Originally Posted by Donna2

The only way to do it is to cut the massive payroll that is the government. That and the massive pension funds. If the private sector has been reduced say 20% we should double that and immediately reduce the government employees by 40% at the very least.
Government has been top heavy for too long. Privatizing the educational system would also be necessary. Total waste.

I don't disagree that is the kind of thing that will be necessary to begin to attack the deficit problem.

The first impediment is to get a Congress who will vote on a discretionary budget that includes massive reductions in government services and of course employment. Then, yes, Congress could vote for an across-the-board 20% pay cuts and cut in retirement and health benefits.

Alternatively, we could have a President who refused to sign and ratify any appropriations bills that didn't reflect those sorts of cuts...and mean it, playing "chicken" with the Congress and actually shutting down the federal government totally for awhile to get his point across if necessary.

The next step would have to be an attack on the "mandatory" spending with big cuts in Social Security payments, massively reduced Medicare coverage and dramatically increased premiums, deductibles and co-pays, probably means testing for both Social Security and Medicare, and a complete cutoff of federal support to the state Medicaid programs.

And then, after figuring out whether any Congress under the control of any political party would vote for such sweeping and life-changing cuts in government, there's the legal problem of the requirements of the government employee's union contracts.

The problem of our irresponsible government over a decade and even more, as so aptly stated by Pat Buchanan in his February 26, 2010 column is...

"The question raised by the successive failures (of our government) is whether either party has a cure for the maladies that afflict America. Or are those maladies beyond the power of politics to heal?

Have we become a people incapable of accepting the sacrifices previous generations made, and of producing leaders with the vision and strength of character that our leaders of old possessed?

I do not understand why not? It is the easiest way to reduce the deficit.

btk

Originally Posted by billethkid

Reply Title--"Never much discussion about overt actions to reduce spending."

I do not understand why not? It is the easiest way to reduce the deficit.
btk

Billie, did you read any of the posts I made IN THIS THREAD about the depth of the spending cuts that would be necessary to balance the federal budget? There are 2-3 extensive discussions of actions that would be required to balance the budget a page or two back.

I guess I'm flabbergasted that you state that there is "never much discussion about overt actions to reduce spending." What was it that I was talking about?

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

Billie, did you read any of the posts I made IN THIS THREAD about the depth of the spending cuts that would be necessary to balance the federal budget? There are 2-3 extensive discussions of actions that would be required to balance the budget a page or two back.

I guess I'm flabbergasted that you state that there is "never much discussion about overt actions to reduce spending." What was it that I was talking about?

VK...our politics may differ but mostly you are fair and reasonable...

Have you read the CBO report on the new health bill ?

Do you honestly think it will reduce the deficit at ANY TIME ?

Do you agree or disagree it is a bill based on mirrors..borrowing from your self...paying with perceived savings by reductions in waste....a tax that will NEVER EVER be enacted ??

Thanks...just want to hear what you think about the FINANCES of this bill !

Originally Posted by Bucco

...Have you read the CBO report on the new health bill ?

Do you honestly think it will reduce the deficit at ANY TIME ?

I haven't read the CBO report, but I have seen criticisms of the report. While the CBO is non-partisan, it can only "score" the legislation and the assumptions provided to it by Congress. In this instance, my guess is that the underlying assumptions were self-serving.

While I favor all Americans having access to health insurance, no I do not think THIS bill will result in reduced healthcare costs or federal spending over any time frame. I think there were some elements to the bill that would have begun to bend the cost curve, the term the politicians liked to use. But they seem to have been traded away or lobbied out as the bill made its way thru the House and Senate and then House again. Right now what we have, I think, is a bill which provides insurance to an additional 32 million Americans that the rest of us will have to pay for...little more.

Can this "healthcare reform" bill be improved upon by future Congresses? Yes, I think it can. I'd really like for the Republicans to be laying out legislative plans to "tweak away" at this bill when they regain the majority--sometime they will, of course--rather than blustering about saying they'll ty to repeal the bill. That's not going to happen--they know it and we should as well.

They could begin with standalone amendments to do things like provide tort reform, remove the pricing power of the drug companies that keep drugs in the U.S. so expensive, even develop programs which would drive doctors into business models like the Mayo Clinic and Cleveland Clinic, where the successful treatment of patients is the goal rather than payment for service...stuff like that. As narrow standalone amendments to the fundamental bill, there wouldn't be the opportunity for political partisanship that prevailed with the much larger, more complicated bill just passed. And actually, narrowly-constructed amendments would make the influence of special interest lobbyists very transparent. Hopefully their influence could be limited in the writing of narrower amendments. Yet, the "drip, drip, drip" of well thought out amendments to the bill could make it a really good one over a period of years.

What did we used to say, Bucco?...

The ship of state moves slowly, but it actually will move towards satisfying the will of the people.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

I haven't read the CBO report, but I have seen criticisms of the report. While the CBO is non-partisan, it can only "score" the legislation and the assumptions provided to it by Congress. In this instance, my guess is that the underlying assumptions were self-serving.

While I favor all Americans having access to health insurance, no I do not think THIS bill will result in reduced healthcare costs or federal spending over any time frame. I think there were some elements to the bill that would have begun to bend the cost curve, the term the politicians liked to use. But they seem to have been traded away or lobbied out as the bill made its way thru the House and Senate and then House again. Right now what we have, I think, is a bill which provides insurance to an additional 32 million Americans that the rest of us will have to pay for.

Can this "healthcare reform" bill be improved upon by future Congresses? Yes, I think it can. I'd really like for the Republicans to be laying out legislative plans to "tweak away" at this bill when they regain the majority, rather than blustering about saying they'll ty to repeal the bill. That's not going to happen--they know it and we should as well.

They could begin with standalone amendments to do things like provide tort reform, remove the pricing power of the drug companies that keep drugs in the U.S. so expensive, even develop programs which would drive doctors into business models like the Mayo Clinic and Cleveland Clinic, where the successful treatment of patients is the goal rather than payment for service...stuff like that. As narrow standalone amendments to the fundamental bill, there wouldn't be the opportunity for political partisanship that prevailed with the much larger, more complicated bill just passed. And actually, narrowly-constructed amendments would make the influence of special interest lobbyists very transparent. Hopefully their influence could be limited in the writing of narrower amendments. Yet, the "drip, drip, drip" of well thought out amendments to the bill could make it a really good one over a period of years.

Thanks for an honest answer.

In my opinion, this bill is going to "dog" every congress for many years to come, and the debate you are having on saving the countries future with deficit reduction is a moot point !

While those who applaud it for giving health care to more individuals and laud it as a start they are going to be very disappointed as the cost of health care RISES and does not go down for individuals who now MUST buy it and the pressure on small business is going to be awesome.

This bill, especially at this time, is a death blow to this country and its finances and I am just outraged everytime someone brings up how it will help poor folks who dont have insurance...this was totally a POLLITICAL excercise from the beginning and our President and this congress should be embarassed as to what they have done !

Originally Posted by Bucco

...This bill, especially at this time, is a death blow to this country and its finances and I am just outraged everytime someone brings up how it will help poor folks who dont have insurance...this was totally a POLITICAL excercise from the beginning and our President and this congress should be embarrassed as to what they have done!

Keep it in perspective, Bucco. The bill will cost roughly $100 billion a year--I think that's right. That's 2.6% of the federal budget. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq cost more than that each year, with the major beneficiaries being people who don't like us. Heck, the Department of Veteran's Affairs has a total budget of about $87.6 billion a year and employs nearly 280,000 people to serve the needs of roughly 25 million veterans--like me, and I can't think of even one dollar that the VA spends on me.

It's not peanuts, but it's far from a "death blow". Actually, the administration feels far from embarrassed, I'm sure. I know you don't agree, but finally achieving what every President from both parties has tried to get for almost the last century is, as Joe Biden termed it, "...a big f__king deal". Personally, I'm glad that the U.S. finally was the last to join every other civilized nation in the world in providing healthcare for every one of it's citizens--at least sometime out in 2014 it will anyway.

Was it political? Of course. Isn't everything in Washington political? Was the GOP "political" under Bush and Karl Rove? Sure. Are both parties being political now, with neither providing even one vote for any idea of the other party? Will the GOP be political if they regain the majority? Absolutely. Will the Democrats become the new "party of no"? Probably, unfortunately.

Being "political" isn't anything to be embarrassed about. But acting in a way wherein political success trumps doing any good for the citizens is. That's how our government has conducted itself, pretty much constantly for the last couple of decades at least. They all ought to be embarrassed about that--and so should we. We're the ones that permitted it.

Originally Posted by Bucco

...While those who applaud it for giving health care to more individuals and laud it as a start they are going to be very disappointed as the cost of health care RISES and does not go down for individuals who now MUST buy it and the pressure on small business is going to be awesome...

You can't blame one party for the hodge-podge of rules and regulations that make up this healthcare bill. The President and the Democratically-controlled Congress set out to get healthcare for 32 million people. Let's not kid ourselves--that was their main agenda item.

The Dem's proposed government insurance to provide that coverage--a pretty easy extension of Medicare to cover another 32 million people. The Republicans and some of the more centrist Democrats violently opposed that idea and with the encouragement and money from the insurance companies they drove the bill towards private insurance coverage, a far more complicated proposition given the state-oriented system of private health insurance. Heck, the GOP refused to even consider any kind of method for increasing the competition between insurers, including language that would permit competition across state lines, the objective of which was to drive down costs. (There's that insurance lobby at work again.)

But one way or another, the President and the Pelosi/Reid cabal was going to get coverage for all Americans one way or another--something that Presidents since Teddy Roosevelt have tried to get. They traded off anything and everything necessary to achieve that singular goal. If the GOP and the centrist Democrats were going to block the idea of the government providing the insurance for the uninsured, then the leadership came up with the idea of requiring employers and even individuals to buy insurance from private insurance companies. The result is the Rube Goldberg bill that emerged.

But neither party was totally responsible. Their politics and total unwillingness to compromise on anything was.

Originally Posted by bkcunningham1

ijusluvit, I can't figure out who you are opposed to having money.

Is it the "lots of federal employees" that you want to "loose;" or the new money rich or "nouveau riche," as you call them; or people who work and receive bonus payments; or is it the financial institutions or any "other institutions which has placed thousands of nouveau riche into the lap of luxury."

You go on to indicate you are against "those who have amassed huge piles of cash and securities," and the "elite living off of great-grandpa's fortune."

Maybe if you tell me who you AREN'T against having money and pocessions, then I can understand where you are coming from with your philosophy. Family farms and family businesses, who by the way are passed down to another generation - and God forbid they are profitable by your standards, right? Seriously, I would like to know who you would allow to have their own money.

So very sorry I confused you.
Gee whiz, what's so hard to understand (or accept) about increasing taxes on OBSCENE, WINDFALL profits?
Are you also opposed to systematically terminating medicare, welfare and social security abuse?
Instead of assigning my suggestions some mindless, insulting summary like "who you would allow to have their own money", why not try to respond with rational comments WHY these suggestions do or do not have merit.

VK, did you just open the door to blame the Republicans and Dems who voted against the bill for failings in the healthcare reform bill?

Honestly ijusluvit I wasn't trying to insult you. You really did confuse me. Sorry that I didn't understand who you think should be allowed to keep their own money. I just asked a question which you still haven't answered. Maybe it's just the way I phased my question that offended you. I'm just asking a simple question. Also, what do you mean by windfall profits? It isn't a trick question. I'm seriously asking you to help me understand.

It is amazing how flip people get with other people's hard earned money. Tax the heck out of those mean people who work hard.

The politics of envy is as old as the hills. When you tax someone 90% what gives them the incentive to produce anymore? What about the people who work for these people. No incentive means less work. Less work means less jobs. Less jobs mean less money for the entitlements most people in the Village enjoy.
I was on a forum that had people who are in the $250,000-$600,000 bracket. They were talking about "going gault" if the taxes are imposed. Plenty of talk of cutting back and enjoying life for a few years until the economic climate changes.
The way people are talking is like the air is leaking out of their balloons.
It is very sad to see ambitious people take on a slacker attitude.

Originally Posted by djplong

ijusluvit: You *do* realize that it was getting RID of the 90% tax brackets that contributed to the greatest economic expansion thic country ever saw, yes? When you make it so that dollar earned has the government taking MORE THAN HALF, you have provided two major disincentives - One, the disincentive for making it (why bother if the government is going to take half?). Two - drive the economy underground so as to evade taxation.

This is why Reagan's tax cuts provided such a jolt.

And as far as the problems you have with 'the bonus structure', let me tell you something. You may have an argument with 'the fatcats', but speaking as one of the lower-level employees of Fidelity Investments in the 1990s, I can tell you that a lot of middle class people DEPENDED on those bonuses. At least at Fidelity, they were paid out in early December. If you were really good, you could get as much as a month's pay in one lump sum. Let me tell you, that made Christmas shopping a lot easier I certainly was NO millionaire - I didn't even make $50,000 back then, and had a wife and two kids that I was supporting.

VK: I've heard of the VAT and although I'm not fond of it, I'm certainly willing to listen. One of the knocks against it (again, from what I've heard) is that the government can bury tax hikes, hiding them, in effect.

You make a good point about tax rates exceeding 50%. However I called my suggestions "targeted and temporary", aimed specifically at those who have been, and still are receiving huge awards, for no other reason than finding themselves on the upper rungs of the corporate ladder. One pretty good example would be the Goldman Sachs execs bonuses awarded after they tricked AIG into insuring billions of dollars of bogus mortgages. I believe it is important for our economy and for aour survival as a nation, to significantly blunt the "bonus culture".

In previous posts you have made it clear you are not one of the 'fatcats'; that you have worked hard to maintain a modest income level and that you have had some some difficult times. I have nothing but respect for that. I identify with and see myself in your shoes and I agree with almost everything you post. I'll bet you deserved every penny of the Fidelity bonuses you received. In my tax structure you would get EVERY PENNY of that bonus you describe above to do your Christmas shopping. But, if you had become a corporate star and your bonus pushed your annual income above 250k, the dollars above that amount, I would be favor taxing it a little higher. Sorry. That's my heartless solution.

Originally Posted by Donna2

By reducing wages paid to government employees. If government employees earned the same percentage as private sector employees, 339 billion dollars could be saved annually. No small potatoes. Seems there is a privileged class here in America?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...ctions_opinion

We have to reduce government and leave the private sector alone and give them the tools to produce. Like I said in my previous post, we could save around 339 billion a year by reducing public employee's wages to the average of private sector. There is no reason to pay this ransom money.

ijusluvit: Thanks for explaining yourself. Now, to dig a little deeper - what do you think of the following situation? I came into some money back in 1990 (death in the family). Some of that money, I invested in a friend's business that I really believed in - so much so that I worked for 'sweat equity' on my off hours for a while (developing software). When I had money, I put about $22,000 in cash into the business (private stock purchase). Combined with my 'sweat equity', on the books, I'd put in about $26,000 (valuing my labor at FAR below what my billing rates were - but, again, I believed in the future value).

Set the calendar over a year later. My 'stock' (and I put it in quotes because it wsa a private issue, not publicly traded) is worth $103,000 due to the growth in the company. Mind you, I'm not one of the paid employees. By now, I own 1% of the company with my investment of time and money.

In real life, we were bought out by a company that later turned out to be quite shady. At the time of the buyout, we all voluntarily took a reduced value to out shares - mine were valued at $86,000 - in order to be part of what was to be a publicly traded company. Well, the company sold the assets (our software) off to an offshore firm and we were left with nothing. In the end, a conversion resulted in my shares being worth $50. Yes, one copy of Ulysses S. Grant.

But let's have an exercise. Suppose the parent company prospered and wasn't so shady. Suppose a couple of years later I had $300,000 in stock and now I wanted to lock in my 'profits' and diversify so that I didn't have all my retirement eggs in one basket.

If I sold my stock at $300,000, I'm looking at around $275,000 in 'profit' - especially considering how hard it is to define how much I 'paid' with my 'sweat equity' part.

For all that risk and waiting a few years for gratification, what do you think is a fair taxation rate? You specifically mentioned 'above $250,000' for higher taxes. In this case, how much is "right", in your opinion? The IRS says that I could be looking at the lower Capital Gains tax rate as opposed to 'regular income' (depending on the asset and how long I've held on to it). What's your opinion?

Then - what if I held on to it for a few more years - until it was worth, say, $500,000?