No guts, we need to cut!

**Frugal** · 03-17-2011, 07:09 AM

Thanks for sharing. This is true. I think about all the entitlement programs that are slowly growing bankrupt...if they are not already in the red. We sure live in interesting times!

**snshijuptr** · 03-17-2011, 08:22 AM

I like the idea of switching all the pension plans to 403b's. Either cash out my husbands plan or guarantee him the amount he is currently vested then give me the money they currently put into the pension. We already have a 403(b) because I don't trust the pension plan. I would love to have control over all of that pension money. So here is my plan:

- Drop all future pension enrollments/contributions for new teachers and at least those not vested (under 5 years)
- Automatically enroll all of these people into a 403(b) with 8% contributions (our current pension contribution)
- Keep our money in the pension program. If it survives, we get a benefit. If it goes bankrupt, we won't really miss it. (I recognize they can't afford if we cash out right now).

Of course employee pension programs are not nearly the biggest financial worry. You can do the same thing with my Social Security...oh wait neither of us pay SS.

And finally an idea for health care. A better Yelp-like service for medical providers and insurance companies. I can't tell you the number of really crappy doctors and charlatan dentists I've been too. You want to improve healthcare? Get us a better way to review our doctors so we can make an informed choice. Also make doctor interviews the norm, not the exception.

**feh** · 03-17-2011, 08:57 AM

Cutting alone won't do it. Taxes need to be raised; loopholes need to be closed (that's another statement that will guarantee a candidate is not elected).

Revenue needs to increase; extending the tax cuts for the top 2% in December was a terrible mistake.

**greenskeeper** · 03-17-2011, 11:43 AM

Originally posted by feh View Post

Cutting alone won't do it. Taxes need to be raised; loopholes need to be closed (that's another statement that will guarantee a candidate is not elected).

Revenue needs to increase; extending the tax cuts for the top 2% in December was a terrible mistake.

I pay enough taxes already. Any increase in taxes will just lead to more spending.

All entitlement programs need to end.

Continue them to the elderly or people nearing retirement but phase them out to younger workers so they can have a choice to prepare.

I am 31 and am not planning on any gov't help when I retire. I have already planned for the worse.

**feh** · 03-17-2011, 11:49 AM

Originally posted by greenskeeper View Post

I pay enough taxes already. Any increase in taxes will just lead to more spending.

All entitlement programs need to end.

Continue them to the elderly or people nearing retirement but phase them out to younger workers so they can have a choice to prepare.

I am 31 and am not planning on any gov't help when I retire. I have already planned for the worse.

Total tax burden is the lowest it's been in 60+ years. Services need to be paid for.

Those that have the attitude "every person for themselves", are living in the wrong country.

**GREENBACK** · 03-17-2011, 12:55 PM

Originally posted by snshijuptr View Post

I like the idea of switching all the pension plans to 403b's.

I'd prefer that they just give me the money and let me put in an IRA or something rather than this. At least then I'd have more choices on where it's going.

**greenskeeper** · 03-18-2011, 08:56 AM

Originally posted by feh View Post

Total tax burden is the lowest it's been in 60+ years. Services need to be paid for.

Those that have the attitude "every person for themselves", are living in the wrong country.

Show me in the constitution where the gov't is required to provide services such as SS, medicare, etc for the people?

Last I checked it was Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness (which is the opportunity to do so, not a guarantee of).

**DanielB** · 03-18-2011, 09:25 AM

Originally posted by greenskeeper View Post

Show me in the constitution where the gov't is required to provide services such as SS, medicare, etc for the people?

Last I checked it was Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness (which is the opportunity to do so, not a guarantee of).

I'm 100% with you. I could probably offend a lot of members by delving into this topic with my thoughts, so I will try to refrain from doing so. Briefly, our social systems that were originally setup to provide for the truly needy have been over-run by lazy fools who don't see the value in hard work. I get sick of people playing the "hardship" card and talking about what they've "been through" - we've all been through hell at one or multiple times in our lives! I get so sick of hearing middle-class vs. upper-class comments from lazy-ass fools.

Yahoo! Finance ran a Kiplinger article this morning regarding a doctor of some sort (can't remember exactly what he practiced) from California who has saved $1 million in less than 10 years. Instead of learning from his story, most of the commenters posted that it was unfair that an individual can earn over $200k/yr. (and in turn save that much money in such a short period of time) when most of the working-class does not. It was hard for me not to post there, either - what I would have had to say would have been a lot uglier than this: get over it, people! Just because you're too lazy to spend 8 years in medical school doesn't mean there aren't motivated Americans with strong work ethics who can get through 8 years of school and earn the "big bucks"!

**neguy11** · 03-18-2011, 11:31 AM

Originally posted by greenskeeper View Post

Show me in the constitution where the gov't is required to provide services such as SS, medicare, etc for the people?

Last I checked it was Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness (which is the opportunity to do so, not a guarantee of).

While they are not required to provide these services, they are also NOT prohibited from providing these services. The gov't is also NOT required to balance the budget. It's all a matter of opinion.

Also "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness," is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.

**maat55** · 03-18-2011, 02:00 PM

IMO, there would be little debt and deficits if we were adhering to a constitutional government.This means that we would not have: SS/medicare,GSE's(F&F,FHA,SM which distort the housing, healthcare and higher ed markets),federal welfare(corporate or other),or "too big to fails" getting bailout.

For some reason, the federal government believes that it does not have to adhere to property rights, financial wisdom or constitutional principles. Until it does, we are not going to change course, buckle up.

**maat55** · 03-18-2011, 02:09 PM

James Madison: “The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.”

James Madison: "If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare,and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare,they may take the care of religion into their own hands;they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads;in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislationdown to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America."

Thomas Jefferson:

We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debt, as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our calling and our creeds...[we will] have no time to think, no means of calling our miss-managers to account but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow-sufferers... And this is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for[ another]... till the bulk of society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery... And the fore-horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression.

The whole point of the Constitution was to have a limited federal government. It is clearly out of touch with our founding principles.

**rj.phila** · 03-18-2011, 02:26 PM

Originally posted by feh View Post

Total tax burden is the lowest it's been in 60+ years. Services need to be paid for.

Those that have the attitude "every person for themselves", are living in the wrong country.

100% agreed. people always say a 1950's tax code will "push businesses and citizens out of the country", but it didnt seem to do it in the 50's. im tired of people bitching about "big govt" or socialism-i dont think people who think its this boogeyman have actually spent time in a more populist leaning country. most of them are happy, healthy, and....think the US political and medical system is a joke, frankly.

im still baffled that we just can't have real discussions about finance in USA now, in the arena of politics. we just have shouting points. "lower taxes!" "cut spending!" REAL people have discussions like "you can have two of A, B, and C" or just basic cost/benefit analyses.

to answer your question, i think we're either going to bankrupt ourselves, or have a 3rd party option that will actually get some traction on the budget. i have little faith D or R solution will happen. if you look at the history of our debt or our deficits, it doesnt line up with party control at all. simply put, neither party does a better job(save for Clinton, as stated above). if it WILL happen in a Dem/Rep paradigm, we've got a LONG way to go in terms of dialogue.

**maat55** · 03-18-2011, 04:18 PM

[QUOTE]

Originally posted by feh View Post

Cutting alone won't do it. Taxes need to be raised; loopholes need to be closed (that's another statement that will guarantee a candidate is not elected).

I'm all for raising taxes for the purpose of lowering the debt, but not to lower deficits. The idea that taxation alone will fix the problem is not viable either.

Revenue needs to increase; extending the tax cuts for the top 2% in December was a terrible mistake.

I believe in paying taxes for necessary constitutional duties. Our federal government has gone way beyond its constitutional duties. I will concede to higher taxes when we have a constitutional government.

BTW, I am completely against the 2% payroll tax reduction, while the program is still in place and massively underfunded.

**maat55** · 03-18-2011, 04:39 PM

[QUOTE]

Originally posted by rj.phila View Post

100% agreed. people always say a 1950's tax code will "push businesses and citizens out of the country", but it didnt seem to do it in the 50's.

We were the producer/creditor of the world back in the 50's which made it possible to have higher taxes. Today, we compete in a global market where higher taxes are a detriment.

im tired of people bitching about "big govt" or socialism-i dont think people who think its this boogeyman have actually spent time in a more populist leaning country. most of them are happy, healthy, and....think the US political and medical system is a joke, frankly.

Big government is the equivolent to having a man made God.Governments are nothing more than people dictating the lives of the masses. The american founders did not see this as beneficial to the people, that is why they created a limited federal government. Our politics is a joke because we have abandoned the Constitution.

im still baffled that we just can't have real discussions about finance in USA now, in the arena of politics. we just have shouting points. "lower taxes!" "cut spending!" REAL people have discussions like "you can have two of A, B, and C" or just basic cost/benefit analyses.

These discussions are to be had on the state level. All compromise in the federal government usually end up with further usurpation of power.

to answer your question, i think we're either going to bankrupt ourselves, or have a 3rd party option that will actually get some traction on the budget. i have little faith D or R solution will happen.

I agree, the D's & R's will not fix this. I personally, want us to go bankrupt. It will limit our ability to borrow and print.

No guts, we need to cut!