How would you fix the economy and budget issues?

[Daseal]

What we need to do is cut out the soldiers. We need far fewer foot soldiers, far fewer weapons, but more mobile/elite squads and really focus on economic/cyber warfare. Over are the days of an imposing military presence being the biggest factor between countries. We need to take a page from some other countries and improve our cyber and economic prowess.

That said, not sure where a lot of the soldiers would end up. Many are HS educated and don't fit in the elite units/cyber realms. I'm not saying get rid of the common soldier completely, but cut down on that presence.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Daseal

What we need to do is cut out the soldiers. We need far fewer foot soldiers, far fewer weapons, but more mobile/elite squads and really focus on economic/cyber warfare. Over are the days of an imposing military presence being the biggest factor between countries. We need to take a page from some other countries and improve our cyber and economic prowess.

That said, not sure where a lot of the soldiers would end up. Many are HS educated and don't fit in the elite units/cyber realms. I'm not saying get rid of the common soldier completely, but cut down on that presence.

I think we have them beat on that as well. I have no problem if we pull back most if not all of our troops all over the world and let them defend our boarders as we slowly reduce our forces.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Current life expectancy overall in the U.S. is: 77.9.

The gov't shouldn't be in the business of providing people a retirement fund. People should invest their own money, their own way for retirement. We're already too far down that road for many folks, so obviously current and near retirees need to be protected at status quo. However adjustments to SS need to be made for those further out. BTW those adjustments will hurt folks like me who have paid into SS for many years yet face an age increase, benefit reduction, or means testing. Younger folks who haven't paid in as long are less invested, hence affected less.

I'm sure you understand the SS fund has been raided for years by the fed and is essentially a big, fat IOU. If a private corporation had managed its retirement fund the way SS has been managed they would be prosecuted and jailed.

From the survey:
During the Great Recession, most private-sector employees have seen their wages frozen, and some have even watched wages decline,” the chairmen of the deficit panel wrote. “In contrast, federal workers have seen their wages increase.” This option would be a one-time 5 percent cut in federal civilian workers’ pay; the chairmen called for a three-year freeze on pay, which would have a similar effect.

The part about private sector pay being frozen or reduced through forced unpaid leave is true, why shouldn't the federal workers feel some pain as well.

As usual with you far lefties, you demagogue endlessly

Again, from the survey:
Would change health-care plan for veterans who had not been wounded in battle. Premiums, which have not risen in a decade, would rise. More veterans would receive health insurance from employer. 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.

No one is "screwing" veterans, just having them pay slightly more for their health care premiums.....just like everyone else. This also states; non- wounded veterans.

As far as weapons systems, we are already cutting redundant or unneeded weapons systems and the DoD is seeing funding cuts across most agencies/departments. I live in VB and we just saw a massive reduction in JFCOM. So the whole "cut military spending" argument is baseless unless you can bring specific programs or systems that you believe should be cut.

You do realize the majority of military spending is on personnel (soldier/sailors/airmen pay) and operations & maintenance. Should we cut O&M and not maintain our facilities and equipment???? How about cut soldiers pay????

I'm sure you also realize these weapons systems and gov't contractors that are so evil and terrible provide thousands of well-paid tech jobs across the country.

I only marked a small tax increase because the only way to stop a runaway train is to cut off its fuel supply. If we continue to increase taxes to the fed, the politicans and lobbyists have a larger trough to feed from and they will continue their nonsense.

Well at this point the gov't is in the business and they have a bunch of my money. I really don't have a problem with the gov't having some type of retirment system in place but not the current SS system. They need to take a page from Galveston


Just read the difference.

• Workers making $17,000 a year are expected to receive about 50 percent more per month on our alternative plan than on Social Security - $1,036 instead of $683. [See the Figure.]
• Workers making $26,000 a year will make almost double Social Security's return - $1,500 instead of $853.
• Workers making $51,000 a year will get $3,103 instead of $1,368.
• Workers making $75,000 or more will nearly triple Social Security - $4,540 instead of $1,645.
• Galveston County's survivorship benefits pay four times a worker's annual salary - a minimum of $75,000 to a maximum $215,000 - versus Social Security, which forces widows to wait until age 60 to qualify for benefits, or provides 75 percent of a worker's salary for school-age children.

In Galveston, if the worker dies before retirement, the survivors receive not only the full survivorship but get generous accidental death benefits, too. Galveston County's disability benefit also pays more: 60 percent of an individual's salary, better than Social Security's.
Two government studies of the Galveston Plan - by the Government Accountability Office and the Social Security Administration - claim that low-wage workers do better under Social Security. However, these studies assumed a low 4 percent return, which is the minimum rate of return on annuities guaranteed by the insurance companies. The actual returns have been substantially higher


Its hard to read those number and not know there is a beter alternative to SS but some just want to keep a broken system that is draining the US. Here is a link to the article and its a good read.

Galveston County: A Model for Social Security Reform | Publications | National Center for Policy Analysis | NCPA

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Well at this point the gov't is in the business and they have a bunch of my money. I really don't have a problem with the gov't having some type of retirment system in place but not the current SS system. They need to take a page from Galveston

The feds got me in a big way too. I had seen the Galveston program before and you're 100% right, it's a crying shame how bad the feds f-ed SS up.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

The gov't shouldn't be in the business of providing people a retirement fund. People should invest their own money, their own way for retirement. We're already too far down that road for many folks, so obviously current and near retirees need to be protected at status quo. However adjustments to SS need to be made for those further out. BTW those adjustments will hurt folks like me who have paid into SS for many years yet face an age increase, benefit reduction, or means testing. Younger folks who haven't paid in as long are less invested, hence affected less.

That's easier said than done. When the average family income hasn't gone up much over the past 20 years, but inflation has, how do you expect people to put money into retirement when they are trying to tread water or completely submerged? It's easy for guys like yourself to sit back and think that everything is ok, because it is in your little world. It's not. Try being dirt poor. Try being from a broken home. Try getting a opportunity where there are no opportunities. It's not as easy as we make it out to be. Hey guys, it worked for me so it must work for everybody else. I agree with you that something must be done with SS. Whether the government invests in bonds or some other low risk investment, it needs to happen.

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

I'm sure you understand the SS fund has been raided for years by the fed and is essentially a big, fat IOU. If a private corporation had managed its retirement fund the way SS has been managed they would be prosecuted and jailed.

I know and I agree.

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

During the Great Recession, most private-sector employees have seen their wages frozen, and some have even watched wages decline,” the chairmen of the deficit panel wrote. “In contrast, federal workers have seen their wages increase.” This option would be a one-time 5 percent cut in federal civilian workers’ pay; the chairmen called for a three-year freeze on pay, which would have a similar effect.

The part about private sector pay being frozen or reduced through forced unpaid leave is true, why shouldn't the federal workers feel some pain as well.

Different time, different era. You can't cut people's pay when inflation is constantly rising. I work for the state (I know you said federal), and I can assure you that we haven't seen a raise in 3-4 years due to budget issues. However, during that time, inflation has continued to rise. Now you want to cut pay? I think you are a tad misguided about government employees. I have no issue with freezing pay but a big "No" to pay reduction. Hey, if you want to reduce some federal pay, lets start with Congress. I'm all for that.

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Again, from the survey:
Would change health-care plan for veterans who had not been wounded in battle. Premiums, which have not risen in a decade, would rise. More veterans would receive health insurance from employer. 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.

Doesn't change a thing. I could care less if their premiums haven't increased in 100 years, it should stay that way. Call it a benefit for having to deal with the crap they do. I'm 100% against messing with any veterans health care plans. (combat or non)

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

No one is "screwing" veterans, just having them pay slightly more for their health care premiums.....just like everyone else. This also states; non- wounded veterans.

My guess is the veterans would disagree with you, and so do I. Who cares if it's wounded or non-wounded. They still served our country and to disrespect them this way is horrible. Thanks guys for serving our country!! I'll continuing waving my little American flag around while handing you a bill for increase premiums! GO AMERICA!!!

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

So the whole "cut military spending" argument is baseless unless you can bring specific programs or systems that you believe should be cut.

You do realize the majority of military spending is on personnel (soldier/sailors/airmen pay) and operations & maintenance. Should we cut O&M and not maintain our facilities and equipment???? How about cut soldiers pay????

I have no problem with the number of troops we have, I just think we don't need to keep beefing our military up with more and more war machines. China is about to get their first air craft carrier, and yet they are one of the biggest military forces in the world. You don't need all the over priced equipment to maintain superiority. A bit of this military spending is coming from sponsoring wars (Iraq, Yemen, Libya, Afghan, Pakistan) we have no business being involved in. The more missiles we keep firing the higher the costs keep rising.

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

I'm sure you also realize these weapons systems and gov't contractors that are so evil and terrible provide thousands of well-paid tech jobs across the country.

Most of that money is going to line people's pockets at the top. Sure the tech jobs are well paid for Lockheed Martin, but it all goes back to continuing to finance wars we have no business in. Guys like LM are making bank. They love it when we go to war (so do oil companies) because they profit big time.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

That's easier said than done. When the average family income hasn't gone up much over the past 20 years, but inflation has, how do you expect people to put money into retirement when they are trying to tread water or completely submerged? It's easy for guys like yourself to sit back and think that everything is ok, because it is in your little world. It's not. Try being dirt poor. Try being from a broken home. Try getting a opportunity where there are no opportunities. It's not as easy as we make it out to be. Hey guys, it worked for me so it must work for everybody else. I agree with you that something must be done with SS. Whether the government invests in bonds or some other low risk investment, it needs to happen.

You know everyone that works is paying 6.2% of their income into SS, plus the employer match of 6.2%. As you mention, if SS is either privatized or "lock-boxed" any low risk investment is better than what we have now.

You have no clue about where I've come from or what I've been through, so it is unwise to make such assumptions.

Different time, different era. You can't cut people's pay when inflation is constantly rising. I work for the state (I know you said federal), and I can assure you that we haven't seen a raise in 3-4 years due to budget issues. However, during that time, inflation has continued to rise. Now you want to cut pay? I think you are a tad misguided about government employees. I have no issue with freezing pay but a big "No" to pay reduction. Hey, if you want to reduce some federal pay, lets start with Congress. I'm all for that.

I have no issue with a freeze vs. a cut. I also have no issue with cutting congressional pay & retirement benefits.

I'm in the private sector (day job) and I haven't had a raise in over 4 years. I also owned a small restaurant that I needed to sell due to the poor economic situation. I very clearly understand things aren't easy, but we have to get gov't spending under control at all levels and employee costs are a major factor in gov't spending.

Doesn't change a thing. I could care less if their premiums haven't increased in 100 years, it should stay that way. Call it a benefit for having to deal with the crap they do. I'm 100% against messing with any veterans health care plans. (combat or non)

My guess is the veterans would disagree with you, and so do I. Who cares if it's wounded or non-wounded. They still served our country and to disrespect them this way is horrible. Thanks guys for serving our country!! I'll continuing waving my little American flag around while handing you a bill for increase premiums! GO AMERICA!!!

If my understanding is correct, the premiums that are in question are a supplemental to the basic care that is provided to retired veterans. If a retired veteran uses a military or VA hospital there is no charge. Veterans who do not retire have no benefits (unless disabled).

Also keep in mind serving in the military is a voluntary decision. To stay until retirement is a plan and economic/career decision our veterans make for their futures by weighing the cost/benefit. They understand premiums can increase. Also a large percentage of veterans are "double-dipping" with second careers, so they don't fit the image of a homeless disabled vet in a wheelchair.

I have no problem with the number of troops we have, I just think we don't need to keep beefing our military up with more and more war machines. China is about to get their first air craft carrier, and yet they are one of the biggest military forces in the world. You don't need all the over priced equipment to maintain superiority. A bit of this military spending is coming from sponsoring wars (Iraq, Yemen, Libya, Afghan, Pakistan) we have no business being involved in. The more missiles we keep firing the higher the costs keep rising.

We have to maintain our technological superiority, reduce risk to human life, become more efficient and lethal, and more cost effective. Achieving these objectives requires R & D dollars. Should we be continuing weapons systems that don't fit into our new missions in an evolving world....of course not. But we have to develop new tech that reduces the human risk/expenditures. And I agree we don't need to overtly continue in wars we don't need to be in.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

People have been paying into SS their whole working life, and now you want to reduce that to a mere couple of years? Wow. Advice, never run for office and use that as your platform. Even the Repubs would laugh you out.

1) You didn't ask what I would do to get elected, you asked what I would do to fix the economy/taxes/budget. I'm not concerned whether it's popular, I'm concerned whether or not it's the right thing to do.

2) If we keep the retirement age where it is, then the 30 somethings who have paid into it for the last 10-20 years will be paying into a system that won't even be solvent when they go to retire. You have to make a choice:

- increase payroll taxes to fund the program as is, or
- raise the retirement age
- cut the size of benefits

Not sure why you think raising the retirement age is such a far fetched concept. In fact, it seems I just might be able to get elected after all:

President Obama has recently alluded to changing Social Security benefits to balance the budget, and a national University of Iowa Hawkeye Poll released today suggests most Americans support such a move.
Nearly nine out of 10 respondents supported at least one reform, and two-thirds supported at least two reforms.
Of the five possible reforms proposed, two received majority support: half supported increasing the retirement age by up to three years.

Hawkeye Poll: Majority of Americans supports Social Security reformUniversity News Services - The University of Iowa

[dmek25]

increase the retirement age? your joking, right?

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by dmek25

increase the retirement age? your joking, right?

Why would I be?

When Medicare and Social Security were put into place, the retirement age was set at 65, but people only lived to their early 70s on average.

Now that most are living into their late 70s (and many into their 80s), we're asking the system to support people for many more years than it was originally designed to.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by dmek25

increase the retirement age? your joking, right?

If the system is going to stay solvent, it's either that or massive tax increase on everyone.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

If the system is going to stay solvent, it's either that or massive tax increase on everyone.

I am sure we can work with a modest increase. Same tax level as Clinton/Reagan years will do just fine.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by saden1

I am sure we can work with a modest increase. Same tax level as Clinton/Reagan years will do just fine.

Not a fan of an increase, but I agree after the economy gets on more steady footing, it has to be on the table to get our finances straightened out.

[dmek25]

messing with the retirement age would be political suicide for anyone

[firstdown]

I would state by making cuts on just about everything. One of the first things I would do is open drilling up so we can start pumping oil. Then I'd pull our troops out of 95% of the places we have them now or tell those nations they have to pay the bill. I would have a bonus plain for people who find ways to reduce spending which would be a one time bonus based off the % of savings. That would get the people on the inside using the funds to cut their spending. I'd 'Means Test' SS and medicare and that would be a start. I'd give incentives to companies who make products here and tax the ones sending all of their jobs over seas (that would be done with caution). I'd force a tough love policy and not allow people to sit around living off the goverment. Thats my plan while I'm on hold so when I read it again it will probably make no sense.

[BuckSkin]

I try to stay out of arguments in which I'm economically or emotionally vested. There are two lines used often, that honestly get under my skin and are used to rationalize a personal view. First is " it was your choice to join the military ". It can be used to shrug off any number of arguments, pay, benefits another deployment ect. Well Sammy you made a decision based upon your beliefs, career options not to follow the same path many proud Americans did. We pay our taxes, we pay into SS even state taxes when stationed over seas. The grass is not always greener, there are many young soldiers in our ranks, who are parents, that still qualify for government aid. Oh yeah the second line that irks me is " if I'm old enough to go to, war I should be old enough to drink"..... Anyone want to live in a fighting position with a teenage drunk?