PDA

View Full Version : Geitner Slips - No Obama Plan for Deficit or Social Programs



soonercruiser
2/21/2012, 10:32 AM
So, the truth is out!
Obama and Geitner don't have any plan to tackle the real deficit causing programs.
But, of course, they will attack any Repubican plan! The only plan is to continue to tax & spend us into deeper debt!
:dispirited:



Washington Examiner: Truth emerges during budget displays in Washington
Oklahoman 2 Published: February 21, 2012

.....But when Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner appeared before the Senate and House budget committees, he twice departed slightly from the usual script. First, in response to questions from Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, Geithner acknowledged the lack of long-term deficit reduction in the Obama budget, saying, “Even if Congress were to enact this budget, we would still be left with, in the outer decades as millions of Americans retire, what are still unsustainable commitments in Medicare and Medicaid.” Then on the House side, in response to budget chairman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, Geithner conceded the same point, but added, “We're not coming before you to say we have a definitive solution to that long-term problem. What we do know is we don't like yours.”

Geithner's formulation — we know we can't keep doing what we're doing and we don't have a plan to change, but we sure don't want your plan — is an apt summary of Obama's overall budget strategy since the beginning of his administration. Recall that no credible plan for reforming Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid was introduced by Obama in his first year. Then in his second year, he ignored the report of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility — aka Simpson-Bowles — that he created specifically to recommend a deficit reduction plan “to improve the fiscal situation in the medium term and to achieve fiscal sustainability over the long run.”

http://newsok.com/washington-examiner-truth-emerges-during-budget-displays-in-washington/article/3650728

Sounds like a movie title....."Clueless in Washington"!

Midtowner
2/21/2012, 11:24 AM
Neither party has a plan, so yes, the Obama administration is clueless as to how to fix the deficit. I'd care about that if there was a candidate who did have an answer.

I mean, I'll be voting for Ron Paul, but he won't win. So the guy with 4 years of experience is probably going to beat out the guy who needs on-the-job training or the religious zealot.

XingTheRubicon
2/21/2012, 12:01 PM
On the job training > On the first job ever training

soonercruiser
2/21/2012, 12:12 PM
Neither party has a plan, so yes, the Obama administration is clueless as to how to fix the deficit. I'd care about that if there was a candidate who did have an answer.


And, this statement shows that you are blind to the truth.
You really should go somewhere else for your information and news.

StoopTroup
2/21/2012, 12:18 PM
And, this statement shows that you are blind to the truth.
You really should go somewhere else for your information and news.

You mean like a History Book? Especially one covering the time period of 2000-2008?

soonercruiser
2/21/2012, 12:23 PM
Boehner calls GOP deficit plan a 'fair offer'
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2011-11-15/supercommittee-deficit-boehner-reid/51217948/1

Poll: Americans Support GOP Deficit Plan
July 21, 2011 RSS Feed Print
A CNN poll released Thursday shows that nearly two thirds of the American people support the "Cut, Cap, Balance" plan that passed the House of Representatives Tuesday, throwing a monkey wrench into President Barack Obama’s plan for a deal of grand design.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2011/07/21/poll-americans-support-cut-cap-and-balance

The Ryan deficit plan, part two - shifting cost to Medicare recipientshttp://www.joepaduda.com/archives/002072.html

Paul Ryan's Deficit Cutting Plan And Your Delayed Retirement
http://www.forbes.com/sites/janetnovack/2011/04/05/paul-ryans-deficit-cutting-plan-and-your-delayed-retirement/

'Super committee' Republicans offer alternative to Democrats' deficit plan
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/oct/27/nation/la-na-super-committee-gop-20111028

Midtowner - and here is even one from you favorite site....

Super Committee Democrats Reject GOP Plan To Cut Deficit
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/09/supercommittee-democrats-gop-offer_n_1083754.html

soonercruiser
2/21/2012, 12:28 PM
You mean like a History Book? Especially one covering the time period of 2000-2008?

Come on Stoop! READ!
We're talking "CURRENT EVENTS here!

Midtowner said "neither party has a plan". That is false!
At least there is some Repug thoughts on how to reduce the deficit.
The boy who would be President is completely oblivious to the deficit.

All Obama wants to do is keep buying votes by promising the Moon!
And, keep Americans on "The Gobment Dependency Plantation".

StoopTroup
2/21/2012, 12:39 PM
They both have been in power for quite some time and have been arguing over this crap for a long time. Just because some Party got some legisation passed doesn't suddenly make it current.

sappstuf
2/21/2012, 12:44 PM
Neither party has a plan, so yes, the Obama administration is clueless as to how to fix the deficit. I'd care about that if there was a candidate who did have an answer.

I mean, I'll be voting for Ron Paul, but he won't win. So the guy with 4 years of experience is probably going to beat out the guy who needs on-the-job training or the religious zealot.

Actually Geitner is quite clear that Paul Ryan, whom he was speaking to, has a plan.


You are right to say we’re not coming before you today to say ‘we have a definitive solution to that long term problem.’ What we do know is, we don’t like yours.

In another words, while the Obama administration won’t or can’t provide leadership, they will be happy to torpedo those who can and will — like Paul Ryan.

And they call the Repubs the party of no....

StoopTroup
2/21/2012, 01:10 PM
Americans did elect this President because of Hope and Change and since the Tea Party were elected into Congress they have done everything to block the POTUS.

Now....You can be for or against the manuevre but you can't suddenly have 3-4 Candidates running for POTUS that they are going to change things and make it all better when your party has helped America dig the hole we are in even bigger.

So....yeah...maybe the Dems don't have a solution and maybe they don't like the Pubs....but what has gone on for the last 3 years won't get the Pubs a Candidate elected as POTUS.

All this yanking each others wanks is pretty sickening.

okie52
2/21/2012, 01:17 PM
3 years? Maybe the last year but Obama had total control the first 2 years.

JohnnyMack
2/21/2012, 04:26 PM
Midtowner getting pwned by soonercruiser. Quite an upset. This is like OU losing at home to Tceh.

cleller
2/21/2012, 10:16 PM
Regardless of who wins, is anyone paying attention to the interest rates the Fed has kept so low?

Basically they are zero, and the Fed aims to keep it that way. For now, it is working. Its killing any income retirees need, but keeping our economy going. With our deficit, should interest rate rise, we would be unable to meet our debt obligations, like Greece. Picture the US when we tell the populace that food stamps, social security, and medicare are going to be cut by half.

What is it that historically causes interest rates to rise? Deficit spending. If no one seems worried, its because that's the nature of the markets. They are only concerning with what is happening today, like our current administration.

Midtowner
2/21/2012, 10:30 PM
Boehner calls GOP deficit plan a 'fair offer'
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2011-11-15/supercommittee-deficit-boehner-reid/51217948/1

Poll: Americans Support GOP Deficit Plan
July 21, 2011 RSS Feed Print
A CNN poll released Thursday shows that nearly two thirds of the American people support the "Cut, Cap, Balance" plan that passed the House of Representatives Tuesday, throwing a monkey wrench into President Barack Obama’s plan for a deal of grand design.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2011/07/21/poll-americans-support-cut-cap-and-balance

The Ryan deficit plan, part two - shifting cost to Medicare recipientshttp://www.joepaduda.com/archives/002072.html

Paul Ryan's Deficit Cutting Plan And Your Delayed Retirement
http://www.forbes.com/sites/janetnovack/2011/04/05/paul-ryans-deficit-cutting-plan-and-your-delayed-retirement/

'Super committee' Republicans offer alternative to Democrats' deficit plan
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/oct/27/nation/la-na-super-committee-gop-20111028

Midtowner - and here is even one from you favorite site....

Super Committee Democrats Reject GOP Plan To Cut Deficit
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/09/supercommittee-democrats-gop-offer_n_1083754.html

Did you even read the articles you linked to?


Well, the CBO did review his plan, and the results are pretty discouraging.

Here's Forbes' Rick Ungar:

"Accordingly to the CBO estimates, the program would result in seniors paying twice as much for their care - a sum that would total more than $12,510 a year...

The GOP proposal, which would begin in 2022, involves providing a 'voucher' - or as Ryan likes to call it, 'premium support' - to seniors to help pay for their health insurance. The average American would receive a check for $8,000, representing roughly what the CBO estimates Medicare would have to fork out for the average beneficiary in 2022. In addition to the government's costs, the CBO estimates that seniors, in 2022, would lay out about $6,150.00 in out-of-pocket costs in the Medicare system. That totals an average cost of health care for participating seniors, in 2022, to be $14,770.


Republicans offered a $2.2-trillion package of steep spending cuts but gave no ground on their resistance to new taxes, congressional aides said Thursday. The proposal was a counter to the "grand bargain" that Democrats put on the table — as much as $3 trillion in spending cuts and new taxes on wealthier households.


On Social Security, he punted back in the direction of President Obama (who, of course, has himself punted.) Ryan proposed no specific Social Security cuts, he explained today at the American Enterprise Institute, because coming out with specifics “would make it too easy for the Democrats to attack” and “there’s a shot at some bipartisan agreement.” Instead, he called for a trigger mechanism. According to the 73-page document here describing Ryan’s Fiscal 2012 budget resolution and 10 year plan, in the event that the Social Security program is found to be “not sustainable, the President, in conjunction with the Board of Trustees, must submit a plan for restoring balance to the fund. The budget then requires congressional leaders in both the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate to put forward their best ideas as well.”

So in short, Ryan's "plan" is bullcrap political posturing, no different than what the Dems are doing, except that what the Dems are doing would cut the debt by 3 trillion over ten years instead of 2.2 trillion.

Both plans are horse****. We need HUGE defense cuts. We can roll back the wars on drugs and terrorism and save billions. Sanity must win out over stupid partisan dogma. If you think Obama vs. Ryan is a real fight, you're deluded. Neither is going to do anything substantial to reverse or recent ill fortunes.

StoopTroup
2/21/2012, 10:45 PM
Now that DADT has been repealed a guy named Boner can join the military.

StoopTroup
2/21/2012, 10:54 PM
Also....

I'm kind of with Ron Paul on this whole Healthcare deal in that....I think it would be cool to see a group of say 10,000 Republican and 10,000 Democratic Doctors to look into how they think it could not only be feesable but be worthy or creating a New Healthcare System in America that was run by Gov't and subsidized so that everyone could get care.

I'm not going to get into details as I just think they would be the best place to start in fixing the System. I'm sure everyone in the healthcare industry would declare bankruptcy that day and move to France but it would be interesting to see what a large group of Doctors could come up with and then maybe reduce the number of ideas down to a more managable number and reduce the number of Doctors of both political parties down until we have a pretty good idea of the direction we could send Congress in ironing out this huge problem without bankrupting everyone in the industry and bankrupting the Country.

To me it just seems like the GOP is continuing to play the "OMG...anything that we don't create is going to bankrupt the Country!". Then they just put it off longer and longer acting like the American people will continue to elect them.

Midtowner
2/21/2012, 11:02 PM
To me it just seems like the GOP is continuing to play the "OMG...anything that we don't create is going to bankrupt the Country!". Then they just put it off longer and longer acting like the American people will continue to elect them.

The funny thing is that the GOP created the Affordable Care Act! For them to now maintain that this is going to bankrupt the country (but prescription drug coverage in medicare with no cost controls gets the Nobel Prize) is just silly.

yermom
2/22/2012, 12:23 AM
Now that DADT has been repealed a guy named Boner can join the military.

I remember that episode of that one show

soonercruiser
2/22/2012, 07:51 PM
Did you even read the articles you linked to?

So in short, Ryan's "plan" is bullcrap political posturing, no different than what the Dems are doing, except that what the Dems are doing would cut the debt by 3 trillion over ten years instead of 2.2 trillion.

Both plans are horse****. We need HUGE defense cuts. We can roll back the wars on drugs and terrorism and save billions. Sanity must win out over stupid partisan dogma. If you think Obama vs. Ryan is a real fight, you're deluded. Neither is going to do anything substantial to reverse or recent ill fortunes.

Midtowner,
Unlike "some", I do read what I link to. And, I don't hide the "other side of the story" to make a lop-sided point.

YOUR supposition was that there was "No Repubican Plan"!
That was a nonsense statement!

Now, what I linked to shows that there are several Repug plans; but that no one is totally happy about those plans - especially the left!

I made no supposition in posting those stories that there "isn't opposition to the Repug plans".

Now.....carry on with discussion of the lans.
And, don't forget to discuss the 300 pound gorilla in the deficit room - SS and Medicare!

soonercruiser
2/22/2012, 07:53 PM
The funny thing is that the GOP created the Affordable Care Act! For them to now maintain that this is going to bankrupt the country (but prescription drug coverage in medicare with no cost controls gets the Nobel Prize) is just silly.

OK, here we go again!
More nonsense!
What are you smokin' man?
;)

Midtowner
2/22/2012, 08:37 PM
"No Repubican Plan"![/B]
That was a nonsense statement!

Your own links point out that the Ryan plan is as incomplete as anything else. An incomplete plan which defers tough choices to future Congresses is in fact no plan. Game/set/match.

soonercruiser
2/22/2012, 09:13 PM
So, you concede my main point?

Time to stop just throwing crap up against the wall to see what sticks.

diverdog
2/22/2012, 09:14 PM
Your own links point out that the Ryan plan is as incomplete as anything else. An incomplete plan which defers tough choices to future Congresses is in fact no plan. Game/set/match.

No chit. Does Cruiser even read half the crap he posts?

From his own links:




The GOP proposal, which would begin in 2022, involves providing a 'voucher' - or as Ryan likes to call it, 'premium support' - to seniors to help pay for their health insurance. The average American would receive a check for $8,000, representing roughly what the CBO estimates Medicare would have to fork out for the average beneficiary in 2022. In addition to the government's costs, the CBO estimates that seniors, in 2022, would lay out about $6,150.00 in out-of-pocket costs in the Medicare system. That totals an average cost of health care for participating seniors, in 2022, to be $14,770.
Under the GOP privatization plan, the cost to purchase the health insurance policy would cost about $20,520 per year - leaving the seniors out of pocket in the amount of $12,510 or more than twice what they would pay in 2022 should the Medicare system we currently have continue."


While there are parts of Ryan's Medicare plan that deserve serious consideration (increasing eligibility age for one), his reliance on private insurance is naive at best, and the complete lack of real controls over cost is quite disappointing. After all the fanfare over his plan and willingness to take on the tough issues, Ryan's shown himself to be just another number-massaging political operator.


Before the Democrats’ 2010 health overhaul, studies concluded raising the Medicare age to 67 would leave some 65 and 66-year-old folk uninsured (or uninsurable), give older workers a strong incentive to cling to regular full-time jobs with health insurance and raise costs for employers who provide health insurance. As the Kaiser Family Foundation Program on Medicare pointed out in a report (http://www.kff.org/medicare/8169.cfm) issued last month, raising the Medicare age to 67 with Obama’s health reform in place, would shift costs to seniors and employers, but wouldn’t leave 65 and 66-year-olds uninsured, since they could always buy insurance (with subsidies, if they qualified) on the new insurance exchanges.

And how the hell do you pass a balanced budget when all the Republicans have signed the pledge not to raise taxes?


Republicans have steadily resisted new taxes. Most Republican lawmakers have signed an anti-tax pledge from Americans for Tax Reform, a group headed by the influential conservative activist Grover Norquist.

I also wonder if he read the actual CNN poll that he referenced that show the vast majority of Americans support raising taxes on folks who make over $250,000 (73%), Getting rid of subsidies to oil and gas companies (73%), and increase taxes on people who own private jets (76%)? 47% support cutting defense spending, 30% support cutting federal employee pension and benefits (and this has been slowly increasing). There is absolutely no support to cut medicare and social security. Most favor both spending cuts and TAX increases! All of this points to positions that are favored by democrats and not republicans.

soonercruiser
2/22/2012, 09:17 PM
Come on, Diver.
See post #19.

diverdog
2/22/2012, 09:33 PM
Midtowner,
Unlike "some", I do read what I link to. And, I don't hide the "other side of the story" to make a lop-sided point.

YOUR supposition was that there was "No Repubican Plan"!
That was a nonsense statement!

Now, what I linked to shows that there are several Repug plans; but that no one is totally happy about those plans - especially the left!

I made no supposition in posting those stories that there "isn't opposition to the Repug plans".

Now.....carry on with discussion of the lans.
And, don't forget to discuss the 300 pound gorilla in the deficit room - SS, Medicare, and Defense!

FIFY

PS there is no Republican plan to address the deficit. As the quote from one of your post said:


Ryan's shown himself to be just another number-massaging political operator.

You cannot balance the budget without tax increases and spending cuts and growing the economy.

Midtowner
2/22/2012, 10:03 PM
So, you concede my main point?

I concede that neither party has a plan.

I never maintained the Dems had a plan. Both parties suck.

What part of your being refuses to acknowledge that your team's partisan politicians couldn't possibly be flawed?

SCOUT
2/22/2012, 10:18 PM
I also wonder if he read the actual CNN poll that he referenced that show the vast majority of Americans support raising taxes on folks who make over $250,000 (73%), Getting rid of subsidies to oil and gas companies (73%), and increase taxes on people who own private jets (76%)? 47% support cutting defense spending, 30% support cutting federal employee pension and benefits (and this has been slowly increasing). There is absolutely no support to cut medicare and social security. Most favor both spending cuts and TAX increases! All of this points to positions that are favored by democrats and not republicans.
Quick summary: People support other people paying higher taxes and support keeping their own low. Shocking.

Midtowner
2/22/2012, 10:26 PM
Quick summary: People support other people paying higher taxes and support keeping their own low. Shocking.

I make more than most folks here. I'm fine that I pay higher taxes. Clearly, if you have a six-figure income, you can afford to pay more taxes. Do I think it's awesome? Nope. I'd rather pay my house off or something. Do I understand why I need to pay more than the family of 4 which makes it on 40K? Yes. Definitely. I frankly couldn't even imagine doing that.

SCOUT
2/22/2012, 10:44 PM
I make more than most folks here. I'm fine that I pay higher taxes. Clearly, if you have a six-figure income, you can afford to pay more taxes. Do I think it's awesome? Nope. I'd rather pay my house off or something. Do I understand why I need to pay more than the family of 4 which makes it on 40K? Yes. Definitely. I frankly couldn't even imagine doing that.
That's just super. I struggle to see the relevance of your wealth though, Bruce. The polls show exactly what I stated.

I do chuckle at your braggadocio, though.

yermom
2/22/2012, 11:54 PM
I remember that episode of that one show

Growing Pains

that's been killing me

XingTheRubicon
2/23/2012, 09:34 AM
I make more than most folks here. I'm fine that I pay higher taxes. Clearly, if you have a six-figure income, you can afford to pay more taxes. Do I think it's awesome? Nope. I'd rather pay my house off or something. Do I understand why I need to pay more than the family of 4 which makes it on 40K? Yes. Definitely. I frankly couldn't even imagine doing that.

A family of 4 that makes 40k (with the EITC and and 3K for the kids) actually RECEIVES a couple grand...so yeah, I guess you "pay more" than they do.

Midtowner
2/23/2012, 09:37 AM
A family of 4 that makes 40k (with the EITC and and 3K for the kids) actually RECEIVES a couple grand...so yeah, I guess you "pay more" than they do.

And I'm fine with that. Most of those sorts of calculations discount state, sales, property and other taxes.

I should have to pay more because I have a hell of a lot more disposable income than the do. If I was making 7 figures, I'd be fine being taxed at 50% or whatever my income over $1MM was, as well if it meant that I get to continue living in a safe and secure country.

XingTheRubicon
2/23/2012, 09:46 AM
So, "everyone a flat screen" ...good for you

JohnnyMack
2/23/2012, 10:13 AM
I make more than most folks here. I'm fine that I pay higher taxes. Clearly, if you have a six-figure income, you can afford to pay more taxes. Do I think it's awesome? Nope. I'd rather pay my house off or something. Do I understand why I need to pay more than the family of 4 which makes it on 40K? Yes. Definitely. I frankly couldn't even imagine doing that.

Do you get to play golf with the Major? Or was it a Colonel?

Midtowner
2/23/2012, 11:57 AM
So, "everyone a flat screen" ...good for you

So make a stupid snide comment and refuse to address the incompleteness of your analysis. Good for you.

XingTheRubicon
2/23/2012, 12:14 PM
So make a stupid snide comment and refuse to address the incompleteness of your analysis. Good for you.

My point was that we already have the richest poor people in the history of people, so you railing on about the struggling 40K folk needing more cash back is, at best, naive and more likely ignorant. You choose.

Curly Bill
2/23/2012, 01:44 PM
I think those rich folks like Midtowner that have so much compassion for the "poor" should have every right to turn some of their earnings over to the poor. I don't like the idea of people like him and Brack wanting to take more of my money and turn over to the "poor," the rich or anyone else.

pphilfran
2/23/2012, 02:53 PM
We cannot get out of our current mess without tax revenue increases...

We need to pull in 20% of GDP for the next 10 years..the recession has lowered revenue to the 15% range (if that high)...the historical avg is about 18-18.5%..so eliminate enough loopholes and deductions to increase revenue by 10% and we should be golden...and 10% of my current tax bill isn't going to break me...

pphilfran
2/23/2012, 02:56 PM
I don't want to pay another f'n nickel but sometime you just have to buckle down and do what is right for the long term...

At the start of the recession my business went in the chitter....I had to lay people off....I had to work 7 freaking days a week for an entire year...I had Christmas day off...hated to do it but it had to be done...

Just like increasing revenue by 10%...I hate it but it needs to be done....

Midtowner
2/23/2012, 03:04 PM
I think those rich folks like Midtowner that have so much compassion for the "poor" should have every right to turn some of their earnings over to the poor. I don't like the idea of people like him and Brack wanting to take more of my money and turn over to the "poor," the rich or anyone else.

I'm not proposing the money be used for the benefit of the poor. I'd like to see it applied to boring things like debt service. I'd love to see this country adopt a balanced budget amendment. If the people have to pay for what the Congress legislates, that'll make the conversation in Washington much more adult.

The simple fact of the matter is that you can't get blood from a turnip. We have to tax the wealthy, because, as the quote falsely attributed to former bank robber Willie Sutton said, that's where the money is.

The family of 4 living on 40K is not going to be able to absorb a tax hike. I probably could. I wouldn't love it, but that's personal responsibility. I'm happy to pay for what my country gives me. Others, Rubicon, for example, seem happy to take from the government but not give back.

XingTheRubicon
2/23/2012, 03:05 PM
We cannot get out of our current mess without tax revenue increases...

We need to pull in 20% of GDP for the next 10 years..the recession has lowered revenue to the 15% range (if that high)...the historical avg is about 18-18.5%..so eliminate enough loopholes and deductions to increase revenue by 10% and we should be golden...and 10% of my current tax bill isn't going to break me...

I agree, but the top 10% already pay 75%...where does it end?

In 1984, 14% of Americans paid no income tax.

In 2009, 49% of Americans paid no income tax.

Maybe everyone can go back to paying their fair share.

or any share.


and fyi, major, across the board tax increases would cover about 5% of that last piece of **** excuse for a budget proposal.

pphilfran
2/23/2012, 03:37 PM
I think every working person should pay at least a buck...

I understand that many pay no taxes and the better off by the vast majority...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

We are going to get 2.4 trillion in revenue this year (maybe)...without the recession that number would be around 3.7 trillion...

So from current levels we need 1.3 trillion a year just to get back to where we were...and where we were was still fast forwarding us to the poorhouse...

How do we come up with 1.3 trillion from the bottom half of taxpayers...65 million of them...they would have to pay 20k a year to make up the difference...hell the cut off point for the bottom half is 30k (AGI) a year...

So we ask the bottom 50% to make up 10% of the difference...that is 2k a year...40 bucks a week....pretty damn steep when you are making $10/15 an hour (gross)....can't ask for that much...

How would the same increase affect the the top quarter of wage earners...cut off is around 75k...it would take 40k per person to make up the shortfall...

So you have to bracket things...

Bottom 25% you ain't gonna get nuttin...our priority here should be to give as many of these people the skills needed to advance themselves...we should expand Vo Tech and encourage some high school kids to move in that direction...

25 -50%...5% increase at high end...20 bucks a week...

50 - 75%... I would shoot for 5% increae for those on the bottom end and 10 for those on the top of this bracket...which tops at about 200k...

So now the more well off, from 200k I would slowly increase the rate until the top of the bracket pops in additional 15% increase in tax revenue...

soonercruiser
2/23/2012, 04:01 PM
I'm not proposing the money be used for the benefit of the poor. I'd like to see it applied to boring things like debt service. I'd love to see this country adopt a balanced budget amendment. If the people have to pay for what the Congress legislates, that'll make the conversation in Washington much more adult.

The simple fact of the matter is that you can't get blood from a turnip. We have to tax the wealthy, because, as the quote falsely attributed to former bank robber Willie Sutton said, that's where the money is.

The family of 4 living on 40K is not going to be able to absorb a tax hike. I probably could. I wouldn't love it, but that's personal responsibility. I'm happy to pay for what my country gives me. Others, Rubicon, for example, seem happy to take from the government but not give back.

OK. But, still the only plan the Dems have is to raise taxes.
They always do a great job cutting the military first thing, too!
But, what about the 300 pound gorilla in the budget - entitlement spending?
We will not balance the budget, or reduce the deficit by only taxing the rich!
We must downsize the Dem's Holy Grail - entitlements for votes!

XingTheRubicon
2/23/2012, 04:08 PM
Others, Rubicon, for example, seem happy to take from the government but not give back.

http://img534.imageshack.us/img534/3752/irs001.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/534/irs001.jpg/)

go **** yourself

pphilfran
2/23/2012, 04:10 PM
http://img534.imageshack.us/img534/3752/irs001.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/534/irs001.jpg/)

go **** yourself

Nice!

Midtowner
2/23/2012, 04:26 PM
OK. But, still the only plan the Dems have is to raise taxes.
They always do a great job cutting the military first thing, too!
But, what about the 300 pound gorilla in the budget - entitlement spending?
We will not balance the budget, or reduce the deficit by only taxing the rich!
We must downsize the Dem's Holy Grail - entitlements for votes!

I never said I agreed with the Dems. I want to cut the military budget, entitlement spending, the whole 9. This country has to start living within its means.

Turd_Ferguson
2/23/2012, 05:27 PM
Mid just got taken to the wood shed...

Turd_Ferguson
2/23/2012, 05:33 PM
Mid is either "stunned cowboy", or he's frantically writing out a fake check and scanning it as I type...:D

soonercruiser
2/23/2012, 09:52 PM
Mid just got taken to the wood shed...

Midtowner and his "minion" companions want even more, Rubicon.
Next time, just send it "blank" so Obama can fill it in!

diverdog
2/23/2012, 11:26 PM
OK. But, still the only plan the Dems have is to raise taxes.
They always do a great job cutting the military first thing, too!
But, what about the 300 pound gorilla in the budget - entitlement spending?
We will not balance the budget, or reduce the deficit by only taxing the rich!
We must downsize the Dem's Holy Grail - entitlements for votes!

I hope you understand that your military pension are is entitlement and that its cost are exploding and that future liability cost through 2034 is $2.7 trillion dollars.

diverdog
2/23/2012, 11:38 PM
Midtowner and his "minion" companions want even more, Rubicon.
Next time, just send it "blank" so Obama can fill it in!

Well his check probably about covered your federal pension and health care. You should kiss his *** and say thank you.

diverdog
2/23/2012, 11:40 PM
I agree, but the top 10% already pay 75%...where does it end?

In 1984, 14% of Americans paid no income tax.

In 2009, 49% of Americans paid no income tax.

Maybe everyone can go back to paying their fair share.

or any share.


and fyi, major, across the board tax increases would cover about 5% of that last piece of **** excuse for a budget proposal.

I believe everyone should have skin in the game.

Sooner5030
2/24/2012, 12:22 AM
contract GDP and lower the standard of living. That is the only way to end this horrible Keynesian-addicted mess. When you borrow to prop up GDP you will feel the pain on the other end when you pay it back.

Of course the theory was that we could inflate our way out of insurmountable debt and keep chugging along. Now debt has exceeded GDP and there is no turning back. We will never be able to magically grow our way out of this. It's not only the economic issues.....the politics will not allow us to fix this. Nothing will get through congress and the executive that includes a combination or tax increases and entitlement decreases. The mob will not accept that.

diverdog
2/24/2012, 08:08 AM
http://img534.imageshack.us/img534/3752/irs001.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/534/irs001.jpg/)

go **** yourself

rub:

You might want to take that check down. I am pretty sure someone can piece together some of the micr encoding. Your black ink is not hiding it real well.

SanJoaquinSooner
2/24/2012, 10:55 AM
I tried to warn you, XTR, that interest and penalties would add up.
:D

Soonerjeepman
2/24/2012, 11:22 AM
being a teacher...in an urban predominately black school....

#1 I teach you EARN what you get..

#2 do NOT belong to the union and think teachers should be more accountable for what they teach..BUT think students and parents should be held more accountable as well...you can lead a horse to water but can't make them drink..

#3 welfare will NOT be there in a few yrs..

#4 have $20 at the end of each paycheck...not sure I can AFFORD even a 5% tax hike..

#5 haven't had a raise..at all in 5 yrs..(yes like most folks I understand) not even a cost of living...make under 60K with a masters and 22 yrs experience.

#6 believe in capitalism...divided on if the rich should pay MORE or I'd like to see just the SAME % as me...SEEMS most "rich" folks can afford the advice for all the different ways to cut their tax...

#7 I SEE and HEAR about all the abuse of the welfare system...THAT needs to be completely overhauled...redone..etc..

#8 How many illegals and folks on welfare get paid CASH and pay NO tax at all...

oh, need to add...pay $470 in child support and alimony so in a few yrs 2...I'll be better off...

Turd_Ferguson
2/24/2012, 04:54 PM
Where did Mid go?

Curly Bill
2/24/2012, 04:59 PM
I'm not proposing the money be used for the benefit of the poor. I'd like to see it applied to boring things like debt service. I'd love to see this country adopt a balanced budget amendment. If the people have to pay for what the Congress legislates, that'll make the conversation in Washington much more adult.

The simple fact of the matter is that you can't get blood from a turnip. We have to tax the wealthy, because, as the quote falsely attributed to former bank robber Willie Sutton said, that's where the money is.

The family of 4 living on 40K is not going to be able to absorb a tax hike. I probably could. I wouldn't love it, but that's personal responsibility. I'm happy to pay for what my country gives me. Others, Rubicon, for example, seem happy to take from the government but not give back.

I'm happy to pay for what the country gives me as well, I'm not happy to pay for what the country gives to others who don't deserve it, and finally the country is too much in the business of "giving" and should get back to doing what government is supposed to do, and that's to protect us from harm from the "bad people," protect us from outside invasion, and provide those essential services that private business can't. Other than that, just leave us the f--k alone, including taking money out of my pocket to give to others that haven't done anything to deserve it.

Turd_Ferguson
2/24/2012, 05:11 PM
I'm happy to pay for what the country gives me as well, I'm not happy to pay for what the country gives to others who don't deserve it, and finally the country is too much in the business of "giving" and should get back to doing what government is supposed to do, and that's to protect us from harm from the "bad people," protect us from outside invasion, and provide those essential services that private business can't. Other than that, just leave us the f--k alone, including taking money out of my [pocket to give to others that haven't done anything to deserve it.2596

soonercruiser
2/24/2012, 09:43 PM
Well his check probably about covered your federal pension and health care. You should kiss his *** and say thank you.

Still the angry medical separatee, are we Diver?
When will the anger go away?
I earned those benfits over 29 years!
Most social program recipients do not.


It's about keeping the promises to our troops.
You know, those who have sacrificed.
Not just those who complain.
:dispirited:

soonercruiser
2/24/2012, 09:45 PM
rub:

You might want to take that check down. I am pretty sure someone can piece together some of the micr encoding. Your black ink is not hiding it real well.

DONE!
Was real easy....:congratulatory:

diverdog
2/24/2012, 11:09 PM
Still the angry medical separatee, are we Diver?
When will the anger go away?
I earned those benfits over 29 years!
Most social program recipients do not.


It's about keeping the promises to our troops.
You know, those who have sacrificed.
Not just those who complain.
:dispirited:

Cruiser:

Most people pay SS and medicare taxes....payroll taxes. They have every right to their benefits as you do.

Secondly military retirement was described by the GAO as the gold standard of retirement plans unmatched in the civilian world. Budget hawks are waking up to the fact that the current system is unsustainable and does little to retain actual front line combat ready troops. Most of the retirement benefits are collected by support people. Two trillion dollars is a big target for cuts.

Third cruiser I would not subject military retirees to no more pain from budget cuts than someone who only collected SS. To balance the budget tomorrow we would have to cut every single aspect of government by at least 20%. That means you and I would take across the board cuts to all our benefits. i think every single expenditure should be on the table including sacred cows like military retirement.

SCOUT
2/25/2012, 03:29 AM
Cruiser:

Most people pay SS and medicare taxes....payroll taxes. They have every right to their benefits as you do.

Secondly military retirement was described by the GAO as the gold standard of retirement plans unmatched in the civilian world. Budget hawks are waking up to the fact that the current system is unsustainable and does little to retain actual front line combat ready troops. Most of the retirement benefits are collected by support people. Two trillion dollars is a big target for cuts.

Third cruiser I would not subject military retirees to no more pain from budget cuts than someone who only collected SS. To balance the budget tomorrow we would have to cut every single aspect of government by at least 20%. That means you and I would take across the board cuts to all our benefits. i think every single expenditure should be on the table including sacred cows like military retirement.
I think cuts need to be made. I would also say that there is an important distinction between current recipients and future recipients. I am not aware of any plan proposed that cuts benefits of current social security recipients. Until there is, I am not sure how a comparison to current military retirees is relevant.

With that said, there are many entitlement programs that are in place that are neither retirees civilian or military. Those who have not paid or served should be at the top of the list for cuts.

I am always curious when I hear the phrase, "pay their fair share" knowing that half don't pay anything.

diverdog
2/25/2012, 01:57 PM
I think cuts need to be made. I would also say that there is an important distinction between current recipients and future recipients. I am not aware of any plan proposed that cuts benefits of current social security recipients. Until there is, I am not sure how a comparison to current military retirees is relevant.

With that said, there are many entitlement programs that are in place that are neither retirees civilian or military. Those who have not paid or served should be at the top of the list for cuts.

I am always curious when I hear the phrase, "pay their fair share" knowing that half don't pay anything.

Scout your last quote is not quite accurate. Half do not pay income taxes. That does not mean they do not pay other taxes. And a lot of those people who pay nothing pay nothing because they were able to take deductions. Self employed who pay payroll taxes pay at a rate higher than Buffet even though they may not pay income tax.

I also think that current beneficiaries whether they are on SS or government retirement or some other government program need to take hits. How on earth is it fair that my kids who have not gotten one dime in benefits has to pay for all those people who are currently getting gold plated benefits? We are not paying enough taxes to pay these benefits and taxes need to be raise or current beneficiaries should take a hit.

The problem with military retirement is that we pay it to early. Guys like my dad and Cruiser will receive more money in retirement than they made while on active duty. Some of them will get paid for over 50 years! That is completely unsustainable. As I said the benefits that we are expecting to pay between now and 2034 is over 2 trillion dollars. That is a ton of money and that is above and beyond the cost to defend this nation. I am only picking on military retirement because it is a "sacred cow" and widely scene as being untouchable. It has to be looked at because we can no longer afford it. In the case of my dad or Cruiser what I would suggest is that we suspend any future colas or raises and subject the entire retirement to ordinary income taxes (which I think it is). Since they are also collecting SS it should also be subject to taxes for the full amount. Future military retirees should get the same benefits only they should start at normal retirement age and there should be a vesting schedule just like any other job.

Turd_Ferguson
2/25/2012, 02:13 PM
Scout your last quote is not quite accurate. Half do not pay income taxes. That does not mean they do not pay other taxes. And a lot of those people who pay nothing pay nothing because they were able to take deductions. Self employed who pay payroll taxes pay at a rate higher than Buffet even though they may not pay income tax.

I also think that current beneficiaries whether they are on SS or government retirement or some other government program need to take hits. How on earth is it fair that my kids who have not gotten one dime in benefits has to pay for all those people who are currently getting gold plated benefits? We are not paying enough taxes to pay these benefits and taxes need to be raise or current beneficiaries should take a hit.

The problem with military retirement is that we pay it to early. Guys like my dad and Cruiser will receive more money in retirement than they made while on active duty. Some of them will get paid for over 50 years! That is completely unsustainable. As I said the benefits that we are expecting to pay between now and 2034 is over 2 trillion dollars. That is a ton of money and that is above and beyond the cost to defend this nation. I am only picking on military retirement because it is a "sacred cow" and widely scene as being untouchable.

AS IT SHOULD BE!


It has to be looked at because we can no longer afford it.

How about we look into the **** ton of people collecting welfare and government housing that won't get off their sorry *** and work.

In the case of my dad or Cruiser what I would suggest is that we suspend any future colas or raises and subject the entire retirement to ordinary income taxes (which I think it is). Since they are also collecting SS it should also be subject to taxes for the full amount.


Future military retirees should get the same benefits only they should start at normal retirement age and there should be a vesting schedule just like any other job.

Wow.

Un****ingbelieavable

sappstuf
2/25/2012, 02:30 PM
Cruiser:

Most people pay SS and medicare taxes....payroll taxes. They have every right to their benefits as you do.

Secondly military retirement was described by the GAO as the gold standard of retirement plans unmatched in the civilian world. Budget hawks are waking up to the fact that the current system is unsustainable and does little to retain actual front line combat ready troops. Most of the retirement benefits are collected by support people. Two trillion dollars is a big target for cuts.

Third cruiser I would not subject military retirees to no more pain from budget cuts than someone who only collected SS. To balance the budget tomorrow we would have to cut every single aspect of government by at least 20%. That means you and I would take across the board cuts to all our benefits. i think every single expenditure should be on the table including sacred cows like military retirement.

What exactly do you consider "front line combat ready troops"? This isn't World War 1 with trenches and an actual front line. The term doesn't even really make sense anymore in today's conflicts.

If you are in the country, you are on the front line. This could be not be made more apparent then by the 2 officers that were killed at the interior ministry which is supposed to be one of the safest areas in the capital.

God rest their souls.

Turd_Ferguson
2/25/2012, 02:59 PM
What exactly do you consider "front line combat ready troops"? This isn't World War 1 with trenches and an actual front line. The term doesn't even really make sense anymore in today's conflicts.

If you are in the country, you are on the front line. This could be not be made more apparent then by the 2 officers that were killed at the interior ministry which is supposed to be one of the safest areas in the capital.

God rest their souls.
Concur...RIP

Sooner5030
2/25/2012, 02:59 PM
without the retirement system you cannot retain midcareer talent. It's part of the compensation package. Without it you have to increase pay to retain trained/educated folks. Yes....about the same number will do an initial tour but not many will stay.....deploy 6 years out of twenty only to wait until 59.5 to see any benefit. Especially the folks with STEM degrees.

Sooner in Tampa
2/25/2012, 04:18 PM
Diver...you should just STOP!!!

I am retired eating off the "sacred cow"...why? Because I help up my end of the bargain for Uncle Sam. I served my time in the Marine Corps and retired. Guess what? That "sacred cow" ain't that freakin great!!! It's nice to have a supplement to my income, but I still have to work my *** off to make ends meet. Quit making it sound like people are retiring after twenty or so years of service and living high on the hog!!!

We haven't received a COLA raise for the last 3 yrs...we got one this yr...but 3.6% of a little...is REALLY little!!

AND, our medical costs continue to rise...just like everybody else.

OU_Sooners75
2/25/2012, 05:20 PM
The problem with military retirement is that we pay it to early. Guys like my dad and Cruiser will receive more money in retirement than they made while on active duty. Some of them will get paid for over 50 years! That is completely unsustainable. As I said the benefits that we are expecting to pay between now and 2034 is over 2 trillion dollars. That is a ton of money and that is above and beyond the cost to defend this nation. I am only picking on military retirement because it is a "sacred cow" and widely scene as being untouchable. It has to be looked at because we can no longer afford it. In the case of my dad or Cruiser what I would suggest is that we suspend any future colas or raises and subject the entire retirement to ordinary income taxes (which I think it is). Since they are also collecting SS it should also be subject to taxes for the full amount. Future military retirees should get the same benefits only they should start at normal retirement age and there should be a vesting schedule just like any other job.

The price of freedom.

If the Government really wants to reign in spending, they should do away with the annual salaries and benefits that the law makers (and their staff), judges (and their staff), the president (and his staff) get before worrying about those retired men and women of the military!

Did you know that an aid to a US Senator makes right at $100,000 per year?

I personally think the US Government should go back to a per diem pay arrangement. If they are not in their office, or in washington to actually do work, then they do not get paid! Simple as that!

They already get travel expenses, extra money to pay their staff, and do not have to pay taxes. But they also have the best health care plan of any government employee. Not to mention their retirement pensions are HUGE!

Want to cut spending....we need to start by cutting the pay of those that do the spending!

Okla-homey
2/25/2012, 05:46 PM
Cruiser:

Secondly military retirement was described by the GAO as the gold standard of retirement plans unmatched in the civilian world. Budget hawks are waking up to the fact that the current system is unsustainable and does little to retain actual front line combat ready troops. Most of the retirement benefits are collected by support people. Two trillion dollars is a big target for cuts.



It's the so-called "gold standard" for a good reason a-hole. Since you like counting, count this: 1) there is no Workers Comp for GI's who suffer injuries on the job, as most do who serve to retirement. And I'm not talking about losing a limb. I'm talking the physical and mental degenerative effects of long service; 2) there is no private sector or public sector job in which a person is expected to sacrifice his or her life in the performance of the mission. Including cops and firemen. No cop or fireman is ever ordered to perform a particular mission in which their leaders know, to a certainty, some will die and some will be maimed - notwithstanding that fact, cops and fireman, as a class, are paid more than GI's; 3) did I mention you are an a-hole for even suggesting that military retirement and/or benefits should be cut one penny?

OU_Sooners75
2/25/2012, 05:49 PM
It's the so-called "gold standard" for a good reason a-hole. Since you like counting, count this: 1) there is no Workers Comp for GI's who suffer injuries on the job, as most do who serve to retirement. And I'm not talking about losing a limb. I'm talking the physical and mental degenerative effects of long service; 2) there is no private sector or public sector job in which a person is expected to sacrifice his or her life in the performance of the mission. Including cops and firemen. No cop or fireman is ever ordered to perform a particular mission in which their leaders know, to a certainty, some will die and some will be maimed; 3) did I mention you are an a-hole for even suggesting that military retirement and/or benefits should be cut one penny?

^^^^ This!

Well said Homey!

pphilfran
2/25/2012, 06:10 PM
Like it or not changes are coming...

Overreaching pensions have brought down many companies...and they will bring the US down as well...

The Lawton paper had the proposals listed for TriCare...I doubt if the numbers that listed get put in place but there will be some form of higher costs passed on to the service folks...

olevetonahill
2/25/2012, 06:30 PM
Those that want to cut the MRP should spend 20 years er so in the service whit their LIFE on the line
Of that 20 years at least 25% is away from family, In a hostile environment .
Yea its all a bed of roses .
Leave our Military alone

SoonerStormchaser
2/25/2012, 06:35 PM
It's threads like this that make me glad I've still got diverdog blocked...

I may only be working on year 6, and I don't know if I'll end up going the distance, but I have busted my *** since day 1 and have spent 60% of my career AWAY from my wife performing a job where I could damn well DIE. That "sacred cow" is one of the last perks that we have left...cause I could guarantee you that, if it goes away, the draft comes back cause no one in their right mind will do 20+ years with the kind of operations tempo we have right now!

Diver, I hope they draft your number first!

OU_Sooners75
2/25/2012, 06:42 PM
Well said Frag Mag!

olevetonahill
2/25/2012, 06:59 PM
It's threads like this that make me glad I've still got diverdog blocked...

I may only be working on year 6, and I don't know if I'll end up going the distance, but I have busted my *** since day 1 and have spent 60% of my career AWAY from my wife performing a job where I could damn well DIE. That "sacred cow" is one of the last perks that we have left...cause I could guarantee you that, if it goes away, the draft comes back cause no one in their right mind will do 20+ years with the kind of operations tempo we have right now!

Diver, I hope they draft your number first!

I aint skeered of the Draft,:unconscious:

Sooner_Tuf
2/25/2012, 09:25 PM
I hope you understand that your military pension are is entitlement and that its cost are exploding and that future liability cost through 2034 is $2.7 trillion dollars.

I hope you understand that a Military Pension is a committment from a contract that the US Gov't entered into with an individual. It is not an entitlement. It is earned.

soonercruiser
2/25/2012, 10:44 PM
Cruiser:

Most people pay SS and medicare taxes....payroll taxes. They have every right to their benefits as you do.

Secondly military retirement was described by the GAO as the gold standard of retirement plans unmatched in the civilian world. Budget hawks are waking up to the fact that the current system is unsustainable and does little to retain actual front line combat ready troops. Most of the retirement benefits are collected by support people. Two trillion dollars is a big target for cuts.

Third cruiser I would not subject military retirees to no more pain from budget cuts than someone who only collected SS. To balance the budget tomorrow we would have to cut every single aspect of government by at least 20%. That means you and I would take across the board cuts to all our benefits. i think every single expenditure should be on the table including sacred cows like military retirement.

Thanks, Diver.
Now that post was an intelligent, and non-envy edition that I can accept.

The only falicy is...the Dems seem to always go to the military well hard and first, and never get around to cutting entitlements.
That's my big beef over the years!

diverdog
2/25/2012, 10:56 PM
Those that want to cut the MRP should spend 20 years er so in the service whit their LIFE on the line
Of that 20 years at least 25% is away from family, In a hostile environment .
Yea its all a bed of roses .
Leave our Military alone

olevet:

I did my time and my father was career military. So I have earned the right to speak on this subject. We cannot afford the military retirement that we offer and it will change. In case all you have not noticed the military is a huge part of our budget and a huge reason we have so much debt.

diverdog
2/25/2012, 11:05 PM
I hope you understand that a Military Pension is a committment from a contract that the US Gov't entered into with an individual. It is not an entitlement. It is earned.

We are broke and we have got to make cuts or restructure our budget. You cannot have a huge sacred cow like military benefits/pension and just leave it alone. It is no different than farm subsidies or welfare payments to drug addicts or buying a million dollar hammer....it all drives to the bottom line.

diverdog
2/25/2012, 11:12 PM
It's threads like this that make me glad I've still got diverdog blocked...

I may only be working on year 6, and I don't know if I'll end up going the distance, but I have busted my *** since day 1 and have spent 60% of my career AWAY from my wife performing a job where I could damn well DIE. That "sacred cow" is one of the last perks that we have left...cause I could guarantee you that, if it goes away, the draft comes back cause no one in their right mind will do 20+ years with the kind of operations tempo we have right now!

Diver, I hope they draft your number first!

They will not take me. I am a DAV at 40% and getting ready to go to 60% in the next few months. I had my back shattered on a mission.

sappstuf
2/25/2012, 11:19 PM
Like it or not changes are coming...

Overreaching pensions have brought down many companies...and they will bring the US down as well...

The Lawton paper had the proposals listed for TriCare...I doubt if the numbers that listed get put in place but there will be some form of higher costs passed on to the service folks...

I think the initial changes will come from a smaller military. Redux, decreasing military retirement pay from 50% to 40% has already been tried and it failed.

They have already started nickel and diming the active duty. You used to get $225 a month for imminent danger pay for being in the most dangerous areas. It didn't matter how many days a month you were there, you got the $225. Now it is prorated to $7.50 per day. The ridicule and mocking started immediately.. Go to a war zone, put your life on the line, all for an extra $7.50 a day!!

diverdog
2/25/2012, 11:26 PM
It's the so-called "gold standard" for a good reason a-hole. Since you like counting, count this: 1) there is no Workers Comp for GI's who suffer injuries on the job, as most do who serve to retirement. And I'm not talking about losing a limb. I'm talking the physical and mental degenerative effects of long service; 2) there is no private sector or public sector job in which a person is expected to sacrifice his or her life in the performance of the mission. Including cops and firemen. No cop or fireman is ever ordered to perform a particular mission in which their leaders know, to a certainty, some will die and some will be maimed - notwithstanding that fact, cops and fireman, as a class, are paid more than GI's; 3) did I mention you are an a-hole for even suggesting that military retirement and/or benefits should be cut one penny?

I am a DAV. So don't lecture me about military injuries. So far I have had two major surgeries from injuries sustained on a mission that have cost over $150,000! I am not talking about cutting VA benefits although I would be glad to take the cut in benefits if it means balancing the budget.

Secondly we are almost $15 Trillion dollars in debt and you are kidding yourself if you think military benefits will not be touched. It is already happening and it is a fact of life. So you might as well get your head out of the sand and wake up to the reality that we are going to be cutting a lot of things in government.


The Pentagon's top officer said Thursday that servicemembers will likely see cuts in pay and benefits as the military plumbs its budget for nearly half a trillion dollars in savings over the next 12 years.Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen warned against taking the "relatively easy" choice of cutting hardware while maintaining the increasing costs of paying and providing ongoing health care to troops and retirees.
"Two of the big places the money is, is in pay and benefits," Mullen told defense reporters at a June 2 breakfast meeting in Washington. "And so when I say all things are on the table, all things are on the table."
In May, President Obama proposed sweeping budget cuts totaling $400 billion over the next 12 years -- a fiscal hit experts say will largely come from the DoD. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said health care costs are "eating the Department of Defense alive" -- with nearly 10 percent of the budget going to health benefits for active and retired servicemembers.

Let your legislator know (http://www.capwiz.com/military/issues/alert/?alertid=49368501&type=ML) how you feel about potential pay and benefits cuts as the military looks to trim its budget.



"Sustaining … the weapons and the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines who use them is increasingly difficult given the massive growth of other components of the defense budget, the 'tail' if you will -- operations, maintenance, pay and benefits, and other forms of overhead," Gates said in a May 24 speech. "America's defense enterprise has consumed ever higher level of resources as a matter of routine just to maintain, staff and administer itself."
Mullen went further, saying savings should be found in pay and benefits costs before cuts to programs and personnel.






The White House and Pentagon have made clear that Tricare fee increases would be phased in over a few years and would affect current retirees and troops serving today when they retire. Health care costs for the Pentagon, the nation's largest employer, total $50 billion a year, or about a tenth of its base budget. Ten years ago, health care cost the Pentagon $19 billion, equal to about $25 billion in today's dollars.



Panetta made it clear that the hit taken by the Pentagon’s topline was focused on shoring up the federal government’s bottom line, with a long-term aim at deficit reduction.
While many of the proposed cuts take the form of force reduction, especially in the end strengths of the Army (80,000 fewer soldiers, from 570,000 to 490,00 by 2017) and the Marine Corps (20,000 fewer Marines, from 202,000 to 182,000), other changes have been proposed for military pay and retiree benefits.

Though the details of the proposed cuts will not be apparent until the entire federal budget proposal is released on Feb. 13, Panetta did outline several changes unlikely to be welcomed by active-duty and Reserve personnel nor military retirees:

Slower growth in military pay. For 2013 and 2014, the Pentagon will continue to rely on the indexing formula that keeps military pay raises on pace with private sector pay growth, but beginning in 2015, military pay raises will be limited, in an unspecified way.
TRICARE Prime enrollment fee hikes for “working age” military retirees under the age of 65. The first-ever fee increases for working age retirees enrolled in TRICARE Prime – a hike of $30 a year annually for individuals and $60 for families – were enacted in the 2012 budget; future increases will be tied to growth in the cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) applied to military retirement pay – a “tiered” approach based on a person’s rank at retirement. The Military Officers Association of America, one of the nation’s most influential advocates for retired and active-duty service members, has found fault with this tiered approach, claiming that it “would make military retirees the only group of government retirees subject to healthcare means-testing. This is a concept we’ve fought ardently because it flies in the face of logic for a military service incentive – basically, the longer and more successfully you serve, the less benefit you earn (http://www.moaa.org/Main_Menu/Take_Action/Legislative_Update/2012_Legislative_Updates/January_27,_2012.html#Pay).”
TRICARE for Life fee hikes for military retirees over the age of 65. Though the amount was not specified by Panetta, the deficit reduction proposal submitted by the Obama administration to the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, or “Super Committee,” this past fall included a $200 annual fee for 2014. TRICARE for Life is the supplemental, Medigap-style health plan for military retirees.
Increased TRICARE copayments and deductibles for non-elderly, non-disabled military retirees.
The formation of a federal commission to study reforming the military retirement system. Also mentioned in the administration’s deficit reduction proposal, the creation of the commission is not tied to any budgeting changes in pensions or other retirement benefits. In other words, the Pentagon does not plan to save any money through whatever recommendations such a commission might submit – probably because the recommendation would likely include modifications to the military’s “cliff vesting” system, whereby retirees who have served 20 years receive a full pension, and those who serve anything less receive no pension at all.
The proposed commission would be modeled after the authorities of the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Commission: Congress could give its recommendations an up or down vote, but would not be able to modify them.
Panetta pledged that none of the changes proposed by the commission will affect those currently serving, who will be grandfathered in to their existing benefits packages – but ultimately, this decision will be up to Congress.

Like all budget proposals, Panetta’s presentation is the beginning, rather than the culmination, of a protracted debate among the White House, the legislature, and the American public – especially those representing the nation’s armed forces personnel. To help inform this debate, Todd Harrison, senior fellow for Defense Budget Studies at the non-partisan Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA), has initiated an online survey that will allow current service members to weigh in with their preference for how the Pentagon might handle pay and benefits in future budgets.
“A lot is still to be determined,” said Harrison. “We’re trying to put real data into the debate, based on what people in the military think.”





And for the record I would be willing to pay a lot more in taxes to stop this from happening. But the sentiment on this board is that we are taxed to much and we need cuts to the government. Well this is what happens when you cut government.

diverdog
2/25/2012, 11:31 PM
I think the initial changes will come from a smaller military. Redux, decreasing military retirement pay from 50% to 40% has already been tried and it failed.

They have already started nickel and diming the active duty. You used to get $225 a month for imminent danger pay for being in the most dangerous areas. It didn't matter how many days a month you were there, you got the $225. Now it is prorated to $7.50 per day. The ridicule and mocking started immediately.. Go to a war zone, put your life on the line, all for an extra $7.50 a day!!

I am pretty sure if you multiply $7.50/day times 30 days you would get close to $225/day.

sappstuf
2/25/2012, 11:36 PM
I am pretty sure if you multiply $7.50/day times 30 days you would get close to $225/day.

That is what you get, but it is now prorated where it was never before. You just got the $225.

diverdog
2/25/2012, 11:43 PM
That is what you get, but it is now prorated where it was never before. You just got the $225.

There was some abuse and I think that was driving the change. People would go in and out of country at the end of the month and collect $450 in combat pay. Typical military instead of fixing the problem they punish everyone.

sappstuf
2/25/2012, 11:49 PM
There was some abuse and I think that was driving the change. People would go in and out of country at the end of the month and collect $450 in combat pay. Typical military instead of fixing the problem they punish everyone.

Yeah, they are called the Air Force.. ;)

diverdog
2/25/2012, 11:51 PM
Yeah, they are called the Air Force..

Hell yeah. We did it all the time. Land on the 30th an take off on the 1st. ;)

diverdog
2/26/2012, 12:02 AM
Another interesting article:


Are Military Pensions Too 'Generous'?Published August 19, 2011 | Associated Press
advertisement

It sounds like a pretty good deal: Retire at age 38 after 20 years of work and get a monthly pension of half your salary for the rest of your life. All you have to do is join the military.
As the nation tightens its budget belt, the century-old military retirement system has come under attack as unaffordable, unfair to some who serve and overly generous compared with civilian benefits.
That very notion, laid out in a Pentagon-ordered study, sent a wave of fear and anger through the ranks of current and retired military members when it was reported in the news media this month.
If pensions are to be cut, Congress should go first, one person said on the Internet.
"Obviously, we're concerned about it," said retired Gen. Gordon Sullivan, an Army chief of staff in the 1990s who heads the nonprofit educational group Association of the United States (http://www.foxnews.com/topics/u.s.htm#r_src=ramp) Army.
The Defense Department put out a statement this week stressing that it was only a proposal and no changes will be made anytime soon.
"While the military retirement system, as with all other compensation, is a fair subject of review for effectiveness and efficiency, no changes to the current retirement system have been approved," Eileen Lainez, a Pentagon spokeswoman, said. "And no changes will be made without careful consideration for both the current force and the future force."
The upset was sparked by a nonbinding recommendation from the Defense Business Board, the Pentagon's private sector advisory panel. A July 21 draft report that could be finalized this month recommended pensions be scrapped and replaced with a 401(k)-type defined contribution plan.
The board members are from big businesses -- experts, the Pentagon says, in executive management, corporate governance, audit and finance, human resources, economics, technology and health care.
Their report was strictly about dollars and cents, part of a review of Pentagon spending started under Defense Secretary Leon Panetta's predecessor, Robert Gates (http://www.foxnews.com/topics/politics/obama-administration/robert-gates.htm#r_src=ramp).
It didn't mention intangibles: Would such a change make military jobs less desirable? Is it possible to compare military and civilian employment? How much does a grateful nation feel it owes to the less than 1 percent of the population that volunteers to fight America's wars?
The report noted that military retirees start collecting pensions immediately upon leaving the service, rather than at age 65. That's a benefit without peer in the private sector, although there's a parallel in government. Some city police departments start retirement payments immediately, for instance.
The report also said:
--Members of the military who retire before 20 years get nothing. Those who work 20 years get pensions worth 50 percent of their pay. That amount ramps up to 87.5 percent for 35 years of service.
--That means 83 percent of service members don't get a pension, even after serving for 10 or 15 years, while 17 percent do get one.
--Though the job's risks are cited as a reason for keeping the 20-year system, most troops who see combat don't stay that long.
--Low-cost health care premiums for retirees on top of pensions make total retirement benefits "significantly more generous than civilian programs" and more expensive.
--The program's costs are "rising at an alarming rate" and "future liability will grow from $1.3 trillion to $2.7 trillion" by 2034.
The report recommended a new mandatory savings system for all personnel but with the government making contributions comparable to the highest level of civilian plans. There'd be an option for individuals to contribute too; payments wouldn't start until age 60 to 65. Pentagon contributions would be larger for those who had family separations and other unusual duty and double for years spent in a combat zone. The report said there would be no impact on existing retirees or fully disabled vets.
The current system hasn't been changed materially in more than 100 years. It was designed when people didn't live as long, second careers were rare and military pay was not competitive with civilian pay, the report said. It said skills used by soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines are now transferable to the civilian world and that many people find second careers after retiring in their 40s.
That means they collect the pension as well as income from second careers.
Sullivan dismissed the idea that the average military retiree becomes enriched by the system, saying few go to work for big defense contractors or find other high-paying jobs. More commonly, a retiree might get about $1,400 monthly in pension pay and a second career that earns $50,000 or $60,000 annually, he said.
But holding change at bay may not be possible. Officials have said that finding savings in personnel costs like health care and pensions is a possibility. Everything is on the table as the department looks for some $350 billion in savings called for in recent legislation to decrease the national debt.
"It's the kind of thing you have to consider," Panetta said this week, adding any change must be done in a way that doesn't break faith with the men and women in uniform.
Such benefits were once sacrosanct -- part of the bargain the nation makes with those who put their lives on the line to protect it. Many opposed to any change cite the profound sacrifices troops and their families have made over the past decade, with repeated tours of duty, a crisis of ballooning military suicides and hundreds of thousands of cases of mental health problems, just to mention a few effects of war.
"If we want an all-volunteer force, the bottom line is that we're going to have to take care of these people who were willing to do what the bulk of people weren't willing to do," Sullivan said. "Going to war is dangerous -- you can get killed doing it. And the question is, Are the American people willing to recognize the sacrifices of these young people?"
Money for troops has flown freely from Congress with the tacit support of taxpayers over the decade, when pay was raised, as the report notes, to "higher than that of average civilians with the same education."
There was no public pushback against special recruiting bonuses, the GI Bill for college tuition and expenses for health care and other needs of troops and their families.
The question now is whether the depth of support widely expressed for the troops will be tested by the different times. U.S. financial woes are at center stage as the wars in Iraq (http://www.foxnews.com/topics/iraq.htm#r_src=ramp) and Afghanistan (http://www.foxnews.com/topics/afghanistan.htm#r_src=ramp) wind down. Pensions are becoming a thing of the past; more risky market-whipped 401(k) programs are the civilian norm.
Will taxpayers want to continue for troops the special and costly programs that they themselves are losing?
Says Sullivan: "Maybe. Maybe not."
http://www.fncstatic.com/static/all/img/print-page.gif Print (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/08/19/are-military-pensions-too-generous/print#) http://www.fncstatic.com/static/all/img/close-page.gif Close (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/08/19/are-military-pensions-too-generous/print#)


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/08/19/are-military-pensions-too-generous/print#ixzz1nSeIMO5e

LiveLaughLove
2/26/2012, 12:11 AM
I wouldn't mind a tax increase, IF (and it's a big if) there were actual real meaningful spending cuts to the things that would actually trim the deficit.

Won't happen. It's just like the amnesty before the closed borders thing. We do the amnesty, but the borders never get closed.

We do the tax increases but the deficit never gets really cut. It just gets shell gamed with nothing meaningful happening.

The Dem's shout at how evil the Republicans are for cutting grandma's this or that, or cutting the poor kid up the blocks WIC, and they win a few more votes.

In the end, that is all they care about, votes and power. To heck with what the country really needs.

So raise my taxes...AFTER making the deep cuts needed.

pphilfran
2/26/2012, 08:02 AM
I think it is unethical and bordering on criminal to cut benefits to those that are already retired...the organization makes promises that the retiree use to to plan their retirement income....shouldn't happen...

So that leaves the current workers/military to take the hits...you may not like that fact, I may not like that fact, but DD is on the right path...we are broke...we have made promises that we cannot keep over the long term and the sacred cows are going to get some butchering...those sacred cows include SS, Medicare/Medicaid, and the military...

Look at our spending for the current year...

Defense is 18.9% of the budget..with stiff cuts the budget projects it to be 13% by 2017..those stiff cuts amount to 125 billion a year (according to the budget) and part of the 125 billion is going to come from future entitlements...
Human resources, 65.2%...68.6% by 2017
Net Interest 5.9%...grows to a staggering 12.5% by 2017...
Everything else gets 10% of the 2012 budget...by 2017 that declines to 5.7%....

We are screwed without true revenue increases that gets revenue to 20% of GDP and cuts to entitlement programs, which is going to include military entitlements...

Table 3.1 http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

diverdog
2/26/2012, 09:09 AM
I think it is unethical and bordering on criminal to cut benefits to those that are already retired...the organization makes promises that the retiree use to to plan their retirement income....shouldn't happen...

So that leaves the current workers/military to take the hits...you may not like that fact, I may not like that fact, but DD is on the right path...we are broke...we have made promises that we cannot keep over the long term and the sacred cows are going to get some butchering...those sacred cows include SS, Medicare/Medicaid, and the military...

Look at our spending for the current year...

Defense is 18.9% of the budget..with stiff cuts the budget projects it to be 13% by 2017..those stiff cuts amount to 125 billion a year (according to the budget) and part of the 125 billion is going to come from future entitlements...
Human resources, 65.2%...68.6% by 2017
Net Interest 5.9%...grows to a staggering 12.5% by 2017...
Everything else gets 10% of the 2012 budget...by 2017 that declines to 5.7%....

We are screwed without true revenue increases that gets revenue to 20% of GDP and cuts to entitlement programs, which is going to include military entitlements...

Table 3.1 http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

Thanks Phil.

I know at least half of the posters on this thread are ready to tar and feather me.

One thing that I did not realize is that only 17% of all those who have served make it to retirement. The other 83% never collect a dime.

The military is facing the same problem that everyone is else is facing and that is people are living much longer. No one expected to pay benefits for more than 20 years. There are retired line officers in my Rotary Club that have been collecting retirement for 50 plus years. Any way you slice it that is unsustainable. My dad has been collecting a Colonels retirement for 35 years. He served 26 years. I just do not see how we can keep this benefit intact in its current form.

My suspicions are current retirees will be paying more for their health care. It looks like that is already happening and it will continue to increase until it gets close to what is paid in the civilian world. The actual pension will not be touched but I would imagine they will peg future cost increases to actual inflation or something other than the CPI.

I think the easiest and fairest tweak would involve getting rid of the promise that after 20 years of service you can collect your pension as soon as you walk out the door. Why not adopt the model that is used in the reserves and move the retirement age to 62? That would save a ton of money and I do not think it would affect retention. As for health care that is a little harder because I do not want to see someone who has served twenty years not have immediate access to health care. I am not sure how you would solve that issue. Military members who are hurt in the line of duty would still have all their benefits and I would not touch the VA. This may sound a little self serving since I receive a VA check. What I am willing to do is pay higher taxes to preserve some of these benefits.

You and I have pretty much been on the same page when it comes to balancing the budget. Everything is on the table. What Congress should do and needs to do is start cutting the low hanging fruit. Things like ethanol subsidies, farm subsidies, some army corp of engineers projects, selling off unused federal buildings (we spend $25 billion a year just to maintain vacant buildings), reduce overstaffing at the USPS, close duplicate programs (we have a 130 programs for kids at risk, 160 programs for the disabled), get rid of government credit cards, work on medicare fraud, make sure all federal employees and everyone else for that matter pays their taxes, try to get rid of weapon system cost over runs or decrease the cost over runs, and overhaul the purchasing system. Even in a perfect world all these cuts won't address the problems we are facing and we will still need to radically overhaul entitlements....government pensions, welfare, SS and Medicare/Medicaid. Defense will have to be cut radically. Of course we need to grow the economy and increase taxes.

olevetonahill
2/26/2012, 10:27 AM
Got a question er two fer ya

Back during the Cold war we Out spent the Ruskys , Had a Large military presence all over the world , Had over 500,000 troops in Viet Nam ,Plus our Military Was able to get all the Newest weapons with all the Bells an whistles.
Now we are struggling to maintain a Force that is somewhere in the area of 1/4 the size that we previously had .

With all the Cut backs , Base closings . WE should have saved a Ton of Money right> If you remember that was how Clinton got us a surplus.

Where did all that Savings go?

Ima betting its in the Pockets of a lot of Tin Pot Dictators around the world in the form of foreign aide. Plus all the ****in Social programs that have ballooned up.

Instead of Cutting Programs like MRP etc. Why not Cut out the welfare **** Or at least reduce it

In 68 I had a teacher that talked about welfare. His thinkin was , If someone has a kid go ahead and help em out cause every one makes Mistakes , But the way the system is set up They have another kid and they get more welfare.
Why not Give em enough to live on. Then if they have another bastard cut what they get, Instead of rewarding bad habits penalize them.

pphilfran
2/26/2012, 10:47 AM
During the 60's military spending was 45% of the budget

When Clinton took over it was at 21% of the budget and he got it down to 16% (actual $'s spent stayed stable, the steady GDP/revenue growth cut the %....

We spend a total of about 50 billion (up significantly) in International affairs...which includes:

150 International Affairs:
151 International development and humanitarian assistance
152 International security assistance
153 Conduct of foreign affairs
154 Foreign information and exchange activities
155 International financial programs

pphilfran
2/26/2012, 10:54 AM
Since 1990 outlays to Human Resources has grown from 619 billion a year...to 1.1 trillion in 2000...to 2.4 trillion in 2010

diverdog
2/26/2012, 12:21 PM
Got a question er two fer ya

Back during the Cold war we Out spent the Ruskys , Had a Large military presence all over the world , Had over 500,000 troops in Viet Nam ,Plus our Military Was able to get all the Newest weapons with all the Bells an whistles.
Now we are struggling to maintain a Force that is somewhere in the area of 1/4 the size that we previously had .

With all the Cut backs , Base closings . WE should have saved a Ton of Money right> If you remember that was how Clinton got us a surplus.

Where did all that Savings go?

Ima betting its in the Pockets of a lot of Tin Pot Dictators around the world in the form of foreign aide. Plus all the ****in Social programs that have ballooned up.

Instead of Cutting Programs like MRP etc. Why not Cut out the welfare **** Or at least reduce it

In 68 I had a teacher that talked about welfare. His thinkin was , If someone has a kid go ahead and help em out cause every one makes Mistakes , But the way the system is set up They have another kid and they get more welfare.
Why not Give em enough to live on. Then if they have another bastard cut what they get, Instead of rewarding bad habits penalize them.

olevet:

The problem is the full effect of Medicare had not hit the economy nor had the rapid increase in SS benefits during those times. Plus we have cut tax rates significantly since the cold war started. What is killing us now is old folks and entitlements whether it is Medicare/Medicaid, SS or government pensions. This is just since 2000.

http://www.gao.gov/cghome/chcwg07222005/img11.gif

Americans (particularly the retired) need to only look no further than a mirror to see who what is the problem and the problem is us. No one wants their piece of the pie cut. I believe in equal sacrifice and we all need to take a hit.

diverdog
2/26/2012, 12:24 PM
I think it is unethical and bordering on criminal to cut benefits to those that are already retired...the organization makes promises that the retiree use to to plan their retirement income....shouldn't happen...

So that leaves the current workers/military to take the hits...you may not like that fact, I may not like that fact, but DD is on the right path...we are broke...we have made promises that we cannot keep over the long term and the sacred cows are going to get some butchering...those sacred cows include SS, Medicare/Medicaid, and the military...

Look at our spending for the current year...

Defense is 18.9% of the budget..with stiff cuts the budget projects it to be 13% by 2017..those stiff cuts amount to 125 billion a year (according to the budget) and part of the 125 billion is going to come from future entitlements...
Human resources, 65.2%...68.6% by 2017
Net Interest 5.9%...grows to a staggering 12.5% by 2017...
Everything else gets 10% of the 2012 budget...by 2017 that declines to 5.7%....

We are screwed without true revenue increases that gets revenue to 20% of GDP and cuts to entitlement programs, which is going to include military entitlements...

Table 3.1 http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

phil:

Your first sentence has really been bugging me. What I think is unethical and bordering on criminal is that we have not funded these mandates and we have kicked the problem down the road to our kids. Today's taxpayers do not want to pay a dime more in taxes yet they want all these programs and we make a lot of promises that we can keep. I liked the line in Top Gun "son your body is writing checks you can't cash". Replace son with government and there you have it.

olevetonahill
2/26/2012, 02:08 PM
I tried to give you the benefit of the Doubt but you blew it with that response. Pretty sure now Homey was right on with his statement .

So in yer estimation , its the People who have Lived and sacrificed for this country and those who have worked all their lives thats the Problem? Naw I still say its the ones who sit on their asses and milk the system.
You lose.

pphilfran
2/26/2012, 04:08 PM
Here is a little DOD data...

http://forbes.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Military_Retirement_-_Background_and_Recent_Developments.pdf

2009

2.2 million military retiree/disabled/reserve/survivors with an annual cost 49 billion...we currently have about 1.5 million active and 750k reserve

The number or retirees is growing by 2% a year...the cost is growing by 4%..

Midtowner
2/26/2012, 04:42 PM
I tried to give you the benefit of the Doubt but you blew it with that response. Pretty sure now Homey was right on with his statement .

So in yer estimation , its the People who have Lived and sacrificed for this country and those who have worked all their lives thats the Problem? Naw I still say its the ones who sit on their asses and milk the system.
You lose.

I don't think he was saying that at all. I think he was pointing out that if we all have to share in the coming hit that veterans are a very expensive option and will probably end up on the chopping block. No one is discounting that many vets are deserving of their benefits.

We should all share some pain. Cuts AND tax hikes are going to happen now or later. It's just a matter of time. The U.S. absolutely has to get some control over its bottom line.

pphilfran
2/26/2012, 04:46 PM
Afternoon, Mid!

olevetonahill
2/26/2012, 05:19 PM
I don't think he was saying that at all. I think he was pointing out that if we all have to share in the coming hit that veterans are a very expensive option and will probably end up on the chopping block. No one is discounting that many vets are deserving of their benefits.

We should all share some pain. Cuts AND tax hikes are going to happen now or later. It's just a matter of time. The U.S. absolutely has to get some control over its bottom line.

But those were HIS words, Nary a mention of cuttin welfare and that kinda ****
Cut the retired military Pay Cut benefits to Disabled Vets, Cut social Security.

They very backbone of this country

No thanks

Midtowner
2/26/2012, 05:33 PM
But those were HIS words, Nary a mention of cuttin welfare and that kinda ****
Cut the retired military Pay Cut benefits to Disabled Vets, Cut social Security.

They very backbone of this country

No thanks

Yeah, there are huge problems with cutting payments to folks on a fixed income. They've typically structured their financial lives on the reasonable assumption that the U.S. Government will honor its promise to them. Mess with those benefits and we're going to be seeing huge numbers of foreclosures, defaults on credit, etc. I wouldn't worry. Mess with those benefits and politically, there'd be hell to pay. Old folks and vets actually show up to vote.

OU_Sooners75
2/26/2012, 05:51 PM
olevet:

I did my time and my father was career military. So I have earned the right to speak on this subject. We cannot afford the military retirement that we offer and it will change. In case all you have not noticed the military is a huge part of our budget and a huge reason we have so much debt.

In case you haven't noticed, the price of freedom is not cheap!

We should not skimp on any costs to our men and women that have made a career of protecting and defending this nation! And we damn sure should not make them worry after they retire!

IMO, they have earned every bit of what they get for retirement pensions...not to mention, IMO, they should get a little more!

OU_Sooners75
2/26/2012, 06:48 PM
We are broke and we have got to make cuts or restructure our budget. You cannot have a huge sacred cow like military benefits/pension and just leave it alone. It is no different than farm subsidies or welfare payments to drug addicts or buying a million dollar hammer....it all drives to the bottom line.

So lets cut from those that have put their lives on the line defending this nation?

Like I said, if they want to restructure and save spending....start with themselves and work from there!

Here is a nice little piece of information you can use...or ignore....

U.S. Lawmakers and Executive Payroll (as of 1/2009):

President: $400,000/year
Vice President: $227,300/year
Speaker of the House: $223, 500/year
House/Senate Majority/Minority Leaders: $193,400 (total: $1,547,200/year)
House/Senate Members & Delegates: $174,000 (total: $92,200,000/year)

Total per year: $94,598,000

This does not include their aides or staff members.

U.S. Supreme Court Justices:
Chief Justice: $217,400
Associate Justice: $208,100 (total: 1,664,800/year)

Total: $1,882,200 per year
This does not include their staff or aides.

Running total so far: $96,480,200 per year.

Now lets add in their retirement pensions:
But first, when does the President, VP, and members of congress, along with the Supreme Court Justices qualify for full retirement pension?

A member of congress is eligible for their lucrative retirement pension after 5 years of service. So if you are a 1 term Senator (term of 6 years) you get full pension benefits after just one term and of 62 years of age. If a member has completed at least 20 years of service, then they are eligible at the age of 50.

All members do pay Social Security of 6.2% like all federal employees. They also can elect to sign up for the retirement pension and then 1.7% of their check is put into their pension. Then that is matched, but us, the taxpayers. Because like everyone that has a retirement plan, the amount saved toward retiring is also matched by their employer. And the American people is their employer!

Not only is that a good deal for them, but they do not have to pay federal or state income taxes! They do not get medicare or medicaid deducted from their checks either. The only thing besides their pension coming out of their check, is the Social Security.

Now then, since you have a better idea....

Average retirement pension paid to a retired US Congress person: This would depend on length of service, along with their top three years of pay.

So right now, if you were a member for 20 years, are 50 or older, your retirement pension would be: $61,313.00/year non-taxable! This does not include the fact that when they hit normal retirement age set by the federal government (right now age 65) they also get to draw social security. On average they pay in $215,760.00 to social security in a 20 year employment. And this is only saying if the person retires after 20 years of service.

And it gets better...they get cost of living adjustments (increases to retirement pay) when the cost of living goes up.

Man you cannot beat that.

If you would like, I can get the numbers for the President, the VP, and the US Supreme Court Justices.




Sources:
US Leader Salaries (http://www.house.gov/daily/salaries.htm)

US Congress Retirement Benefits (http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RL30631.pdf)


Diver, The first thing you should know, if you don't, is that the Military retirement pension is not set up like civilan retirement. There is no "vesting" into your retirement. There are no special retirement accounts, no matching funds provisions, nor is there any interest rates that give you more money at retirement.

Another big difference between military and civilan retirement, a retired military person can be recalled back to service!

They also must spend 20 years (no less) in the military to receive full pension!
This is based solely on the 3 highest years of rate of pay and the number of years you served....but like I said, cannot be less than 20 years. This is roughly 50% of your active duty pay.

If you did not serve 20 years, but more than 10 years, you get a pension of 40% of your pay.

Sure the numbers are larger in the Military...but compared to 647 people (SCOTUS, POTUS, VP, and Congress). The military is going to have a much larger retirement budget....but when comparing averages, the retirement per person from congress is roughly $40,000 more than a person of from the Military.

pphilfran
2/26/2012, 06:49 PM
But those were HIS words, Nary a mention of cuttin welfare and that kinda ****
Cut the retired military Pay Cut benefits to Disabled Vets, Cut social Security.

They very backbone of this country

No thanks

DD and myself both realize that there needs to be cuts across the board...

The best way to cut welfare and that kind of chit is to grow the economy and produce jobs that take them off the tit sucking side of the equation and move them to the productive side...

Every 1% drop in unemployment will save about 50 billion in yearly spending....and then add something to the revenue side...

But we are looking for at least a trillion a year in savings...dat ain't gonna be easy....

soonercruiser
2/26/2012, 06:52 PM
Thanks Phil.

I know at least half of the posters on this thread are ready to tar and feather me.


No tar and feathers here.
Diver, your perspective is in between the "lifers" like me, and those who never served and can't realte to military sacrifice.

But, still in my lifetime the problem has been that the Dems are always going to cut the military.....but, when the dust settles, noone else shares the sacrifice!

OU_Sooners75
2/26/2012, 07:01 PM
DD and myself both realize that there needs to be cuts across the board...

The best way to cut welfare and that kind of chit is to grow the economy and produce jobs that take them off the tit sucking side of the equation and move them to the productive side...

Every 1% drop in unemployment will save about 50 billion in yearly spending....and then add something to the revenue side...

But we are looking for at least a trillion a year in savings...dat ain't gonna be easy....

You talk about the drop of unemployment...but there are not jobs being created fast enough right now, that tells us that the unemployment numbers are actually falling.

The number is falling right now thanks in part because people have been denied, so they quite filing. Or they have ran their unemployment benefits out completely, so they quite filing.

Yes, the report of unemployment numbers falling is good news, but now when that number does not match the number of new jobs created.

diverdog
2/26/2012, 07:07 PM
Here is a little DOD data...

http://forbes.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Military_Retirement_-_Background_and_Recent_Developments.pdf

2009

2.2 million military retiree/disabled/reserve/survivors with an annual cost 49 billion...we currently have about 1.5 million active and 750k reserve

The number or retirees is growing by 2% a year...the cost is growing by 4%..

Phil that does not include health care does it?

pphilfran
2/26/2012, 07:08 PM
You talk about the drop of unemployment...but there are not jobs being created fast enough right now, that tells us that the unemployment numbers are actually falling.

The number is falling right now thanks in part because people have been denied, so they quite filing. Or they have ran their unemployment benefits out completely, so they quite filing.

Yes, the report of unemployment numbers falling is good news, but now when that number does not match the number of new jobs created.

I give... :)

Yes, we need a drop in TRUE unemployment/underemployment...

Hold spending growth to 1 or 2% below inflation levels and milk revenue at 20% of GDP and we can get the ship in order without draconian cuts....

The longer we wait the tougher the choices and the more pain we will endure...

pphilfran
2/26/2012, 07:10 PM
Phil that does not include health care does it?

Based on this statement it doesn't look like it...

The military retirement system is a non-contributory, defined benefit system that has historically
been viewed as a significant incentive in retaining a career military force. The system currently
includes monthly compensation and benefits after an active or reserve military career, disability
retirement for those physically unfit to continue to serve, and survivor benefits for the eligible
survivors of deceased retirees. The monthly retirement annuity is adjusted annually by a Cost-of-
Living Allowance (COLA) to ensure that the annuity is protected from the adverse consequences
of inflation. Military retirees are also entitled to non-monetary benefits which include exchange
and commissary privileges, medical care through TRICARE, and access to Morale, Welfare and
Recreation facilities and programs.

pphilfran
2/26/2012, 07:11 PM
Oh, and the hold spending to below the inflation level is DD's idea from way back...

diverdog
2/26/2012, 07:18 PM
So lets cut from those that have put their lives on the line defending this nation?

Like I said, if they want to restructure and save spending....start with themselves and work from there!

Here is a nice little piece of information you can use...or ignore....

U.S. Lawmakers and Executive Payroll (as of 1/2009):

President: $400,000/year
Vice President: $227,300/year
Speaker of the House: $223, 500/year
House/Senate Majority/Minority Leaders: $193,400 (total: $1,547,200/year)
House/Senate Members & Delegates: $174,000 (total: $92,200,000/year)

Total per year: $94,598,000

This does not include their aides or staff members.

U.S. Supreme Court Justices:
Chief Justice: $217,400
Associate Justice: $208,100 (total: 1,664,800/year)

Total: $1,882,200 per year
This does not include their staff or aides.

Running total so far: $96,480,200 per year.

Now lets add in their retirement pensions:
But first, when does the President, VP, and members of congress, along with the Supreme Court Justices qualify for full retirement pension?

A member of congress is eligible for their lucrative retirement pension after 5 years of service. So if you are a 1 term Senator (term of 6 years) you get full pension benefits after just one term and of 62 years of age. If a member has completed at least 20 years of service, then they are eligible at the age of 50.

All members do pay Social Security of 6.2% like all federal employees. They also can elect to sign up for the retirement pension and then 1.7% of their check is put into their pension. Then that is matched, but us, the taxpayers. Because like everyone that has a retirement plan, the amount saved toward retiring is also matched by their employer. And the American people is their employer!

Not only is that a good deal for them, but they do not have to pay federal or state income taxes! They do not get medicare or medicaid deducted from their checks either. The only thing besides their pension coming out of their check, is the Social Security.

Now then, since you have a better idea....

Average retirement pension paid to a retired US Congress person: This would depend on length of service, along with their top three years of pay.

So right now, if you were a member for 20 years, are 50 or older, your retirement pension would be: $61,313.00/year non-taxable! This does not include the fact that when they hit normal retirement age set by the federal government (right now age 65) they also get to draw social security. On average they pay in $215,760.00 to social security in a 20 year employment. And this is only saying if the person retires after 20 years of service.

And it gets better...they get cost of living adjustments (increases to retirement pay) when the cost of living goes up.

Man you cannot beat that.

If you would like, I can get the numbers for the President, the VP, and the US Supreme Court Justices.




Sources:
US Leader Salaries (http://www.house.gov/daily/salaries.htm)

US Congress Retirement Benefits (http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RL30631.pdf)


Diver, The first thing you should know, if you don't, is that the Military retirement pension is not set up like civilan retirement. There is no "vesting" into your retirement. There are no special retirement accounts, no matching funds provisions, nor is there any interest rates that give you more money at retirement.

Another big difference between military and civilan retirement, a retired military person can be recalled back to service!

They also must spend 20 years (no less) in the military to receive full pension!
This is based solely on the 3 highest years of rate of pay and the number of years you served....but like I said, cannot be less than 20 years. This is roughly 50% of your active duty pay.

If you did not serve 20 years, but more than 10 years, you get a pension of 40% of your pay.

Sure the numbers are larger in the Military...but compared to 647 people (SCOTUS, POTUS, VP, and Congress). The military is going to have a much larger retirement budget....but when comparing averages, the retirement per person from congress is roughly $40,000 more than a person of from the Military.

75 those numbers are drops in the bucket. But I agree everything should be on the table.

Here is the total non-descretionary spending for 2012 in the US budget. Line one is request, line two is enacted.






Department of Defense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Defense) including Overseas Contingency Operations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Terrorism)
$701.6 billion
$683.0 billion
$5.8 billion
$5.3 billion


Department of Health and Human Services (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Health_and_Human_Servi ces) including Medicare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_(United_States)) and Medicaid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicaid)
$88.6 billion
$84.2 billion
$804.2 billion
$787.8 billion


Department of Education (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Education)
$78.9 billion
$79.1 billion
$–8.0 billion
$19.4 billion


Department of Veterans Affairs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Veterans_Affairs)
$58.8 billion
$58.8 billion
$65.6 billion
$70.4 billion


Department of Housing and Urban Development (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Housing_and_Urban_Deve lopment)
$49.8 billion
$47.9 billion
$–0.4 billion
$8.9 billion


Department of State (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_State) and Other International Programs
$62.7 billion
$53.4 billion
$–0.05 billion
$2.6 billion


Department of Homeland Security (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Homeland_Security)
$46.3 billion
$58.8 billion
$0.6 billion
$1.6 billion


Department of Energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Energy)
$42.5 billion
$42.3 billion
$0.6 billion
$–1.7 billion


Department of Justice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Justice)
$24.1 billion
$28.8 billion
$9.1 billion
$5.8 billion


Department of Agriculture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Agriculture)
$27.6 billion
$28.8 billion
$116.4 billion
$121.9 billion


National Aeronautics and Space Administration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Aeronautics_and_Space_Administration)
$18.2 billion
$17.7 billion
$–0.01 billion
$–0.02 billion


Department of Transportation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Transportation)
$27.0 billion
$25.6 billion
$62.6 billion
$58.6 billion


Department of the Treasury (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_the_Treasury)
$14.6 billion
$13.5 billion
$114.5 billion
$148.7 billion


Department of the Interior (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_the_Interior)
$13.1 billion
$12.4 billion
$0.8 billion
$–1.1 billion


Department of Labor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Labor)
$13.7 billion
$14.0 billion
$95.3 billion
$113.1 billion


Social Security Administration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_Administration)
$12.5 billion
$11.7 billion
$804.6 billion
$817.5 billion


Department of Commerce (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Commerce)
$11.3 billion
$10.9 billion
$1.9 billion
$0.5 billion


Army Corps of Engineers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_Corps_of_Engineers) Civil Works
$7.9 billion
$9.3 billion
$0.1 billion
$–0.06 billion


Environmental Protection Agency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_Protection_Agency)
$10.2 billion
$9.5 billion
$–0.2 billion
$–0.1 billion


National Science Foundation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Science_Foundation)
$7.6 billion
$8.0 billion
$0.3 billion
$0.2 billion


Small Business Administration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_Business_Administration)
$1.2 billion
$1.4 billion
$–0.007 billion
$1.8 billion


Corporation for National and Community Service (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation_for_National_and_Community_Service)
$1.1 billion
$0.8 billion
$0.03 billion
$0.007 billion


Net interest
N/A
N/A
$0.2 billion
$0.2 billion


Disaster costs
$0.006 billion
$<0.005 billion
N/A
N/A


Other spending
$20.7 billion
$19.3 billion
$57.5 billion
$88.0 billion


Total
$1.361 trillion
$1.338 trillion
$2.140 trillion
$2.252 trillion




[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2012_United_States_federal_budget&action=edit&section=10)]We are running a deficit of $1.32 trillion dollars. Look at the bottom line. It is only $40 billion more than our deficit. In other words we can cut the entire non-descretionary budget and barely balance our US budget.

You guys are ripping me for pointing out some really unpleasant realities. If the interest on the debt starts to rise and we cannot grow this economy then you are going to see some real pain because the interest on the debt coupled with all the retiring baby boomers is going to eat us alive. We can eliminate welfare and defense and not balance the budget. That is how bad things are right now. On top of that you have most of the Republican party who have signed this no new taxes pledge that is going to kill us. If people want to cut government then defense and retirees are the ones who have the big ole bullseye on their backs.

OU_Sooners75
2/26/2012, 07:22 PM
I give... :)

Yes, we need a drop in TRUE unemployment/underemployment...

Hold spending growth to 1 or 2% below inflation levels and milk revenue at 20% of GDP and we can get the ship in order without draconian cuts....

The longer we wait the tougher the choices and the more pain we will endure...

I agree. Something needs done and quick.

But I do not agree with cutting Military Retirement or disability.

How much foreign aid do we give out each year?
How much do we give that Faux Paux of an organization, the UN? NATO?
How much to fund all the entitlement programs?
Stop bailing out businesses!

I mean there needs to be cuts, I agree, but like I said, not to Military disability or retirement.

pphilfran
2/26/2012, 07:25 PM
During the 60's military spending was 45% of the budget

When Clinton took over it was at 21% of the budget and he got it down to 16% (actual $'s spent stayed stable, the steady GDP/revenue growth cut the %....

We spend a total of about 50 billion (up significantly) in International affairs...which includes:

150 International Affairs:
151 International development and humanitarian assistance
152 International security assistance
153 Conduct of foreign affairs
154 Foreign information and exchange activities
155 International financial programs

50 billion (but growing fast) for the listed items...

OU_Sooners75
2/26/2012, 07:25 PM
Diver, you are confusing the entire Military budget with retirement and disability.

Sure we can cut some military spending...but not at the expense of those that rely on disability or the retirement as a pay check!

Cut out some special programs or stop spending on new aircraft. Close a base maybe? How about bring home all out men and women from overseas bases we occupy? That has got to be a big part there.

There are ways to suture the spending...but it has to take a dedication from the law makers and president to do so....and it should not come as a form of cutting disability or retirement.

diverdog
2/26/2012, 07:27 PM
But those were HIS words, Nary a mention of cuttin welfare and that kinda ****
Cut the retired military Pay Cut benefits to Disabled Vets, Cut social Security.

They very backbone of this country

No thanks

Olevet:

You can cut welfare to zero and it does not solve the problem. Medicare/Medicaid/SS/Pensions will be 60% of the budget by 2022! Explain to me how old people are not going to be the problem? It will get worse from that point on.

BTW I said everything should be on the table.

pphilfran
2/26/2012, 07:32 PM
This is a current proposal...there is a more detailed listing of proposed increases out there...

Lawmakers seeking guidance from military associations on whether to support the new Defense Department plan to raise TRICARE Prime enrollment fees modestly for working-age retirees next year, and then to adjust them annually for inflation, will get mixed signals this time around.

Joyce Wessel Raezer, national director of the National Military Family Association, is not alone in calling the fee hikes of $60 a year for under-age-65 retiree families and $30 for individual coverage "amazingly reasonable."

She noted that the higher fees would affect only the managed care program and the "most vulnerable" users those medically retired and surviving spouses still would see no increase. No hikes are sought for TRICARE Standard, the traditional fee-for-service benefit, or for TRICARE for Life, the prized supplement to Medicare available for elderly retirees.

TRICARE fees haven't been raised since 1995. Assuming increases are inevitable at some point, Raezer said, accepting the "surprisingly small" increases now, when the military is so deeply appreciated, is better than waiting until lawmakers come "looking for a peace dividend."

But other associations remain committed to blocking any TRICARE fee increase. Retired Army Major Gen. William M. Matz Jr., president of the National Association for Uniformed Services, argues that the proposed hikes will the first of many. He said Robert Hale, under secretary of defense, hinted as much last week when asked why the proposed fees are so small.
Congress, Hale said, has turned down "flat" more ambitious increases. "We are hopeful that, by starting slowly and (with) modest proposals, we will get their agreement," Hale explained.

"I will admit, sir, it is a modest increase," Matz said. "But you must look through it, around it, above and into it. This is a nose under the tent."

Major veterans service organizations, including American Legion and Veterans of Foreign Wars, also oppose any fee increase. National Commander Jimmie Foster said the Legion is "proud of the fact that TRICARE fees have never been raised in the 15-year history of the program."

But some of the most popular organizations representing military retirees, all of which lobbied hard against past TRICARE fee hikes, say they are "encouraged" by the new proposal and by what they perceive as a changed tone from senior Defense officials.
"Our belief is that if you keep putting your head in the sand and say 'No fee increases ever,' you take yourself out of the equation. People stop listening to you and eventually, given the deficit tide the country is facing, the budget change washes over you," said Steve Strobridge, director of government relations for Military Officers Association of America.

MOAA, he said, "has never taken the position that there should never be a single dollar increase in health care fees. What we have always said is there needs to be a reasonable process" for setting and adjusting fees.

Absent such a process, Strobridge said, DoD went "for more than a decade not proposing any fee increases, which makes people believe there is never going to be any. And then, all of a sudden, a new defense secretary comes in and proposes tripling or quadrupling them. To us that was unacceptable."

Defense officials, he said, finally seem to embrace arguments that their earlier plans for TRICARE fees were unreasonable and failed to take into account that retirees have paid much of their cost for a promised lifetime health care benefit "up front" through unique hardships of military careers.

Under the new plan, working-age retirees would see TRICARE Prime enrollment fees climb by 13 percent from $460 to $520 for families and from $230 to $260 for individual coverage. After 15 years, and with surviving spouses and medically retired members unaffected, Strobridge said, "it is hard to make the argument that that's unaffordable."

Raezer with NMFA said if Prime enrollment fees had been adjusted for inflation since 1995, using cost-of-living adjustments given to military retirees, the family fee today would be $652 and individual enrollees would pay $327 a year or 25 percent more than DoD now proposes.

One feature of the plan that every military association seems ready to challenge is indexing Prime fees for retirees to "medical inflation."
Joe Barnes, national executive director of the Fleet Reserve Association, noted that Defense officials, in briefing their plans, identified up to eight different indices that purport to track medical inflation. But the department hasn't decided yet which one to use to adjust enrollment fees.

That doesn't build confidence that any of them are right for tracking medical costs for this population of under-65 retirees, Barnes said.

MOAA argues that annual adjustments to Prime fees for working age retirees should be set no higher than COLAs used to adjust retired pay.

"Is that a better deal than civilians get (on health insurance)? Yes it is," Strobridge said. "And the reason it's better is because no civilian had to contribute those 20 or 30 years of service and sacrifice."

On Capitol Hill, lawmakers have begun to choose sides. Matz said NAUS takes comfort in a vow from Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., military personnel subcommittee chairman, to oppose any TRICARE fee hike.

But in the House, tea party freshmen are looking to make cuts.

"They are primed to do everything about everything," said one seasoned committee staffer. "I don't know why this wouldn't be on the list."

The Fleet Reserve Association, like many associations, still is studying the proposed changes to TRICARE, including adjustments to pharmacy co-payments. Barnes suggested it might support the Prime fee increase and indexing to retiree COLAs. But in return it could urge Congress to remove from the defense secretary his independent authority to raise TRICARE fees when needed.
Congress granted that authority when it established TRICARE in 1995. As a result, lawmakers on several occasions, all since 2006, have had to step in and block planned fee increases that most associations had opposed.

To comment, send e-mail to [email protected] or write to Military Update, P.O. Box 231111, Centreville, VA 20120-1111.

diverdog
2/26/2012, 07:35 PM
Diver, you are confusing the entire Military budget with retirement and disability.

Sure we can cut some military spending...but not at the expense of those that rely on disability or the retirement as a pay check!

Cut out some special programs or stop spending on new aircraft. Close a base maybe? How about bring home all out men and women from overseas bases we occupy? That has got to be a big part there.

There are ways to suture the spending...but it has to take a dedication from the law makers and president to do so....and it should not come as a form of cutting disability or retirement.

75:

If we do not cut military benefits and retirement benefits we hurt our military readiness. Did you read what Gates and Mullen's had to say?

Here is the breakout of spending by DOD:


Components
Funding
Change, 2009 to 2010


Operations and maintenance
$283.3 billion
+4.2%


Military Personnel
$154.2 billion
+5.0%


Procurement
$140.1 billion
−1.8%


Research, Development, Testing & Evaluation
$79.1 billion
+1.3%


Military Construction
$23.9 billion
+19.0%


Family Housing
$3.1 billion
−20.2%


Total Spending
683.7 billion
+3.0%



Congress is looking at cutting $125 billion from the budget. The only places that have real meat for cuts is Operations and Maintenance, Procurement and Personnel. You cut the first two and you hurt readiness.

Again, I want to state that I favor much higher taxes along with cuts in other areas to save SS, Medicare and our military.

diverdog
2/26/2012, 07:44 PM
I agree. Something needs done and quick.

But I do not agree with cutting Military Retirement or disability.

How much foreign aid do we give out each year?
How much do we give that Faux Paux of an organization, the UN? NATO?
How much to fund all the entitlement programs?
Stop bailing out businesses!

I mean there needs to be cuts, I agree, but like I said, not to Military disability or retirement.

I don't think I said to cut disability although it could be construed with my statement that everything needs to be on the table statement. Our injured vets should be given the best care available. The problem is no one wants to pay more in taxes to see that come true.

pphilfran
2/26/2012, 08:04 PM
To get back in good shape we need to spend around 18% of GDP and have revenue at 20% of GDP for an extended period of time...

From current levels we need to cut 20% of our total spending and increase revenue 33%...

Historically we spend 20% and have revenue at 18% so the numbers I suggest we shoot for are not that radical...

olevetonahill
2/26/2012, 09:13 PM
DD and myself both realize that there needs to be cuts across the board...

The best way to cut welfare and that kind of chit is to grow the economy and produce jobs that take them off the tit sucking side of the equation and move them to the productive side...

Every 1% drop in unemployment will save about 50 billion in yearly spending....and then add something to the revenue side...

But we are looking for at least a trillion a year in savings...dat ain't gonna be easy....
I disagree with this very strongly. Ive known people who quit their jobs because "I can make more on Welfare"Then their Kids grow up in a hurry to have kids so THEY can get the welfare .

Cut out all but the bare bones in welfare and you will see the Illegal Immigrant Prob shrink in a hurry , Those welfare Peeps want to eat and they WILL take the low paying menial jobs to do so .

A broad has 3 kids, Draws a welfare check, Then she gets Food Stamps, Then she gets Rent subsidies , Then she gets Help with her utilities. Not to mention a Free Cell phone now .
All while supporting one loser Boyfriend after another and having even MOREW kids

diverdog
2/26/2012, 09:45 PM
I disagree with this very strongly. Ive known people who quit their jobs because "I can make more on Welfare"Then their Kids grow up in a hurry to have kids so THEY can get the welfare .

Cut out all but the bare bones in welfare and you will see the Illegal Immigrant Prob shrink in a hurry , Those welfare Peeps want to eat and they WILL take the low paying menial jobs to do so .

A broad has 3 kids, Draws a welfare check, Then she gets Food Stamps, Then she gets Rent subsidies , Then she gets Help with her utilities. Not to mention a Free Cell phone now .
All while supporting one loser Boyfriend after another and having even MOREW kids

We have taken some good steps towards welfare reform (1996 bipartisan bill) but more needs to be done. Illegitimate kids are a big problem. Most welfare recipients are between 20-39 years old, single women with two kids. Our focus should be getting young women to not engage in unprotected sex. Chances are if they have a baby they will be in poverty.

sappstuf
2/26/2012, 10:05 PM
To get back in good shape we need to spend around 18% of GDP and have revenue at 20% of GDP for an extended period of time...

From current levels we need to cut 20% of our total spending and increase revenue 33%...

Historically we spend 20% and have revenue at 18% so the numbers I suggest we shoot for are not that radical...

What is Obama spending? I think it is around 23%. Pretty much the only department to take a hit is the DOD.

I saw the other day where NASA's budget has increased under Obama. However, they no longer fly the shuttle... The Constellation Moon Program and space shuttle replacement is cancelled. We pulled out of a joint program with the EU or at least it is defunded per Obama's latest budget.

Where is the money going?

diverdog
2/26/2012, 10:15 PM
What is Obama spending? I think it is around 23%. Pretty much the only department to take a hit is the DOD.

I saw the other day where NASA's budget has increased under Obama. However, they no longer fly the shuttle... The Constellation Moon Program and space shuttle replacement is cancelled. We pulled out of a joint program with the EU or at least it is defunded per Obama's latest budget.

Where is the money going?

You haven't heard? There is a big cloaked alien ship on the other side of mercury.

6X96xI1gLdQ

The good news Sapp. Space combat pay is $225 a day! No pro rata.

pphilfran
2/27/2012, 11:59 AM
I disagree with this very strongly. Ive known people who quit their jobs because "I can make more on Welfare"Then their Kids grow up in a hurry to have kids so THEY can get the welfare .

Cut out all but the bare bones in welfare and you will see the Illegal Immigrant Prob shrink in a hurry , Those welfare Peeps want to eat and they WILL take the low paying menial jobs to do so .

A broad has 3 kids, Draws a welfare check, Then she gets Food Stamps, Then she gets Rent subsidies , Then she gets Help with her utilities. Not to mention a Free Cell phone now .
All while supporting one loser Boyfriend after another and having even MOREW kids

If they haven't been full steam ahead regarding welfare fraud someone needs their azz canned...

I would disallow the dependent deduction when filing taxes...

I would limit the amount of children that welfare would support..you hit three (two/four) and the rest are on the breeders credit card....grandfather in the ones exceeding the limit and move forward...

pphilfran
2/28/2012, 07:56 AM
More detailed info on the proposed TRICARE cuts...

http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,241987,00.html?comp=1198882887570&rank=2

The biggest knife for slicing TRICARE costs off future defense budgets is not new and higher enrollment fees or deductibles proposed for retirees and their families who use one of the military's health insurance options of TRICARE Prime, Standard, Extra or, for the elderly, TRICARE for Life.

Those phased increases, as detailed here last week, would save a total of $23 billion over 10 years, mostly by sticking retirees with higher costs.

But even more dollars -- $28 billion over 10 years -- would be saved in TRICARE pharmacy costs alone under a separate proposed plan to revise co-payments for prescriptions filled at retail outlets and through mail order.

These changes might be more palatable to beneficiaries because a lot of the drug dollars saved would come out of the pockets of drug manufacturers and retailers. Beneficiaries still would be hit but the hardest impact would be felt by those unable or unwilling to shift their prescriptions from retail outlets to the more efficient choice of mail order, or to base pharmacies where drugs will continue to be dispensed free of charge.

"Driving [them] to the lowest cost-point venues – military pharmacies and home delivery – and increasing their use of generic drugs are the two overarching goals of revising the co-payment structure, explained Rear Adm. Thomas J. McGinnis, chief of pharmaceutical operations for TRICARE....

McGinnis said Congress didn't interfere most likely because the Oct. 1 co-pay changes included removing a $3 charge on generic drugs at mail order. Military associations had lobbied for that for several years, McGinnis said, so their protests were muted on raising co-pays at retail from $3 to $5 for generic drugs, and from $9 to $12 for brand name drugs.

Unless Congress intervenes this year, however, co-pay increases for brand name drugs at retail will not be modest this October. Retirees, their families and active duty family members would begin paying $26 per drug for brand names at their local pharmacies, up from $12. The co-pay thereafter would climb by $2 more each year until reaching $34 in October 2016. After that, co-pays would be adjusted yearly based on overall medical inflation.

Co-pays for brand name drugs at mail order also would jump to $26 from $9, for a 90-day supply, and then climb slowly to $34 by October 2016.

The intent, said McGinnis, is "to gradually increase these co-pays to a more realistic level after a decade of no change before last year's increases. Through the war years, drug expenditures rose dramatically at retail outlets, the most costly venue for TRICARE. In 2002, prescriptions filled at retail cost $1.28 billion, less than half of annual drug expenditures of $3 billion. By 2009, retail drug costs for TRICARE had almost quadrupled, to $4.76 billion, equally to two thirds of total annual pharmacy cost of $7.24 billion.

The cost to TRICARE for brand name medications filled at retail is 27 percent higher, on average, than the same prescriptions filled on base or through mail order. The average cost to TRICARE for a year's worth of a brand name medication at retail is $1156 versus $840 through mail order. If generic drugs are substituted, the average falls to $200 a year, whether the drug is dispensed at retail, through mail order or base pharmacies....

More at link...

soonercruiser
3/1/2012, 10:55 PM
Glad you guys have all the military cuts well in hand.
Any ideas on sovial program cuts?

OU_Sooners75
3/2/2012, 05:35 PM
Glad you guys have all the military cuts well in hand.
Any ideas on sovial program cuts?

No, because that will keep a lot of people voting for him!

diverdog
3/2/2012, 09:55 PM
More detailed info on the proposed TRICARE cuts...

http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,241987,00.html?comp=1198882887570&rank=2

The biggest knife for slicing TRICARE costs off future defense budgets is not new and higher enrollment fees or deductibles proposed for retirees and their families who use one of the military's health insurance options of TRICARE Prime, Standard, Extra or, for the elderly, TRICARE for Life.

Those phased increases, as detailed here last week, would save a total of $23 billion over 10 years, mostly by sticking retirees with higher costs.

But even more dollars -- $28 billion over 10 years -- would be saved in TRICARE pharmacy costs alone under a separate proposed plan to revise co-payments for prescriptions filled at retail outlets and through mail order.

These changes might be more palatable to beneficiaries because a lot of the drug dollars saved would come out of the pockets of drug manufacturers and retailers. Beneficiaries still would be hit but the hardest impact would be felt by those unable or unwilling to shift their prescriptions from retail outlets to the more efficient choice of mail order, or to base pharmacies where drugs will continue to be dispensed free of charge.

"Driving [them] to the lowest cost-point venues – military pharmacies and home delivery – and increasing their use of generic drugs are the two overarching goals of revising the co-payment structure, explained Rear Adm. Thomas J. McGinnis, chief of pharmaceutical operations for TRICARE....

McGinnis said Congress didn't interfere most likely because the Oct. 1 co-pay changes included removing a $3 charge on generic drugs at mail order. Military associations had lobbied for that for several years, McGinnis said, so their protests were muted on raising co-pays at retail from $3 to $5 for generic drugs, and from $9 to $12 for brand name drugs.

Unless Congress intervenes this year, however, co-pay increases for brand name drugs at retail will not be modest this October. Retirees, their families and active duty family members would begin paying $26 per drug for brand names at their local pharmacies, up from $12. The co-pay thereafter would climb by $2 more each year until reaching $34 in October 2016. After that, co-pays would be adjusted yearly based on overall medical inflation.

Co-pays for brand name drugs at mail order also would jump to $26 from $9, for a 90-day supply, and then climb slowly to $34 by October 2016.

The intent, said McGinnis, is "to gradually increase these co-pays to a more realistic level after a decade of no change before last year's increases. Through the war years, drug expenditures rose dramatically at retail outlets, the most costly venue for TRICARE. In 2002, prescriptions filled at retail cost $1.28 billion, less than half of annual drug expenditures of $3 billion. By 2009, retail drug costs for TRICARE had almost quadrupled, to $4.76 billion, equally to two thirds of total annual pharmacy cost of $7.24 billion.

The cost to TRICARE for brand name medications filled at retail is 27 percent higher, on average, than the same prescriptions filled on base or through mail order. The average cost to TRICARE for a year's worth of a brand name medication at retail is $1156 versus $840 through mail order. If generic drugs are substituted, the average falls to $200 a year, whether the drug is dispensed at retail, through mail order or base pharmacies....

More at link...

This is still below civilian deductibles. It should go to $30 for generic and $40 for name brands.