Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 18:45:21 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2013 13:15:50 GMT -5
They should have never touched it in the first place- probably should have upped it a hair.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 18:45:21 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2013 13:22:33 GMT -5
Message deleted by anne81.
|
|
usaone
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 9:10:23 GMT -5
Posts: 3,429
|
Post by usaone on Jan 5, 2013 17:15:51 GMT -5
Um, Rahmbo is the one who made the statement about not letting a crisis go to waste because you can ramrod legislation down people's throats you would never be able to if they weren't panicked. We did the same thing after 9/11.
|
|
usaone
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 9:10:23 GMT -5
Posts: 3,429
|
Post by usaone on Jan 5, 2013 17:17:22 GMT -5
Your Presidency, your legacy. I am bracing myself for a steep drop in the economy and some hard times ahead. Those who don't think the wolf is at the door may continue to party on. The steep drop in the economy happened already. 2007-2008.
|
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on Jan 5, 2013 18:18:27 GMT -5
They should have never touched it in the first place- probably should have upped it a hair. totally, 100%, agree. Obama behaving like Bush made me ill. strike that- makes. The difference being that Bush had a 20-something percent approval rating. As for upping SS tax, why are people ok with making people pay more for less, but then fight to keep any portion of it from being privatized?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 18:45:21 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2013 18:19:52 GMT -5
Your Presidency, your legacy. I am bracing myself for a steep drop in the economy and some hard times ahead. Those who don't think the wolf is at the door may continue to party on. The steep drop in the economy happened already. 2007-2008. Oh, well i guess that means it can't happen again? Party on!
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Jan 5, 2013 22:26:15 GMT -5
totally, 100%, agree. Obama behaving like Bush made me ill. strike that- makes. The difference being that Bush had a 20-something percent approval rating. As for upping SS tax, why are people ok with making people pay more for less, but then fight to keep any portion of it from being privatized? Why do you care? I would love nothing more than to let you geniuses opt out- but at the end you will beg. Want to go on record?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 18:45:21 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2013 8:42:18 GMT -5
On the whole, I do think he is right that the fight will be catastrophic. Not this deal in particular, but I suspect it will be one more link in a chain of half-assed, band-aid-style fixes that ignore the fundamental economic issues to let us limp along for another day.
But, I'm cynical like that.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 18:45:21 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2013 8:44:41 GMT -5
totally, 100%, agree. Obama behaving like Bush made me ill. strike that- makes. The difference being that Bush had a 20-something percent approval rating. As for upping SS tax, why are people ok with making people pay more for less, but then fight to keep any portion of it from being privatized? Because SS is the safety net. If you privatize it, you will need a safety net for the people that mess up the first safety net.
|
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on Jan 6, 2013 9:55:45 GMT -5
The difference being that Bush had a 20-something percent approval rating. As for upping SS tax, why are people ok with making people pay more for less, but then fight to keep any portion of it from being privatized? Why do you care? I would love nothing more than to let you geniuses opt out- but at the end you will beg. Want to go on record? What part of privatizing a portion of it do you not understand? People want to complain that the market is too risky over a 30-40 year period, but are fine with increasing the tax, decreasing benefits, and/or increasing the age of eligibility.
|
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on Jan 6, 2013 9:58:06 GMT -5
The difference being that Bush had a 20-something percent approval rating. As for upping SS tax, why are people ok with making people pay more for less, but then fight to keep any portion of it from being privatized? Because SS is the safety net. If you privatize it, you will need a safety net for the people that mess up the first safety net. A safety net that people keep wanting everybody to pay more for, while getting less in return. If the way we are currently doing it obviously isn't working, why do people want to just keep putting more money in the pot by raising what we pay into in, while decreasing the return? If what we are currently doing isn't working, it makes sense to change the system to something different, such as a hybrid system with a portion privatized and a portion not.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,515
|
Post by billisonboard on Jan 6, 2013 10:21:01 GMT -5
... What part of privatizing a portion of it do you not understand? People want to complain that the market is too risky over a 30-40 year period, but are fine with increasing the tax, decreasing benefits, and/or increasing the age of eligibility. What part of social do you not understand? Under a privatized system, some individuals will have to put increased amounts of income into their fund to make up for earlier losses, will have decreased income in their old age, and will have to wait later in life to start to draw out funds.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 18:45:21 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2013 10:35:37 GMT -5
Social security isn't designed to be a 1:1 program. You don't get out what you paid in. You pay in to keep from watching little old ladies begging in the streets.
It's nice that they let the rest of us get a little bit out too, but the poor little old ladies are the ones who need it. Not me. The private piece is your 401k.
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on Jan 6, 2013 10:59:27 GMT -5
"but I suspect it will be one more link in a chain of half-assed, band-aid-style fixes that ignore the fundamental economic issues to let us limp along for another day."
Thanks Crafty. Thought I was the lone ranger who thinks that we consistently fail to identify the root cause of our problems by repeating the stuff we hear politicians and the media say instead of thinking for ourselves. IMO so far we have only discussed symptoms of the hot button topics in our society today but almost never even talk about the root cause. Maybe our schools should be required to teach things like root cause analysis, failure mode analysis, conflict resolution techniques.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 6, 2013 13:21:15 GMT -5
totally, 100%, agree. Obama behaving like Bush made me ill. strike that- makes. The difference being that Bush had a 20-something percent approval rating. by the END of his term he was about 30%. at this point, he was more Obama-like in his rating.As for upping SS tax, why are people ok with making people pay more for less, but then fight to keep any portion of it from being privatized? i can answer that one. any portion that is privatized in a pay-as-you-go system will have to be made up by additional revenue. if we were to privatize, say, 1/4 of SSI, we would have to raise rates (and matching) by 1.6% to cover that. if you are talking about creating a completely separate private program (particularly a voluntary one) i am all for it.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 6, 2013 13:22:43 GMT -5
The steep drop in the economy happened already. 2007-2008. Oh, well i guess that means it can't happen again? Party on! boom and bust cycles tend to take about (18) years.
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Jan 7, 2013 22:23:49 GMT -5
there were no tax increases for the middle class, unless you count SSI, which was NEVER going to be made permanent. that would be an utter disaster for that system. They should have never touched it in the first place- probably should have upped it a hair. Do not know about that. I do know if there was more money to "borrow" from SS the Government would have borrowed that amount to spend on givaway programs, too.
|
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on Jan 7, 2013 23:18:31 GMT -5
The difference being that Bush had a 20-something percent approval rating. by the END of his term he was about 30%. at this point, he was more Obama-like in his rating.As for upping SS tax, why are people ok with making people pay more for less, but then fight to keep any portion of it from being privatized? i can answer that one. any portion that is privatized in a pay-as-you-go system will have to be made up by additional revenue. if we were to privatize, say, 1/4 of SSI, we would have to raise rates (and matching) by 1.6% to cover that. if you are talking about creating a completely separate private program (particularly a voluntary one) i am all for it. Which is exactly why you have to phase in such an idea and the younger generation (probably under 40) is most likely going to get the short end of the stick on the switch over.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 7, 2013 23:30:15 GMT -5
i can answer that one. any portion that is privatized in a pay-as-you-go system will have to be made up by additional revenue. if we were to privatize, say, 1/4 of SSI, we would have to raise rates (and matching) by 1.6% to cover that. if you are talking about creating a completely separate private program (particularly a voluntary one) i am all for it. Which is exactly why you have to phase in such an idea and the younger generation (probably under 40) is most likely going to get the short end of the stick on the switch over. the ONLY way that doesn't happen is if SS taxes continue to rise as birthrates continue to decline and life expectancies continue to rise. the only way around that is to index participation in the program to one or both of those variables.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 18:45:21 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2013 7:35:56 GMT -5
Good morning, everyone. I would like to add this article from the economist. Have a great day, everyone. www.economist.com/news/leaders/21569024-troubling-similarities-between-fiscal-mismanagement-washington-and-messCan-kicking is a transatlantic sport The first is an inability to get beyond patching up. The euro crisis deepened because Europe’s politicians serially failed to solve the single currency’s structural weaknesses, resorting instead to a succession of temporary fixes, usually negotiated well after midnight. America’s problems are different. Rather than facing an imminent debt crisis, as many European countries do, it needs to deal with the huge long-term gap between tax revenue and spending promises, particularly on health care, while not squeezing the economy too much in the short term. But its politicians now show themselves similarly addicted to kicking the can down the road at the last minute. This week’s agreement, hammered out between Republican senators and the White House on New Year’s Eve, passed by the Senate in the early hours of New Year’s Day and by the House of Representatives later the same day, averted the spectre of recession. It eliminated most of the sweeping tax increases that were otherwise due to take effect from January 1st, except for those on the very wealthy, and temporarily put off all the threatened spending cuts (see article). Like many of Europe’s crisis summits, that staved off complete disaster: rather than squeezing 5% out of the economy (as the fiscal cliff implied) there will now be a more manageable fiscal squeeze of just over 1% of GDP in 2013. Markets rallied in relief.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 18:45:21 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2013 7:38:51 GMT -5
The politics of "Catastrophe" really seem to work. So, expect more of the same. Every legislation is going to be about "avoiding" the next "catastrophe" as we run the train over the cliff.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 9, 2013 13:28:26 GMT -5
The politics of "Catastrophe" really seem to work. So, expect more of the same. Every legislation is going to be about "avoiding" the next "catastrophe" as we run the train over the cliff. have you read "The Shock Doctrine", Shooby? there is a good reason that this tactic is used.
|
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on Jan 12, 2013 5:04:23 GMT -5
The politics of "Catastrophe" really seem to work. So, expect more of the same. Every legislation is going to be about "avoiding" the next "catastrophe" as we run the train over the cliff. have you read "The Shock Doctrine", Shooby? there is a good reason that this tactic is used. Probably for the same reason people pack on pork to "must pass" bills and when somebody complains they act like the reason had nothing to do with all the "extras."
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 18:45:21 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2013 7:06:54 GMT -5
Good morning to all. I will add a article to this thread. It's very interesting time, indeed. www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senate-democrats-urge-obama-to-bypass-republicans-on-the-debt-ceiling/2013/01/11/8a88e19c-5c2e-11e2-88d0-c4cf65c3ad15_print.htmlDemocratic leaders in the Senate on Friday urged President Obama to consider bypassing Congress to prevent the nation from defaulting on its spending obligations if lawmakers cannot agree to raise the nation’s $16.4 trillion debt ceiling next month. In a joint letter that served as a warning to congressional Republicans, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and his leadership team encouraged Obama to “take any lawful steps” to avoid default — “without Congressional approval, if necessary.” The letter appeared to be an effort to push the White House to play hardball in its negotiations with Republicans as the federal government edges up against a legally imposed limit on borrowing. Republicans have insisted that they will not increase the government’s borrowing authority without deep spending cuts, including to entitlement programs. On Friday they rejected the idea of unilateral action by the president. “The Democrat leadership hiding under their desks and hoping the President will find a way around the law on the nation’s maxed-out credit card is not only the height of irresponsibility, but also a guarantee that our national debt crisis will only get worse,” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) in a statement. Michael Steel, a spokesman for House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), said that Americans “will not tolerate” hiking the debt ceiling without spending cuts. Obama has said he considers raising the limit — which the nation will hit in February — an obligation of Congress because doing so allows the government to pay off debts it has already incurred. Unlike in the summer of 2011, when Obama negotiated with Boehner in an effort to pair a debt-ceiling increase with a broad deficit reduction package of spending cuts and new tax revenue, the president has insisted he will no longer negotiate spending concessions in exchange for a higher ceiling. That has left both sides without a clear strategy for how to proceed in what is likely to be a bitter and protracted fight. In their letter, Reid, Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) indicate that they will support Obama if he moves without Congress.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 18:45:21 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2013 7:26:20 GMT -5
This is another view on this matter. www.reuters.com/assets/print?aid=USBRE90B04Z20130112NEW YORK/WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House would be taking a risk if it tries to make a constitutional end-run around Congress' authority to raise the debt ceiling, legal experts said. The "public debt" clause of the 14th Amendment is being cited by a number of lawmakers as giving President Barack Obama a legal way to issue debt and pay bills, working around the debt ceiling and avoiding default. The 14th Amendment is best known for extending civil rights protections in the wake of the Civil War. The amendment's fourth section was designed to guarantee Union debt incurred during the war, including compensation due to Union soldiers and their widows. The clause states: "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned." On Friday, Senate Democratic leaders told Obama to be ready to take "any lawful" steps to ensure that the United States did not trigger a global economic crisis. Obama has said he would not negotiate with Republicans in Congress on the debt ceiling, increasing the prospect that they may try to block an increase in the borrowing limit. Democrats hope to avoid a replay of the 2011 debt ceiling deadlock that pushed the country to the brink of default. One congressional aide said using the provision was the only potential option available to Obama if Congress balks. But some legal scholars say the provision does not give the president the authority to raise or ignore the $16.4 trillion debt cap. "I don't think the language of the 14th Amendment authorizes it," said Erwin Chereminsky, professor at University of California Irvine School of Law. "The debt ceiling is set by statute, and the president can't change statutes unilaterally." Eric Posner, a University of Chicago law professor, said the provision is vague and "does not implicitly give the president authority to do anything." "It's not a very strong legal argument," Posner said.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 12, 2013 12:10:47 GMT -5
This is another view on this matter. www.reuters.com/assets/print?aid=USBRE90B04Z20130112NEW YORK/WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House would be taking a risk if it tries to make a constitutional end-run around Congress' authority to raise the debt ceiling, legal experts said. The "public debt" clause of the 14th Amendment is being cited by a number of lawmakers as giving President Barack Obama a legal way to issue debt and pay bills, working around the debt ceiling and avoiding default. The 14th Amendment is best known for extending civil rights protections in the wake of the Civil War. The amendment's fourth section was designed to guarantee Union debt incurred during the war, including compensation due to Union soldiers and their widows. The clause states: "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned." On Friday, Senate Democratic leaders told Obama to be ready to take "any lawful" steps to ensure that the United States did not trigger a global economic crisis. Obama has said he would not negotiate with Republicans in Congress on the debt ceiling, increasing the prospect that they may try to block an increase in the borrowing limit. Democrats hope to avoid a replay of the 2011 debt ceiling deadlock that pushed the country to the brink of default. One congressional aide said using the provision was the only potential option available to Obama if Congress balks. But some legal scholars say the provision does not give the president the authority to raise or ignore the $16.4 trillion debt cap. "I don't think the language of the 14th Amendment authorizes it," said Erwin Chereminsky, professor at University of California Irvine School of Law. "The debt ceiling is set by statute, and the president can't change statutes unilaterally." Eric Posner, a University of Chicago law professor, said the provision is vague and "does not implicitly give the president authority to do anything." "It's not a very strong legal argument," Posner said. it might be a risk worth taking in this specific case. but it is also a bad precedent.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 18:45:21 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2013 20:10:01 GMT -5
djp,
:it might be a risk worth taking in this specific case. but it is also a bad precedent.:
How is so. Would you explain more in detail.
|
|
usaone
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 9:10:23 GMT -5
Posts: 3,429
|
Post by usaone on Jan 12, 2013 20:16:26 GMT -5
Oh, well i guess that means it can't happen again? Party on! boom and bust cycles tend to take about (18) years. I agree.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 12, 2013 20:40:31 GMT -5
djp, :it might be a risk worth taking in this specific case. but it is also a bad precedent.: How is so. Would you explain more in detail. sure. but i hadn't really thought the comment through. i am just leery about presidents assuming they have authority without getting legal advisement, or preferably approval first. i have no idea whether he got the formal, but he definitely didn't get the latter.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 18:45:21 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2013 20:59:52 GMT -5
djp, :it might be a risk worth taking in this specific case. but it is also a bad precedent.: How is so. Would you explain more in detail. sure. but i hadn't really thought the comment through. i am just leery about presidents assuming they have authority without getting legal advisement, or preferably approval first. i have no idea whether he got the formal, but he definitely didn't get the latter. djp, I agree with you on that front. I really don't know what will happen,but it will not be pretty.
|
|