Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Newt on Morning joe........he would have won

+5
othershoe1030
Sal
Floridatexan
knothead
2seaoat
9 posters

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 2]

2seaoat



Look Newt is the master of Machevellian principles, and yes he can say stupid things.......but this man could have done a very competent job "fixing" Washington. Newt suggests that this is about a bad campaign, not a faltering party......I disagree.....until revenues are put back on the table, the party is doomed. However, he was heads and shoulder above any other candidate and he would have won.

Guest


Guest

why isn't 2+ TRILLION dollars of revenue enough? and that doesn't even count it all... like printing money out of thin air.

there's a problem alright... you simply have no idea what it is.

2seaoat



Any 8th grader taking a simple consumer course could figure out what the problem is.........Our tax cuts went too far when we were still spending on two wars.....it is quite simple. You allow the Bush tax cuts to expire. You create tax credits for job creation. You shrink government at the same ratio as private sector job creation. You raise the retirement age to 68. You implement a 3% national sales tax and expand medicare for all. It really is that simple......but some people did not get through 8th grade, and they think that balancing a personal budget involves selling the house, car, and your clothes as you move into a tent, or work a few more hours, or take a second job. This insistence to gut America is pathological. Sorry, it is obvious over the last 40 years that cutting taxes has not been good for America. Fact......ignore it if you wish....but it does not change the reality.

Guest


Guest

Dude, can you imagine the fun Axelrod and Ayers would have had with Newt as a campaign opponent? Newt couldn't even hold up to the scrutiny of his own party much less these dirt diggers and the dirt on Newt is still fresh political fodder. Then we have the womanizing and philandering. Personally, I don't want a "manwhore" in office and neither do a lot of other people. Newt should have kept his nose clean and his wanker in his pants.

2seaoat



So should have Bill Clinton, but what the hell does little Bill or little Newt have to do with competently running government. Jimmy Carter didn't even have a little jimmy, and he talked about lusting in his heart when little jimmy was mia.....you go ahead and worry about people's private lives.....I want a pilot who can fly the plane, and you are worried about having somebody fly the plane because they do not know what the mile high club is......sorry competency does matter, and Newt is a proven competent leader.

Guest


Guest

Leaders lead by example. Newt's example would pretty much have American morals in the Sodom and Gohmorrah gutter. If morals didn't matter, why couldn't Newt even get elected as dog catcher in Cobb County Georgia after his fall from power? If we can't trust you to do right in the light of day, you dang sure ain't getting the keys to the car in the dark. I guess what the Army general did in Afghanistan recently is OK with you too? If you say otherwise, it proves you're a lying hypocrite.

knothead

knothead

2seaoat wrote:Look Newt is the master of Machevellian principles, and yes he can say stupid things.......but this man could have done a very competent job "fixing" Washington. Newt suggests that this is about a bad campaign, not a faltering party......I disagree.....until revenues are put back on the table, the party is doomed. However, he was heads and shoulder above any other candidate and he would have won.

I understand what you are saying but your conclusion that Newt would have won is just not believable. As PD says, he would have provided more than enough red meat for the media and yes he would have fed red meat to his base but America would not cast their fate with Newt. I do agree with much of your comments about how we got here regarding taxes and so-called entitlement reform. A broader look at what happened in the primary reveals just what a poor field the GOP had to pick from so here they are with their guy and he seems to be coming up short . . . it's too early to tell but we all know it's not good for Mitt . . . . the debate will possible bolster his image.

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

2seaoat wrote:Any 8th grader taking a simple consumer course could figure out what the problem is.........Our tax cuts went too far when we were still spending on two wars.....it is quite simple. You allow the Bush tax cuts to expire. You create tax credits for job creation. You shrink government at the same ratio as private sector job creation. You raise the retirement age to 68. You implement a 3% national sales tax and expand medicare for all. It really is that simple......but some people did not get through 8th grade, and they think that balancing a personal budget involves selling the house, car, and your clothes as you move into a tent, or work a few more hours, or take a second job. This insistence to gut America is pathological. Sorry, it is obvious over the last 40 years that cutting taxes has not been good for America. Fact......ignore it if you wish....but it does not change the reality.

There is no reason to raise the retirement age. SS is supposed to be self-sustaining, and would be if YOUR PARTY hadn't raided it. Why have SS at all if you have to wait that long to get it? And there are plenty of other places to cut the fat without adding a national sales tax.

2seaoat



There is no reason to raise the retirement age. SS is supposed to be self-sustaining, and would be if YOUR PARTY hadn't raided it. Why have SS at all if you have to wait that long to get it? And there are plenty of other places to cut the fat without adding a national sales tax.

It took bipartisan support between O'Neil and Reagan to fix SS with increasing the retirement age and increasing contributions. Life expectancy has lengthened, yet you argue that someone has raided SS. Nobody has raided anything. It currently has a two trillion dollar surplus but will not be able to cover benefits 2035, at which time only 75% of benefits will be paid.

We have 20 some years to get the actuarial tables correct. Raising the retirement age can be a 10 year gradual process. Increasing contributions can also be a gradual increase. No, there really are not a lot of places to get revenue when folks are not making the income to generate the funds necessary, and the earned tax credit does not have everyone paying. A sales tax is a regressive tax. However, medicare for all will require each of us to pay something....it is not a free ride, it is an earned ride....and if you buy that 30k car, you will be paying $900 taxes. However, employers would finally be freed of the burden of health care, and we could be competitive in many areas as jobs come back to america.

Sal

Sal

Raise, or better yet, remove the cap.

Problem solved.

othershoe1030

othershoe1030

salinsky wrote:Raise, or better yet, remove the cap.

Problem solved.

I don't know why the cap for taking SS tax out of pay checks is set at $108K. I would like to know the story behind that one. It makes the tax more regressive the way it is taxing the kids at burger king while letting the higher income people slide.

knothead

knothead

salinsky wrote:Raise, or better yet, remove the cap.

Problem solved.


. . . . . and means test?

Guest


Guest

why don't we all just start getting ss and medicare now? it's only money and us 50+ won't have to pay it back.

boards of FL

boards of FL

They should determine a baseline annual income that social security will pay at retirement. Next, determine a level of savings that would be needed to generate said level of annual income assuming an annual return on that savings of 6%. So say they were to set the baseline at $30,000:

30,000 = 0.06x

x = 500,000

So if someone has $500,000 in assets (401k, house, etc) that can in theory generate enough income so as to match that which would be paid by social security, they should not receive any social security benefit. Say someone has savings of $400,000, their social security benefit should only be enough to bring them up to the baseline annual requirement. So in that case.

x = 0.6(500,000-400,000)
x = 6,000 (or 500 per month)

You basically set a baseline income, determine if the retiree is already there or not, and then apply benefits as needed. There is no reason we should be sending social security checks to people that are millionaires. The same principle should be applied towards medicare as well.


_________________
I approve this message.

2seaoat



Social Security should be a sound annuity. It should not be a welfare program where we are taxed and at the discretion of politicians these funds are disbursed. Raising the limit is part of the solution, but means testing benefits becomes a problem. I would rather see a straight up tax during a person's life which collects government revenue and applies it separately by means testing, than to turn Social Security into a means test governmental fund which has little to do with a retirement annuity.

Leave Social Security alone. Put sound actuarial assumptions in and if that means raising deductions, and extending retirement, well that is exactly what a private company would do to keep a fund solvent. If in addition to social security, some low end recipients are to get supplements, those payments should be independent of Social Security. The wingnuts on the right want vouchers, and now some people on the left are saying......well you make too much so you should not get your paid in annuity. Leave Social Security alone it has been a great American Success Story which needs simple tweeks, not revamping.

I have no problem with a separate tax on pensions which is progressive. Many states exempt pensions from taxation. However, this may in fact be an area to examine. We need to make sure that our senior citizens do not live their final years in poverty, but we also cannot have a true annuity be converted into one more government program controlled by the whim of politicians. Lockbox baby!

Guest


Guest

boards of FL wrote:They should determine a baseline annual income that social security will pay at retirement. Next, determine a level of savings that would be needed to generate said level of annual income assuming an annual return on that savings of 6%. So say they were to set the baseline at $30,000:

30,000 = 0.06x

x = 500,000

So if someone has $500,000 in assets (401k, house, etc) that can in theory generate enough income so as to match that which would be paid by social security, they should not receive any social security benefit. Say someone has savings of $400,000, their social security benefit should only be enough to bring them up to the baseline annual requirement. So in that case.

x = 0.6(500,000-400,000)
x = 6,000 (or 500 per month)

You basically set a baseline income, determine if the retiree is already there or not, and then apply benefits as needed. There is no reason we should be sending social security checks to people that are millionaires. The same principle should be applied towards medicare as well.

Horsecaca. If you pay in, you get money out. That is so OBAMA of you to even make this statement. We already pay money into the system that we never see again (federal taxes). That is where the divide is in this country- and the difference in the parties. Dems think they know better how to spend your taxes or who deserves a share of the pie moreso than others. Penalizing the millionaire who probably also created jobs with the business that made him/her millions is asinine.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Social Security is moving toward insolvency and it's not because Obama is a muslim socialist who destroyed it or Romney is a fat cat who will destroy it or liberals destroyed it or conservatives destroyed it or republiacans did it or democrats did it.
It's moving toward insolvency because far fewer good paying jobs are paying into it at the same time many more beneficiaries will be collecting from it and collecting for a lot longer than in the past because we're living longer.

Guest


Guest

I'm thinking we'll all be getting about 50% of what our statements say we will get at retirement. I'm taking mine as soon as I retire. I am not waiting for the full amount at 70. My last year of teaching will be when I am 63. That will give me 35 years of service and a DROP check worth probably 150k before taxes. Combining the mil retirement which I begin drawing at 59.5 and SS also, I ain't hitting a lick after that.

2seaoat



First, this is not some impossible problem to fix. It is exactly where we were in the 80s coming off a recession where contributions and an aging popublation required fine tuning the annuity. If nothing is done.....nothing.....every American will get 75% of their stated benefits. Many teacher pension plans across this country are facing 50% benefits and no reserves, and no time. Social Security simply needs a few people on both sides of the aisle dropping their dogma and paying attention that this is an annuity. We will fix it in the next two years and sure as my body will be cold and gone.....25 years from now we will be doing it again, because it is doubtful we will ever put into place a 100% funded plan, and most babyboomers are going to be dead in the next 25 years.......it really is not that big of deal when we use common sense.

Nekochan

Nekochan

Bob wrote:Social Security is moving toward insolvency and it's not because Obama is a muslim socialist who destroyed it or Romney is a fat cat who will destroy it or liberals destroyed it or conservatives destroyed it or republiacans did it or democrats did it.
It's moving toward insolvency because far fewer good paying jobs are paying into it at the same time many more beneficiaries will be collecting from it and collecting for a lot longer than in the past because we're living longer.
Amen to that--PLUS the number of people on Social Security disability has skyrocketed over the past decade.
Like Pace said, I would suggest to anyone to start collecting on your social security as soon as you're eligible. Collect as much as you can and maybe if you're lucky you will collect as much as you've paid in.

2seaoat



I have to wait 15 months to get an early SS check, but I am working on shot number 10 so I will be at shot 25 when I finally get a check.....the average is 38 shots.....so I will probably get about a year of benefits which I have paid in since I was 15. Now the bad part. My wife is receiving a government pension in excess of 5k a month......she will be unable to get one dime of my survival benefits, and every dime I paid in for 45 years will go back in the pool to pay other people's accounts. That is the nature of annuity.....some folks live....some die, but the math should balance. Disability and survivor benefits also are simple adjustments, not some crisis. We tighten disability criteria and raise the contributions to cover the sum certain amount.......again no big deal....mostly hyperbole which allows weak people in leadership to cover their butts and get reelected......We need big leaders like Reagan and O'Neil who were confident enough to understand the big picture, and unconcerned with the wussy lap dogs nipping at their heels.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

2seaoat wrote: It is exactly where we were in the 80s
Today is not exactly like the 80's.
There wasn't an enourmous wave of baby boomers about to become beneficiaries in the 80's.
We hadn't yet outsourced millions of middle class wage jobs in the 80's. Jobs that once contributed the revenues to keep social security healthy.
The government wasn't $16 trillion in debt in the 80's and there wasn't as large of a portion of government revenues needed to pay interest on the debt making that money not available for other expenditures like social security.


2seaoat



Sorry to break this news but inflation will equalize the poor guidance our SS annuity has received. It will not be the end of the world to have double digit inflation, but for a person who is on a fixed pension....it will be paid.....but folks are not going to get equivalency in purchase power. No revolution....no earth shattering revolution.....just a bunch of old people who cannot now work seeing the dollar lose relative value......but within this context will be a changing balance of trade as our oil exports will exceed our imports, and our job creation will create a relative stronger dollar weighed against the fed and monetary policy which fuels inflation.........no simple answers, but clearly we need prudent adjustments to the annuity....again no crisis, but if we drive this country like a 10 year old who drank a quart of Jack.....well yes, we could have a crash....but Americans are once again finding out what our core values and interests are without special interests trying to convince us otherwise.

Guest


Guest

2seaoat wrote: My wife is receiving a government pension in excess of 5k a month.......

I don't know of any retired teachers making 5k per month in retirement. Very few administrators make 5k in retirement. You did say on the PNJ forum she was a teacher. 5k per month is a top salary for a bachelor level teacher with 30 years of experience that is still working. In Florida teachers earn 48% of their top five year average and if you stay until 35 years you can max out a 52% of your top five year average. That is my goal God willing and my health holds out.

2seaoat



Actually her gross pension is 72k a year before deductions. She is a very smart lady with advance degrees.......no more information for now, but the time will come when I am gone, I have told her to leave a little note....it will all make sense to you at that time.

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 2]

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum