh?

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 9, 2011 1:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
They didn't have my favorite option: Increase taxes on everyone who thinks taxes should be increased.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

That goes right along with my suggestion in an earlier thread when I said we should target spending cuts at those who voted to cut spending.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 9, 2011 1:47 PM

Quote:
Mike, you were harsher than me, with a 36/64% weighted in cuts! But you enacted medical malpractice reform, which I'm leery of, and increased Medicare age to 68. Given the cost of health insurance, I'm not for that. You capped Medicare too, which I wouldn't do; Medicare pays little enough as it is, and the cost would just be passed on to the individual. Same with Social Security...CEOs can stay behind their desk a lot longer than janitors, so I don't see making it any tougher on the janitors.

Niki, I did that with a specific eye to "fairness" and to facts of modern life. Social Security was implemented when people did not routinely live to 65 years old. Now the average life expectancy in this country is over 75 years old. The idea behind Social Security was basically this: *IF* you make it to this ripe old age, then by all means, sit down, have a rest, we'll take it from here. And not many people made it that far, or if they did, they didn't make it much past that. Raising the Social Security age to 68, 69, or even 70 or 72 isn't unreasonable in light of our current life expectancies, and I'm not trying to be harsh on anyone. I certainly don't expect to retire at 65, or 67, or basically EVER.

I may have misunderstood the idea behing capping Medicare; I thought they were suggesting capping the amounts they'd pay to doctors, not capping the amount of care a recipient could receive in a year.

Medical malpractice reform I'm all for, especially if they're going after the REAL rip-off artists in the system, the majority of which are "clinics" of the kind run by Michele Bachmann's husband and by Rick Scott's former company, which paid over A BILLION DOLLARS IN FINES to settle its fraud cases, and Scott still walked away with billions in profit for ripping off the government.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 9, 2011 2:50 PM

THEHAPPYTRADER

This is the best I could manage, though I'm not particularly crazy about raising medicare and social security ages to 68.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-gr
aphic.html?choices=09kuqbr9

I did not want to cut government contractors or military health care because that could put me out of a job. Military Tri care contracts our behavioral services company that pays me to work with there children with Autism, Aspergers, or other disorders Tri-care recognizes and will pay for. The company is expanding and occasionally we are approved by private insurances to provide services, but the majority of our clients come from the military. I'm glad that they are capping the military budget, but I fear people like me are going to be cut first. Aside from protecting my own income, I really do believe in the work we do for these children.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 9, 2011 4:59 PM

Happy, when I target any programs, I'm thinking of specific TARGETS within said programs. For instance, when I targeted government contractors, I'm not aiming cuts at health specialists working with the VA and the like - I'm specifically thinking of cutting contractors of the mercenary-soldier type we have working in Afghanistan and Iraq, for instance.

Cutting back our naval fleet to five carrier battle groups (or carrier strike groups in the modern parlance) would allow us one for each coast (East, West, and Gulf) and two "floaters" to be fast-deployed to where they're needed in crisis.

And, like Frem said, if not every solution is a hammer, not every problem looks like a nail!

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 9, 2011 6:02 PM

FREMDFIRMA

>>Frem: Curious why you would cap Medicare while continuing Medicare benefits for those with higher incomes?

You paid into it, you get out of it - anything less is theft.
As for capping it, that cap would come with a better accounting of costs and a couple other things, I mean stuff like charging $795 for a wheelchair that ACTUALLY costs $119, for example, and would take place as a whole set of reforms involving placing Medicare outside the little profit-seeking games and bullshit of the insurance companies - there would be a whole mess of other stuff involved there.

>>You wouldn't reduce military overhead, too, which I found interesting. That section had some stuff I thought was pretty good in it, including " This option would also take some benefits, like housing allowances, into account when tying military raises to civilian pay raises.

Well, I'd cut the contractors and the welfare to the military industrial combine, but fact is most soldiers families are on the very verge, a lot of them recieve food stamps already and are barely making it - no way imma give the exploitive rapacious sumbitches in congress ANY way to subject them to further deprivation, cause while I don't "support the troops", those families are IMHO, as morally innocent as any of us are, and you know damn well that all lip service to the contrary, when in doubt squeeze the poor is practically the fuckin motto of the GOP, and thus you do not give them the chance if you don't have to.

Reason I didn't cut Gov personnel or pay/benefits is this - you cannot run this government like a business, look at how disastrous and predatory every attempt has been ?
Not just that, but those depts exist to provide services, and as the population they service grows so too must they or wind up failing to provide it in an efficient and timely manner, beyond which is axe-effect.
That's what happens when the greedy dickheads in the boardroom table start makin cuts, ok, we do it with eight, can we do it with six CHOP, we can do it with four, CHOP - and each cut savages efficiency, destroys morale, and eventually they're in a position where they don't have the staff to even DO the job, which is what happened to Advance security back in 1989 when the holding company which also owns Rawlings bought them out and started hacking away, resulting in loss of contract after contract and the failure of the company.
It don't work in the corporate world, it wouldn't work here, and then some nitwit in congress would create ANOTHER department to do that same job when it ain't gettin done, and then you have redundancy, wasted effort, office politics, yadda-fuckin-yadda... I think these things THROUGH, you see.

Oh, and my original proposable was to reduce our carrier fleet to three, one for each coast and the gulf, to defend our shores and act as disaster relief and general support in case of need - mind you a carrier can power a citys grid too, which is amazingly useful in a post-catastrophe environment.
But that leaves us no reserve, so my updated proposal is four, those three, and one in drydock which is used as a training base and rotated on a regular basis in a circle so that newbs can get trained while the ship gets well maintained, and is a handy hold-back reserve in case of need.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 9, 2011 6:46 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

" Raising the Social Security age to 68, 69, or even 70 or 72 isn't unreasonable in light of our current life expectancies, and I'm not trying to be harsh anyone."

Well ... life expectancies are projected to go down.

Somehow, other countries manage to have 4 weeks of vacation, full medical coverage from birth to death, free school, public transport, early retirement, strong economies, AND longer life expectancies than the US. I realize you're working within the confines of the choices given you, but you are setting your goals too low.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 9, 2011 8:09 PM

YINYANG

You were busy trying to get yourself lit on fire. It happens.

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Ying, You were even harsher than some of the rest of us, with a 65/35% weighted in favor of taxes.

Yeah, I had to be so harsh when I decided not to cap Medicare - which, BTW, it's still not clear to me at all what that would entail (but thanks to Nick for trying to answer my question). Does that mean negotiating for lower prices, limiting the amount of care, raising premiums and co-pays, or what?

Oh, and thanks for comparing all our info like this, Niki. It's especially interesting to see how much we all agree on the military.

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Niki, I did that with a specific eye to "fairness" and to facts of modern life. Social Security was implemented when people did not routinely live to 65 years old. Now the average life expectancy in this country is over 75 years old. The idea behind Social Security was basically this: *IF* you make it to this ripe old age, then by all means, sit down, have a rest, we'll take it from here. And not many people made it that far, or if they did, they didn't make it much past that. Raising the Social Security age to 68, 69, or even 70 or 72 isn't unreasonable in light of our current life expectancies, and I'm not trying to be harsh on anyone. I certainly don't expect to retire at 65, or 67, or basically EVER.

Well, here's another fact of modern life that I hope interests you, given your interest in fairness - while average overall U.S. life expectancy is around 77 years, for black men it's only 69.7 years, according to data from the CDC.* It hardly seems fair to bar the average black man from ever being eligible for Social Security. (ETA: Which, now that I look, although you proposed here that 70 or 72 wouldn't be bad, you didn't do in your plan - just raised it to 68. Still, I think it's important to keep in mind that life expectancy isn't the same across all demographics.)

I also agree with Kiki - just because that's the way Social Security was originally intended, doesn't mean we have to keep it that way.

---

*Source: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr58/nvsr58_21.pdf

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 10, 2011 3:45 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Unfortunaly that is not how democracy works.

That's easy for geezer, rappy, kirkie and wulfie to forget, seeing as none of them favor democracy much. See rappy's quote (above)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 10, 2011 5:59 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Sig, I didn't see a post from Raptor in here, am I missing something? I found it interesting that none of our righties even TRIED, or if they did, didn't post their results.

As for the rest, what now stands out for me is that the questions were obviously too all-encompassing, and nothing is as simple as it seems. I didn't raise the SSI age because, watching my husband still working, four days a week when he turned 70 and now at 72 three days a week, I see how hard it is on him. He's not willing to quit outright because of both the current economic situation and because we'd lose our health insurance if he worked less than three days a week. I didn't know about the life expectancy, but personally, I think those who make it into the 80s, etc., are those who have the resources to stay healthy, while those with fewer resources live shorter lives...that figure was the AVERAGE, and as shown, that's not the situation for some segments of society.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 10, 2011 5:59 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Happy, that's a perfect example of how the questions are too all-encompassing. I don't think anyone here wants to cut ALL government contractors, I think it's a case of us seeing that, thinking of the abuses of same, and voting for it. If it were broken down more specifically, we might have a better chance of making decisions we'd approve of wholly. Like Mike said.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 10, 2011 6:00 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Frem, in general you're right about "if you paid into it..." BUT, and a big "but", we all paid into it, it got shoved into general fund and was spent in large part by the government. Given the wealthy virtually ALWAYS have retirement accounts and investments that mean they'll live well without it, I'd cap it. Plus an awful lot of those wealthy people benefitted from what went into the general fund of OUR Social Security in one way or another.

And again, too much generalities; I was caught between voting for cutting military overhead or not but chose to because of one of the parts. I miss-typed (dunno how I managed that!) my comment, 'cuz I meant to point out that the part I liked about the "cut overhead" thing was that it would shorten tours of duty, limit how many and put more time between tours. I didn't want to cut military pay and benefits because I KNOW they get screwed over salary-wise. So that's a mea culpa...I don't know what I was thinking when I typed what I DID, 'cuz I meant the above.

Did ANYONE cut government workers' pay or cut the workers' themselves? I didn't notice, but I don't think anyone did...just like the military, we know they don't exactly make out like bandits (despite what the Republicans keep hollering) and they run the services, some of which are the safety nets we need. I'm curious; DID anyone cut government workers or their salaries?

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 10, 2011 6:00 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Kiki, I agree; raising SSI or Medicare age is just something I think is unfair. I just envision all of us paying into it, and people who can already afford to retire living off it for years while those who struggled and weren't able to put away enough to retire on, but paid into Social Security and Medicare, die before they get anything back. It's another cut to the lower middle class (that's us) and poor, as I viewed it. I look at Japan, where people are actually dying from overwork, then I look at America, where stress is a major killer and yes, we DON'T have the "health benefits" (like vacation) that other countries do, and it seems like the least we can do for those who have paid into it all their lives. Social Security and Medicare don't exactly let one live in style, or even live very easily, believe me, I know! One can barely survive in today's world on SSI and millions can't afford supplemental health insurance.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 10, 2011 6:01 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Yin, it's funny, I THOUGHT I'd seen you before but wasn't sure. Now I know why. Thanks for your kind words, I found it very interesting to compare decisions we made. Capping Medicare says "This option would cap the Medicare growth at G.D.P. growth plus 1 percentage point, starting in 2013. Among other things, this would crack down on many hospitals and doctors with the highest costs", but I don't think it would do that in reality. I think the costs would be passed on to the consumer, or if they have it, supplemental health insurance, which would just make health insurance even more expensive for the elderly. It's too simple an answer--as so many of them are.

All in all, there's so much more that goes into EACH of the decisions, it's really not at all a realistic game. If they broke it down to more specifics, we'd get a better idea, and as noted, there are other things we think should be included. It was fun, but doesn't really mean much except that (as far as I can tell) nobody wanted to cut government employees or their wages, everyone wanted to cut the military one way or another, and we were ALL willing to cut spending as well as raise taxes, to varying degrees.

I may "play hard-core liberal" and see if it could be done by totally raising taxes, since playing Republican showed it's virtually impossible with JUST spending cuts. Even tho' it's so badly flawed, it's interesting.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 10, 2011 6:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
" Raising the Social Security age to 68, 69, or even 70 or 72 isn't unreasonable in light of our current life expectancies, and I'm not trying to be harsh anyone."

Well ... life expectancies are projected to go down.

Somehow, other countries manage to have 4 weeks of vacation, full medical coverage from birth to death, free school, public transport, early retirement, strong economies, AND longer life expectancies than the US. I realize you're working within the confines of the choices given you, but you are setting your goals too low.

Perhaps. But I'm trying to set goas that are achievable in the near term, given the realities that we live with today.

Fact: We have a rather formidable outstanding debt. Fact: Nobody really wants to pay 55% in taxes. My solution? We're going to have to make SOME cuts, and SOME targeted tax increases. It's not about "balancing" the budget, because a balanced budget would never address a single penny of outstanding debt. Near term - next decade or so - we HAVE to work that debt down. It doesn't have to be paid off entirely (although wouldn't it be nice to not owe any other nation a dime?), but it should definitely be cut down by a good chunk.

Once we're out of debt for the long term, we can revisit retirement, etc. And if we don't have six wars we're dicking around with, and ELEVEN carrier battle groups (which is how many we have now), and all the rest of the top-heavy military-industrial crap that's pulling us down like a stone tied to our feet while we're in deep water, we actually CAN work on upping benefits and lowering retirement ages. But we have to get their first.

And Frem - I like your thinking on the training/maintenance idea. I'd still keep TWO extra CBGs in reserve, one East, one West, just in case. But no way in hell do we need eleven of the goddamned things.

And let's be realistic - we can do away with about half our military aircraft as well. If we didn't have a U.S. Air Force at all (which I'm in no way suggesting), we would STILL have the world's largest air force, according to some source - only we call it the U.S. Navy.

And we all saw how well all that airpower protected us from a handful of guys with armed with boxcutters and civilian airliners.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 10, 2011 6:15 AM