Puterbac News Network and Political Discussion Thread

[sardis]

So even the lazy Greeks passed an austerity plan. I guess the USA Democrats are the only people left on the planet holding out on cutting costs....

[Owlman]

The Greeks were forced to pass an austerity plan that included both tax increases and spending cuts because their creditors would no longer lend them money. They are facing massive layoffs and years of deprivation because they didn't do what they should have done years ago.

We are not at that point, but it will be exponentially hastened if we don't extend our debt limit and default on our current bills.

Then we should pass a very modest deficit reduction plan in 2012 with a very large spending cuts and large tax increases in 2013 phased in to cover the next 20 years. This will mean large cuts in defense expenditures and medicaid, a slowing of medicare, (hopefully increases in research into alternative energy including treatment of speat nuclear fuel rods) and everyone paying more. If we do it now, then it won't be as hard a hit than if we wait 10 years.

[Toemeesleather]

If the Dems give up, children will starve and old people will have to eat dog food.

[sardis]

How much does Owlman say we need to raise taxes for this 20 year phase-out plan. Pre-Bush?, more? Does Owlman really think we have 20 years to balance the budget? Does he think that will build confidence in American business community?

[Toemeesleather]

President Barack Obama on Wednesday declared that revenues must be part of any deal to narrow the federal government's budget deficit and criticized Republicans for protecting tax breaks for "millionaires and billionaires."

Mr. Obama, in a nationally televised news conference, said revenue increases shouldn't come "out of the pockets of middle-class families that are struggling" but instead from people such as hedge-fund managers and corporate-jet owners, "folks who are doing extraordinarily well."



Will someone please post a link to Obammers' list of suggested spending cuts and amounts.

[Owlman]

How much does Owlman say we need to raise taxes for this 20 year phase-out plan. Pre-Bush?, more? Does Owlman really think we have 20 years to balance the budget? Does he think that will build confidence in American business community?

I'd phase in the pre-Bush tax level over the next 2 years starting with the top level but eventually changing everybody. I make a minimum of 10% taxes for the poorest. I recognize that baby boomers are about to retire and reach their average life span (and greatest health care cost in 20 years) and thus this should be budgeted for. Medicare changes should be planned to modify for after that point. The defense budget has increased 3 fold since 1998. Energy alternatives to 40% of use in 20 years, phasing back significantly our presence in the middle east. I'd change over 10 years the ability to deduct interest rates on your home rental for new purchases, but only on new home purchases starting in 2013 (banks will subsequently lend more in 2012), I'd cut payroll taxes paid by businesses only, stop supplements to farmers over a certain size, none to corporations, repeal McCarron-Ferguson. Give the Southern states what they profess they want, cut medicaid payments to them (and others) for the poor but phased in over 20 years.

This just to start. It will work as long as we can still get money to borrow while the changes are made. Don't pay our bills? This option goes immediately out the window.

[sardis]

That all sounds nice and good, but can you quantify those proposals? The additional tax revenues you propose only bring an additional 200 Billion or so a year. You also don't seem to make significant cuts to medicare. You can set the wealthy tax rate to 100% and still not cover what is potentially needed.

[Owlman]

That's because I'm not trying to balance the budget over one year, and recognize that politically, we aren't cutting medicare much at all over the next 20 years. With that political reality, the goal is not to have a balance of zero but to move towards having more income than outgo in the next 20 years.

Here's the truth, you can't have a large influx of people into a system, pay less into it and keep the same services. So either we admit we are massively rationing care to mommie and daddie, or we pay more for mommie and daddie preparing for when mommie and daddie die off. At this point, medicare and social security costs will go down and if prepared people will have 25 to 30 years to prepare for it.

We will still be borrowing, but the rate of borrowing will decrease due to tax cuts plus big cuts in other areas.

[aTm]

http://www.torontosun.com/2011/06/28/le ... -assistant

[sardis]

That's because I'm not trying to balance the budget over one year, and recognize that politically, we aren't cutting medicare much at all over the next 20 years. With that political reality, the goal is not to have a balance of zero but to move towards having more income than outgo in the next 20 years.

Here's the truth, you can't have a large influx of people into a system, pay less into it and keep the same services. So either we admit we are massively rationing care to mommie and daddie, or we pay more for mommie and daddie preparing for when mommie and daddie die off. At this point, medicare and social security costs will go down and if prepared people will have 25 to 30 years to prepare for it.

We will still be borrowing, but the rate of borrowing will decrease due to tax cuts plus big cuts in other areas.

or you significantly raise the age of retirement to 72 + starting with those who are currently 55, which we have to do. Retirement at age 65 is outdated and unsustainable no matter how high you tax.

[Dora]

Full retirement age for baby boomers is 66. For people born after 1960, it's 67. I expect the age will keep going up.

[Owlman]

or you significantly raise the age of retirement to 72 + starting with those who are currently 55, which we have to do.

As Dora has pointed out, we don't "have" to do it. Right now, it's 67 for those born after 1960. Jumping the retirement age 7 years for those less with 10 years left to plan is more likely to lead to a voter backlash of seniors and the majority of their children. Make it 68 for those born after 1965, 69 for those after 1970, 70 for those born after 1975.

But as long as we bank on oil as our primary source of fuel, we will spend an inordinant amount of wasted time, lives and money in patrolling the middle east.

[billy bob bocephus]

1. 342 AD: Early Christians ...

dang, Christians 342 years before Christ...prescient bastards weren't they?

[AlabamAlum]

1. 342 AD: Early Christians ...

dang, Christians 342 years before Christ...prescient bastards weren't they?

342 AD was before Christ? I believe you are confused.

[AlabamAlum]

This should help you:

[billy bob bocephus]

oops, your right - good drugs - just had a catheter run up my left side and two stones removed - hydrocodon strikes again...my bad

[AlabamAlum]

Hope you feel better soon.

[billy bob bocephus]

thanks

[10ac]

I don't care what the Bible says about it, I don't care what you do behind closed doors. I just don't want to see it or have my grandkids see it. I find it disgusting. But hey, that's just my bigotted self.

[AlabamAlum]

I don't particularly want to see gay guys in public displays of affection (if that's what you're talking about). Then again, I don't want to see old people, fat people (or anyone else really) making out (except for 2 hot chicks, maybe).

Not wanting to see it and being illegal are different, though.

Don't have grandkids yet, but with my son, I think I've raised him well and I believe he was well-equipped to deal mentally with seeing the random homo PDAs. He's grown now, but I remember years ago he saw two guys kissing off Royal Street. He just said "gross" (of course he said that when he saw a guy kiss a girl back then, too - he was 8 or so).