+1

i feel for the innocents in Afghanistan and Iraq, but a part of me thinks the prudent course is just to wipe them the fuck out. and while we're at it...Iran and Saudi Arabia too. Once and for all. The whole "Islam's bloody borders" phenomenon is just so tiresome and is going to end up costing us more than it would cost to just permanantly end the problem, once and for all.

You don't fight by the rules, you fight to win. Somebody punches me in the face I'm going to kick them in the nuts till I shatter their balls. And then I'm going to stomp on their face.

this page of this thread makes me LOL

I consider Medicare and Social Security seperate in a way since we are taxed seperately and the money held in a trust. We will have to figure out a way to deal with that over the years by either reducing benefits or increasing the taxes on it. Either way though, it's not something the President can really change as they are promised benefits to people who have paid in over the years. Just as you can't just take a knife to Veterans Benefits that have been promised over the years.

There just isn't a lot you can cut in terms of that stuff at this point without telling a bunch of old people who have been promised these funds and paid in over their lifetime to go fuck themselves.

This is pretty interesting:



I know it's wikipedia, but I remember the NYT article and I'm sure someone's linked it either earlier in this thread or in the Recession one.

So, just raise taxes back to 2000 levels, undo all the spending changes, and we're almost back to the halcyon days of the late 1990s! :D

So the plan is to send out a notice letting older people know their Social Security checks they depend on and that they have built their life around is going to be cut in half? It's real easy to say "lets just cut Medicare and Social Security" when you aren't looking at the real life results of that decision.

All the government's historical data is here, btw: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/historicals/

BUT THINK OF THE TRICKLE DOWN EFFECT WE WILL BE LOSING.

...who needs to the trickle down effect when we can just leverage up and then have the explosion up effect of the bailout (which now the GOP is against the 'tax' to recover those funds....bwahahahahahahahah)

So what are you going to cut to get to 1.6 trillion?

No, but you can immediately begin to phase out Medicare & SocSec for people under a certain age, and realize long term spending savings that way.

...and cut a shit-ton of smaller budget items, (DHS, TSA, DEA, I'm looking at you first) while you're at it.

It's apparently really easy to say that about defense spending as well.

Why? If they're that small a portion of the budget, cutting them will be only the proverbial drop in the bucket. I'd rather we vacated Iraq and Afghanistan and cut that defense budget down to get bigger bang for our buck.

the fact that there's a payroll cap on the FICA tax is fucking ridiculous

So what do older people do then? Work till they are 90? Pay $4000 a month for health insurance if they can get it?

What do you foresee happening to the country when our older population has no income and no access to health care? I guess having them all die early does take the burden off our health care system.

You could also just make all income fall under FICA so that people can't hide behind "dividends". For instance I don't pay the full FICA that I would otherwise have to because as an S-Corp, we just mark a percent of my income as dividends vs wages.

A couple of points. One, phasing out Medicare and SS will exacerbate the short term deficit by quite a bit. You're right that it's projected to reduce long term costs, but if the young stop paying into the system that will add hundreds of billions to the yearly deficit for many years.

Two, how do you phase out Medicare? And I ask that honestly. I disagree with phasing out SS, but I at least understand how private accounts are supposed to fill that gap. What replaces Medicare? How do we provide medical coverage to those too old for private insurance to cover?

Medicare is indeed a much bigger fiasco to deal with than SS.

In theory, I think the private sector could come up with a way to be profitable on insuring the elderly if it had to fill a void. It'd almost certainly require hospital costs in general to come down to non-bullshit levels, but it's theoretically doable.

edit: And yes, either of these ARE long term deals, that require a helluva lot of planning and number crunching, as well as increasing the deficit over the short-term. But frankly, any reasonable solution to the budget these days needs to be long-term, and probably includes some short-term shittyness. There is no quick fix.

You have to start somewhere, and it's a helluva lot easier to show at least a SIGN of fiscal discipline by removing the smaller, porky bullshit.

I don't mean to be bitchy here, but there's a pretty big gap between theory and practice there.

And if I had an actual workable answer fully backed by numbers and statistical evidence, I'd be running for office right about now.

Fact of the matter is, Medicare in its current form simply isn't sustainable, and I in no way support taxing the shit out of the rich to cover it. 'Bout the only other way is moving a good chunk of people out of it.

problem is there's no alternative to move them into.

private sector will never be able to do it - if they brought costs down for old people they'd be blasted about maintaining high costs for everyone else for no reason, unless they used old people as a "loss leader" and raised the rates on the rest of us, which nobody would support either.

That's basically how it is now, except it's the government we're paying (an institution not known for managing money well, ever), and not the insurance companies (an institution known for being money grubbing bastards, but at least knows how to manage their money - and I'll freely admit that's about the only good thing I could even think of saying for 'em).

+800 gazillion

except see steve's point right above.

i'd rather that my healthcare be controlled by what is essentially a non-profit (government) than a for-profit (insurance company). Call me crazy, but I feel that a non-profit has less incentive to worry about money and thus is less likely to cut corners on care to save themselves $$ than a for-profit company where my care is eating away at the number of vacation homes the CEO can buy.

I totally agree Medicare is unsustainable, but I don't think kicking off seniors is the answer, nor is it politically possible. Eventually the answer is either cutting what's provided or reimbursing at a lower rate. Neither of those will be popular, but goods and services are the problem and goods and services have to be a part of the solution.

And getting the blue hell beaten out of you at the polls. As would anyone who advocated touching the the third rail of all third rails.

Or did you miss the poll from last week or so that showed securing Medicare & SS among the top priorities of both Republican and Democratic voters? And Independents? And that both actually ranked higher than cutting the deficit.
http://people-press.org/report/584/p...riorities-2010

LOL, trust me, that's not it. Bankrupting the country & destroying anything resembling competent health care isn't something I picture being popular in the long run.

I guess it could be a big plus for people intentionally trying to do accomplish both but I have to believe that's ultimately a minority. (Willing accomplices, the proverbial "useful idiots" notwithstanding)

Oh hell, lemme run. I know damn well I'd set new records for largest defeat in history.

lmao - you actually believe that would be the result of REFORMING healthcare, as opposed to the result of leaving it like it is now (but replace "bankrupting the country" with "bankrupting anyone unlucky enough to get seriously ill who doesn't make 6 figures").

it honestly surprises me still that there are people out there who are either so close-minded, OR so unintelligent and unable to look at the freely available data and see what is going on and what will happen if things continue on their present path (note that I said OR, feel free to pick whichever you feel applies - note also this is a general statement and not intended to apply to you in particular jon) that they believe this.

it's impossible to have rational discussion with irrational people.

You can't reason someone out of a position that they didn't reason themselves into.

You don't have an answer and neither does anyone else because there isn't one. Old people get sick and cost a lot of money to keep alive. It's just impossible for private health insurance companies to make a profit on them (trust me, they would be doing it if it was possible).

The option you are proposing is to have a country full of elderly people who can't go to the doctor. While letting these people die from lack of health care would shrink the deficit, it's not going to get much public support. No one wants to see their Mom or Grandma die because they can't see doctors.

It's not REform, described properly it's health DEform.


Once again, we've got one of those statements that we can both use equally well. How anyone with an IQ consisting of three digits can believe there's anything on the table that's represents anything other than an abject national disaster both financially & medically eludes me just as thoroughly as ... I dunno, flat-earthers in 2010 (hard to pick anything as the definitive "I can't believe that anybody X", y'know?)

I don't get it. All these countries with national health care systems kick the living shit out of us in virtually every health statistic. They live longer than us and have a higher survival rate as an infant. Isn't the whole purpose of health care to live longer and healthier?

We're not even talking like some "brand new plan nobody has ever done before."

We're talking "something other countries have done and have been more successful doing than what our current system is."

it's a fucking no-brainer.

I, for one, would welcome our insurance overlords. I'd like to submit myself for work on their death panels.

SI

I was happy to see this cut in the proposed budget. Farm subsidies are out of control and really need to be curtailed. I would know. I actually create the applications that pay out many of these subsidies. I do think the savings should go directly to deficit reduction rather than rerouting the funds.

Obama proposes cutting farm subsidies, boosting school lunch | desmoinesregister.com | The Des Moines Register

Too bad that will never make it through Congress.

We'll see. I think it may make it through in some modified form. There's just far too many subsidies going to people and businesses who have no reason to be subsidized other than free money.

Too many Senators from farming states.

This is one of the reasons I think the freeze is a stupid gimmick. Congress isn't going to follow Obama's wishes to the letter and vetoing the omnibus over a few billion dollars is counterproductive. It's almost guaranteed to be "another broken promise".

As FOFC's resident farmer, I'll come out in support of these cuts. Looking at the details, it's merely cutting the annual fixed payment by $10,000 and tightening the eligibility. Grain and cotton farmers have been overly subsidized.

Oh, and MBBF, you may be interested to know that our latest dairy bailout (forget the name) check was around $19K and was spent the first day we had it. It helped, but it was negligible. Probably helped out some really small guys quite a bit. For perspective, that $19K would supply us with protein meal for about two weeks. Protein meal is just one of many ingredients we feed our cows (but the most expensive).

Honestly, most farmers who run their own farms are well-aware of the loopholes in subsidies and know where the abuses occur. Farms that are your size and smaller aren't the real problems.

Bingo.

Big day today in Illinois. Primaries for the party nominations for Obama's old seat. Should be interesting to see which candidates emerge and what it means for that race in November.

I'm somewhat surprised the Tea Party folks can't gain traction in IL. Kirk may win by 30+ points. Despite all the bloviating the GOP has had much more success recently with moderates.

I haven't voted yet today, so let me write you in for Cook County Board President. Even a demented walrus could do that job better than the incumbent.

Not that I'm calling you a demented walrus.


I'm pretty sure it'll be Kirk vs. Giannoulias. It honestly hasn't been all that interesting of a race so far. The teabaggers haven't gotten themselves organized enough to oppose Kirk and Giannoulias has used enough of his connections to keep his advantages.

The full race has potential to be interesting. Kirk will need to get out every single GOP vote to combat the Democratic machine, so if there's any upswell of Tea Party opposition to him, that alone probably costs him the seat. On the other hand, Giannoulias' family's bank is having problems, and of course the state is in terrible shape financially, so it'll be interesting to see if Kirk can get some headway hammering on that.

Hooray for not living in Cook. :)



I have a feeling the 'real' election will get ugly fast. But yes, it's been surprisingly quiet for the moment.

Just got back from voting. Turnout looks to be real low. The counter showed 68 when I put my ballot through. I voted Hoffman over Giannoulias and will probably vote Kirk over both.

The big race for many is the Cook County President seat which has the ability to really effect daily lives in the city. Property taxes and sales taxes are the two huge issues. Stroger is likely on his way out of town.

They actually make you leave town if you're a losing incumbent? Rough gig.

that's going to be an effing disaster i predict

It's a lot tougher for cities and states, who don't have the same leeway to spend money they don't have. They actually have to make difficult cuts.

It's not particularly amazing that citizens are a little weary of corrupt/ineffective governments taking more of their money when they've so horribly mishandled the money they've already taken. It's also not surprising that people are wary of property tax increases when so many are having trouble getting by on their mortgages as is.

Hopefully the people in this city will help with the parks. That's a much better solution for everyone than having to collectively pay for such services way above actual cost.

As for the police/firefighters - those positions have been shredded all across the U.S. We've had a pretty bad recession. I think Colorado Springs can get by without flowers for a while.