Unsustainable Debt

[pocketfullofshells]

Social Security in 2007 totalled $599.5 bn. 1% of that would be $6 bn. About $4 bn for your Medicare cut. Most of the rest just tranfers cost to the states. You need to cut out about a trillion.

no if states pay it, then it does not cost the taxpayers...its republican math. but yea, mostly that was well just make someone else pay for it, or just random well just find stuff to remove , but I cant say what....Thing about being a republican is that cutting taxes and spending only words in speaches...but they lose if they actuly do it.

 

[BigRob]

Well we need to scale back congress too. They make too much money, they don’t need their own cafe's and we could go on and on about their special perks. All of it should go.

The president doesn’t need the extravagant lifestyle he has (nor did the one before him or the one after this president)

What do you mean by "their own cafe's" and "special perks?" There are cafeterias in the house office buildings, but mostly it is the staff and visitors that eat there.

Further, the reason that the President makes so much money is this. When Washington became President he wanted to refuse to take a paycheck, saying that it should be a service thing. He was convinced however to take the $25,000 a year as pay (a large sum for that day) so that the Presidency would not be an option to only the rich. Not many people in that day could work for four years for free, same as today.

 

[Pidgey]

Frankly, you're not going to cut much talking about those kinds of things--they're actually too penny-ante. A trillion is a big cut. Some Democrats have been very good as well as some Republicans. Most of both are bad or go bad when left in too long. Most of Congress are voted in to go up there and procure funds for their states--that's what their constituency hires them to do. If they pull in more than their state actually generated in federal revenues then they basically had to get it from the other states, right? Re-election IS the goal of most politicians so herding as much money back to their states as they possibly can IS the game.

To me, arguing that one party is The Good and the other is The Bad is a self-defeating process only worthy of children on the playground. If you REALLY wanted to make a difference, you'd start establishing criteria for separating the wheat from the chaff in the House and Senate, and then come together to oust those who we desperately need getting rid of. Of course, that in itself becomes tough if you can't even come together on what you want the country to be like.

It's pretty simple, really... the poor wanna' become rich and often harbor enough hate to want the rich to become poor. It's been tried a few times before in some other countries... like Russia. Somebody oughta' start a thread about which country on Earth they'd like to leave this hellhole for and move to... Then discuss in depth that country's system of governance and economy.

 

[Dr.Who]

Social Security in 2007 totalled $599.5 bn. 1% of that would be $6 bn. About $4 bn for your Medicare cut. Most of the rest just tranfers cost to the states. You need to cut out about a trillion.

I didn't realize we could cut 6 and 4 billion so easily with just two programs. Lets cut them now!! that is how I get my personal budget in control. I don't worry that I won't be able to cut enough so I make no cuts. Nope, I just start cutting every dollar I can and I am always able to get enough cuts when I need them. When I go grocery shopping I think that food is a neccessity but when I stop putting stuff in my cart that is not a basic need I can shave well over half of the bill. Broccoli - yes. Ice cream - no. Whole wheat bread - yes. Junky white bread - no. Pepperidge farms whole wheat bread - no. Wonder whole wheat bread - yes. It is no fun to live without ice cream but sometimes that is what you have to do.

Let's also not forget we could probably get 30% of everything taken off by simply limiting the fed to the powers it has the authority to have. That is (estimating) 50% of most of the items on that list. I am sure that the dept of ag alone is doing all sorts of things that they don't have the authority to do. Apply that to all the others as well. Why even the defense dept which is constitutionally authorized to have some pretty broad powers is probably doing a lot of things that it should not do.

 

[Dr.Who]

Well we need to scale back congress too. They make too much money, they don’t need their own cafe's and we could go on and on about their special perks. All of it should go.

The president doesn’t need the extravagant lifestyle he has (nor did the one before him or the one after this president)

The taxdollar funded lifestyle of congressmen should be limited to the median lifestyle of an everyday American. And if they don't want to go into politics because they won't get paid enough then maybe we can get a crop of folks in there who are doing it because they love American.

 

[BigRob]

The taxdollar funded lifestyle of congressmen should be limited to the median lifestyle of an everyday American. And if they don't want to go into politics because they won't get paid enough then maybe we can get a crop of folks in there who are doing it because they love American.

Such as what? The average American does not have to fly back to their districts, they do not have to maintain two places to live (or live in their office). What real perks do Congressmen get that they do not need? There might be a few very minor things, but nothing that really costs a lot of money.

Most of what Congresspeople do, they have to pay for a lot of it themselves.

 

[Pandora]

What do you mean by "their own cafe's" and "special perks?" There are cafeterias in the house office buildings, but mostly it is the staff and visitors that eat there.

This is from 2008, and the issue might be fixed by now, but the senate cafe lost 2 million dollars the year before because it was private and the prices were too low and I am sure other reasons.

The Senate Cafeteria loses almost $2 million a year. Diane Feinstein has taken action to stop this she proposed privitizing the service just as the House did over 20 years ago. Senators objected to this, they did not want to see employees replaced by workers making less than they currently were. So she proposed a 25% increase in pricing. The Senate has decided to privitize the food service.

http://www.rollcall.com/issues/53_135/news/23557-1.html?type=printer_friendly

I think they get too many perks but its ok to disagree.. I respect your opinion more than most since you live in the area and plus you are a fair minded guy

 

[Dr.Who]

Such as what? The average American does not have to fly back to their districts, they do not have to maintain two places to live (or live in their office). What real perks do Congressmen get that they do not need? There might be a few very minor things, but nothing that really costs a lot of money.

Most of what Congresspeople do, they have to pay for a lot of it themselves.

Their salaries tend to be high compared to median Americans. And when it comes to health care and pensions not only are they very very good especially considering that they often only work one term to get them but they are very much separate from what the rest of us get because any laws they make about such things never apply to their own plans.

 

[AgainstTheMachine]

Their salaries tend to be high compared to median Americans. And when it comes to health care and pensions not only are they very very good especially considering that they often only work one term to get them but they are very much separate from what the rest of us get because any laws they make about such things never apply to their own plans.

They can bounce checks with no repercussions - ENTITLEMENT!

 

[BigRob]

Their salaries tend to be high compared to median Americans. And when it comes to health care and pensions not only are they very very good especially considering that they often only work one term to get them but they are very much separate from what the rest of us get because any laws they make about such things never apply to their own plans.

Personally I would argue for higher Congressional salaries. In my mind, at least for top quality people, their salary and lifestyle is not appealing. If we create better incentives to get better qualified people involved, I would bet we would come up with better laws.

Further, the whole idea of Congress and the President getting decent salaries is to ensure that those positions are available to everyone, and not simply those who can afford to not make much money. After all, in my mind, that is the whole point.

 

[Andy]

Personally I would argue for higher Congressional salaries. In my mind, at least for top quality people, there salary and lifestyle is not appealing. If we create better incentives to get better qualified people involved, I would bet we would come up with better laws.

Further, the whole idea of Congress and the President getting decent salaries is to ensure that those positions are available to everyone, and not simply those who can afford to not make much money. After all, in my mind, that is the whole point.

I knew we couldn't agree on everything BigRob. I was starting to wonder though.

I can't possibly disagree with you more. One of the reasons the founding fathers of our country wanted wealthy land owners to be in office, is because there is nothing more horrible than career politicians. People who have spent their entire lives living off of the labor of others. People who never worked an honest 8 hours.

I do not want politicians comfortable in office. I don't want them earning money off of us. I don't want politics as a lifestyle. I don't want someone going to Washington in order to see what we can do for him, but rather going there for what he can do for us.

Politicians are like weeds in the yard. You hack them up, and root them out. Not water and fertilize them. They are like leeches sucking the blood out of America. You don't offer them another patch of skin to suck on, you get a knife and cut them off.

When you look at millions on millions politicians have gotten while in government, I don't see a need to increase their income. To me, if the job is hard, and not very rewarding, then when a person puts in the time and effort to work that job it indicates they are doing it for a better reason than because of the money they can suck out of the system.

 

[BigRob]

I knew we couldn't agree on everything BigRob. I was starting to wonder though.

I can't possibly disagree with you more. One of the reasons the founding fathers of our country wanted wealthy land owners to be in office, is because there is nothing more horrible than career politicians. People who have spent their entire lives living off of the labor of others. People who never worked an honest 8 hours.

I am not sure this is accurate, based on the fact that Washington wanted to refuse being paid as President but eventually accepted because he did not want to limit who could hold the office.

I do not want politicians comfortable in office. I don't want them earning money off of us. I don't want politics as a lifestyle. I don't want someone going to Washington in order to see what we can do for him, but rather going there for what he can do for us.

Politicians are like weeds in the yard. You hack them up, and root them out. Not water and fertilize them. They are like leeches sucking the blood out of America. You don't offer them another patch of skin to suck on, you get a knife and cut them off.

When you look at millions on millions politicians have gotten while in government, I don't see a need to increase their income. To me, if the job is hard, and not very rewarding, then when a person puts in the time and effort to work that job it indicates they are doing it for a better reason than because of the money they can suck out of the system.

I just think that we should follow the typical capitalist model and apply it to politicians as well. The more money you offer, the better qualified applicants you get.

 

[Pidgey]

The more money you offer, the better qualified applicants you get.

Or the better liars.

 

[dahermit]

I just think that we should follow the typical capitalist model and apply it to politicians as well. The more money you offer, the better qualified applicants you get.

Sara Palin?!!!

 

[GenSeneca]

I just think that we should follow the typical capitalist model and apply it to politicians as well. The more money you offer, the better qualified applicants you get.

No matter how much money we the taxpayer offer in payment, the special interest groups and corporations can offer far, far more... we just cannot compete with that.

Notice that a politician can get elected with a net worth of zero... get paid $100,000 a year for 2-6 years but at the end of their first term walk out of Congress a millionaire.

Aside from winning the lottery, the fastest way to become a millionaire is to be elected to federal office.