Mitt’s VP Shocker

[lektrode]

Re: Mitt’s VP Shocker

While you're at it, do you know where the Obama administration's Secretary of the Treasury was in 2003-2008, when the financial crisis was brewing? If he wasn't part of its making, he sure had an opportunity to speak out about it ... if he cared to.

But all this is utterly irrelevant to what's really at stake in this election - the economic viability of the United States of America. If we don't get the government's finances under control, no one will even remember or care.

why on earth would geithner have anything to say - its really hard to speak when ones mouth is suckling at the teat of his masters. (and just imagine how much GS&co will be paying him when he - finally - gets booted from the beltway = the ULTIMATE crime)

and a
+1
to pgph 2
its THE ONLY ISSUE at this point

[lektrode]

Re: Mitt’s VP Shocker

Unfortunately this thread Is a microcosm for the current national political debate.
....
So anyone can add to what the founders intended. I will follow and listen to the law of the land and I hope our elected officials do likewise.

Now can we please return this thread to the economy?

+1

[lektrode]

Re: Mitt’s VP Shocker

I think that sums up my perspective as well. Our politicians should be focusing on the economy.

Far as the rest goes, basic liberty needs to be respected, too. Any couple ought to be free to declare themselves married and anyone else who wants to recognize it as marriage ought to likewise be free to do so. But that should cut both ways … if someone else does not wish to recognize gay marriage, he should not be forced to do so by the government, either.

+10
here's my .02:
the conservatives (excepting some on the religious right, which i dont necessarily always agree with, but respect their rights to their beliefs and their moral perspective) tend to focus on The Things That Really Matter - and most of that revolves around economic issues - particularly economic FREEDOMS (and debt is The Anathema/Enemy of freedom)

while the liberals cant seem to think about anything BUT social issues and want to re-define 'freedom' for The Rest of US, usually thru taxing and spending AND DEBT (that - TADA!!!! benefits nobody BUT the big banking interests).
and then - when they cant get their way at The Ballot Box - you know, or might remember - that quaint ole fashioned concept of Majority Rule, where and how We The People VOTE to Decide on how/what would be The Best Way Forward - instead - what has occurred, particularly over the past 50 years or so - we now have TYRANNY OF THE MINORITIES - thanks to the strategy of the liberal dems in particular, to label and define US by ever narrowly defined toenail slivers of the electorate.... and RESORT TO THE COURTS to force The Rest of Us into whatevah they see as whats Best For Us - and while once upon a time in America, i believe that was necessary - it happens far too alarmingly frequently with 'activist judges' legislating from the bench - which then allows the legislative branches to abdicate their responsibilty to DO WHAT WE ELECTED THEM TO DO, for We The People - ALL the people, not some 'special group'

and i see it as We, The Majority - lose, while whichever minority happens to be the most in-vogue at the moment and lavished over by the lamestream media as The Cause du jour - gets the attention and funding, with whatever social-liberal/industrial complex getting rich off the .gov's largesse.

and call me 'partisan and biased' if you want, but i say that the democrat party, over the past 50years in particular - has become The Party of The Special Interests - by pandering to whatevah toenail sliver of the electorate they can get to listen to them, by promising to slop the gov hog-troff with their favorite treats - and my obs is that if you put them all together 'under the big tent' and gave em all free booze?

they'd all be fighting with each other within 2 hours....

what ever happened to We The People identifying as AMERICANS?
now we're labeled and pigeon-holed by some unstated conspiracy that revolves around the political aristocracy holding on to 'their' offices, no matter what they say or actually do, once they get there.

and its disgusted the majority of The Rest of US

THROW THEM ALL OUT, TERM LIMITS FOR CONGRESS NOW

[Finster]

Re: Mitt’s VP Shocker

why on earth would geithner have anything to say - its really hard to speak when ones mouth is suckling at the teat of his masters. (and just imagine how much GS&co will be paying him when he - finally - gets booted from the beltway = the ULTIMATE crime)...

FWIW, my intent here wasn't specifically to pick on Geithner so much as counter the misconception that there is really any difference between Dems and Reps when it comes to representing the financial establishment. On that score, they are but one party with two PR firms. In order to find any real difference you have to look at individual candidates (viz. Ron Paul).

Anyone basing a choice of voting between Dems and Reps on supposed independence from the financial estabilishment is indulging in an exercise in fantasy. I'm basing my preference for Romney-Ryan (in addition to the Obamacare issue) on my perception that they will do more to fix the federal government's finances.

...
while the liberals cant seem to think about anything BUT social issues and want to re-define 'freedom' for The Rest of US, usually thru taxing and spending AND DEBT (that - TADA!!!! benefits nobody BUT the big banking interests).
and then - when they cant get their way at The Ballot Box - you know, or might remember - that quaint ole fashioned concept of Majority Rule, where and how We The People VOTE to Decide on how/what would be The Best Way Forward - instead - what has occurred, particularly over the past 50 years or so - we now have TYRANNY OF THE MINORITIES - thanks to the strategy of the liberal dems in particular, to label and define US by ever narrowly defined toenail slivers of the electorate.... and RESORT TO THE COURTS to force The Rest of Us into whatevah they see as whats Best For Us - and while once upon a time in America, i believe that was necessary - it happens far too alarmingly frequently with 'activist judges' legislating from the bench - which then allows the legislative branches to abdicate their responsibilty to DO WHAT WE ELECTED THEM TO DO, for We The People - ALL the people, not some 'special group'

and i see it as We, The Majority - lose, while whichever minority happens to be the most in-vogue at the moment and lavished over by the lamestream media as The Cause du jour - gets the attention and funding, with whatever social-liberal/industrial complex getting rich off the .gov's largesse.

and call me 'partisan and biased' if you want, but i say that the democrat party, over the past 50years in particular - has become The Party of The Special Interests - by pandering to whatevah toenail sliver of the electorate they can get to listen to them, by promising to slop the gov hog-troff with their favorite treats - and my obs is that if you put them all together 'under the big tent' and gave em all free booze?

they'd all be fighting with each other within 2 hours....

what ever happened to We The People identifying as AMERICANS?
now we're labeled and pigeon-holed by some unstated conspiracy that revolves around the political aristocracy holding on to 'their' offices, no matter what they say or actually do, once they get there ...

I'd take it a step further and object to even a tyranny of the majority. Our Constitution set up a system in which the majority rules at the federal level only in certain limited areas. We do not and were not intended to have a simple "majority rules" government. For instance, even a majority may not, under the Constitution, infringe on free speech. One of our biggest problems is that so few even realize that's what the American system was supposed to be.

[rjwjr]

Re: Mitt’s VP Shocker

David Stockman has an editorial in today's NY Times that is quite negative on Ryan, basically calling him a fraud. It made me think that Romney's choice is an indication of politics as usual. The only thing I want less than politics as usual, however, is a 2nd term for the current administration. I plan to hold my nose while casting a vote for Mitt, the apparent lesser of two evils. The system remains broken.

[seanm123]

Re: Mitt’s VP Shocker

I give Congressman Paul Ryan credit for hugging the third rail so back to more third rail debates. I would have to say somebody should wake me up when private insurance companies announce during this campaign that they will cover the costs of your heath care after 65 years old for what is basically a food stamp voucher. Last time I checked they only offered life insurance and reverse mortgages. Insurance companies do their best today to push the elderly who have coverage via their private retirement program off onto Medicare as it stands now, anyone have knowledge on how someone over 65 can obtain a private medical insurance policy that will cover their heath care needs regardless of cost? In my opinion there is no feasible way an actuary can come up with a loss pricing model that will work for folks over 65 without death panels to decide who gets the surgery and who gets a voucher for a coffin. Based on a 2008 study on Medicare recipients who died that year approx numbering around 1.6 million, one in three had surgery in the last year of life. Nearly one in five had surgery in the last month of life and one in 10 had surgery in the last week of life. That sounds expensive. I gather Paul Ryan's reasoning under the legislation he proposed will lay it on the Doctors to cull the Boomer generation, since it won’t kick in for a decade, and only then will we save a few trillion unless they sign up for the vouchers? I make no claims to be an expert of any sort, so hopefully one of the bigger brains here will explain how someone who embraces the third rail will help win this election other than deflecting questions about offshore tax havens and old tax returns.

[Raz]

Re: Mitt’s VP Shocker

David Stockman has an editorial in today's NY Times that is quite negative on Ryan, basically calling him a fraud. It made me think that Romney's choice is an indication of politics as usual. The only thing I want less than politics as usual, however, is a 2nd term for the current administration. I plan to hold my nose while casting a vote for Mitt, the apparent lesser of two evils. The system remains broken.

I'm in the camp that says Entitlements must be cut and means tested or some action along those lines. And if the mass of Americans must endure that pain, then to some extent taxes must rise on the higher incomes (back to the Clinton years?) . I know it's not fair, no matter what the Left says, since they already pay a disproportionate share; but to keep what little social cohesion remains the sacrifice must clearly be shared.

Romney actually says he wants to increase military spending. What in the world for? IIRC Ryan proposed a budget that cut entitlements with NO cuts to the military.
Maybe I'm wrong about that, but if not, then the Republicans are every bit as crazy as Pelosi and Reid!

In my opinion they're ALL frauds - including Stockman.

[lektrode]

Re: Mitt’s VP Shocker

I give Congressman Paul Ryan credit for hugging the third rail so back to more third rail debates.....
.....
make no claims to be an expert of any sort, so hopefully one of the bigger brains here will explain how someone who embraces the third rail will help win this election other than deflecting questions about offshore tax havens and old tax returns.

+1
most of em seem to want to avoid ANY discussion of it, until AFTER they 'win'

my 02:
as a former resident of a place where the state gov actually WORKS FOR THE PUBLIC (that would be NH) while denying the political class access to slushfunds known as broadbased revenue aka sales/income taxes - which FORCES THE POLITICIANS TO MAKE REAL DECISIONS (and not simply pander to some sliver of the electorate who will vote for anybody who gives em something for nuthin) and OFFER REAL PLANS on how to make the gov work FOR We The People (and NOT the special interests known as the public sector unions, their 'leadership' in particular - or whatever sector of FIre happens to be paying the lobbiest-industrial complex the most this year)

i say the first reform ought to revolve around the concept of a USER FEE system of 'revenue enhancement' - ie: if the entitlements are supposedly The Big Problem (which is quite debateable IMHO - the 'defense' establishment/mil.industrial.complex is really the biggie, followed by the .edu/socialservices-industrial complex that serves primarily its employee$ would be Public Treasury Enemy #2) - then the place to start in reforming the budget and the budgetary process ought to be:

1 - elimninating corporate welfare, in particular the BOONDOGGLE known as agricultural price supports that cause commodity crops to subsidized for s__t like ethanol production, while WE PAY THRU THE NOSE FOR TABLE FOOD ??? (as it then sacrifices our most critical of natural resources, and NO its NOT OIL - its quite simply: our alarmingly dwindling top soil - while we waste both MPG in cars (gasahol gives LESS MPG) and causes filler like corn sweeteners to be used (to subsidize and) dilute the nutritional value (increases profit margins of ADM et al) of overpriced and FAKE food that makes us FAT (which causes our med insurance premiums to skyrocket)

2 - if the entitlements are the problem, THEN INCREASE THE REVENUE STREAM known as FICA taxes, by UPPING THE INCOME LIMITS AND MEANS TESTING THE PAYOUTs
personally, as one who gets to pay the entire 15point-whatevah i resent the hell out of the fact that some people are getting paid 10s of MILLIONS to 100's of MILLIONS in a single year, while paying FICA on only the 1st 110k of their incomes (and the pro's who make 10mil/year to throw balls around fields, while the taxpayers pay to build their GD stadiums, with the team owners charging us outrageous fees to enter them, are The Worst Offenders, IMO - of this one - esp when they blow their millions and end up broke and expecting the rest of us to then support them after their careers are done)

3 - we need to end the debate over the false fears of nuclear energy and come up with a GAME CHANGER - even it it means borrowing _another_ trillion (while we still can) to develop and build 1000 of them, as soon as it can be accomplished - this will put MILLIONS of people to work, IMMEDIATELY -
and go a long way to eliminating the source of so many problems we have, both environmental, as well as financial and geo-political and ITS SIMPLY INSANE TO CONTINUE TO KNUCKLE UNDER TO THE LUDDITE-antinuke BRIGADE while we waste valuable time as the planet dies from coal/oil pollution (proven/un-debateable anymore) and TRILLIONS on maintaining a military that serves no purpose other than to protect the oil interests and the .mil-industrial complex = every bit as dangerous as the financial-industrial complex - quite simply because: we no longer have the political will to use the capabilties of our military - as fine and capable as it is - because we no longer have the stomach to do whatever it takes to actually win any kind of a real war (hint: it involves pissing off the other guys and killing people - as we just learned over the past 12 years or so: thats a big fat no-no - never mind when the rules of engagement are such that OUR guys are more likely to take the hit, before they can even fire back??? = INSANITY)

ok - i've ranted enuf for today (and i feel better ;)

[lektrode]

Re: Mitt’s VP Shocker

I'm in the camp that says Entitlements must be cut and means tested or some action along those lines.
..........
Romney actually says he wants to increase military spending. What in the world for? IIRC Ryan proposed a budget that cut entitlements with NO cuts to the military.
Maybe I'm wrong about that, but if not, then the Republicans are every bit as crazy as Pelosi and Reid!

In my opinion they're ALL frauds - including Stockman.

+1
maybe not stockman tho - at least he tells us something approching 'the truth'
i liked one of his statements along the lines of "the GOP was always the party of No"
(as in NO, you cant raid/giveaway the treasury to buy votes - something the other side cant seem to even think about, unless its tacked onto the end of some 2500page present to the lawyer brigade, that raises taxes on 'the rich' and we know how that usually works out - just ask california ;)

[Finster]

Re: Mitt’s VP Shocker

I'm in the camp that says Entitlements must be cut and means tested or some action along those lines. And if the mass of Americans must endure that pain, then to some extent taxes must rise on the higher incomes (back to the Clinton years?) . I know it's not fair, no matter what the Left says, since they already pay a disproportionate share; but to keep what little social cohesion remains the sacrifice must clearly be shared.

Romney actually says he wants to increase military spending. What in the world for? IIRC Ryan proposed a budget that cut entitlements with NO cuts to the military.
Maybe I'm wrong about that, but if not, then the Republicans are every bit as crazy as Pelosi and Reid!

In my opinion they're ALL frauds - including Stockman.

... if the entitlements are the problem, THEN INCREASE THE REVENUE STREAM known as FICA taxes, by UPPING THE INCOME LIMITS AND MEANS TESTING THE PAYOUTs ...

I don't see any great imperative to increase military spending, either. I think the debt is a greater threat to our security ... unless we fix that we'll be even less able to afford a strong military in the future.

It would be grave folly to means-test Social Security ... we need to keep whatever progressivity we're going to have in as few places as possible, since we have no idea what the cumulative effects would be ... they're never even debated or voted on in combination. It would also embed a new moral hazard in a world already too full of them ... people at the margin saving for their own futures are going to be less motivated knowing it would reduce the net return on their own efforts. People that make a lot money in addition to their SS benefits are already going to pay a lot more income tax anyway ... if that's still not enough then revisit the tax code, not the SS formula. And we sure don't need to add new paperwork to Social Security. More to the point, means testing wouldn't address the problem. People are living to an older age but the benefit eligibility age did not move with it, so you have ever more people receiving benefits in relation to those paying in. The direct response is to move the eligibility age, and that's all that need be done to make Social Security viable and sustainable. Long term, you need something that adjusts the eligibility age to keep the number of recipients a roughly stable percentage of working age people. That and only that will solve the problem.

Fixing the other entitlements, unfortunately, will not be so simple …

[Raz]

Re: Mitt’s VP Shocker

It would be grave folly to means-test Social Security ... we need to keep whatever progressivity we're going to have in as few places as possible, since we have no idea what the cumulative effects would be ... they're never even debated or voted on in combination. It would also embed a new moral hazard in a world already too full of them ... people at the margin saving for their own futures are going to be less motivated knowing it would reduce the net return on their own efforts. ... if that's still not enough then revisit the tax code, not the SS formula. ... More to the point, means testing wouldn't address the problem. People are living to an older age but the benefit eligibility age did not move with it, so you have ever more people receiving benefits in relation to those paying in. The direct response is to move the eligibility age, and that's all that need be done to make Social Security viable and sustainable. Long term, you need something that adjusts the eligibility age to keep the number of recipients a roughly stable percentage of working age people. That and only that will solve the problem.

You make more sense than I did. I spoke out of frustration; it's hard to imagine that what truly was at one time a party of fiscal responsibilty and budgetary sanity could become the idiots they are today. (Remember Everet Dirksen?) The Democrats were always big spenders.

[vt]

Re: Mitt’s VP Shocker

I agree with Finster. Those with high incomes pay more into social security, and pay most of the federal income taxes (top 10% pay 68% of all income taxes, bottom half pays almost nothing). Why then take away their pension?

Why not do the same to federal and state pensions then? It would be interesting to see the reaction then wouldn't it?

[BadJuju]

Re: Mitt’s VP Shocker

Top 20% own 85% of the wealth, too, so it is only reasonable that they most of the income taxes. Never mind the fact that people that are rich typically pay proportionately less than your average American. Furthermore, the social security tax only applies to $100,000 or so in income.

[BK]

Re: Mitt’s VP Shocker

Targeting the wealthiest in society for taxes doesn't seem like a great idea. The truly wealthy will reduce their risk as income taxes on investment rises and doesn't this lead to less money flowing into the rest of the economy. I'm certainly not part of the wealthy class, but the logic doesn't flow. The bulk of these higher taxes will fall on the middle and upper middle class because the really wealthy individuals may not even need income (our tax code is based on taxing income not wealth - I'm in no way advocating taxing wealth).

I'd love to see the elimination of the US Treasury's CDFI Fund (cdfifund.gov) Division that gives tax breaks to Banks and Investment groups when they make investments in Solar- Historical renovation tax credits - Supermarkets or several other special interests that dovetail with the Presidents Agenda.

Perhaps we should tax people based on the number of non-productive government employees in a household.

[littleshark]

Re: Mitt’s VP Shocker

I don't see any great imperative to increase military spending, either. I think the debt is a greater threat to our security ... unless we fix that we'll be even less able to afford a strong military in the future.

It would be grave folly to means-test Social Security ... we need to keep whatever progressivity we're going to have in as few places as possible, since we have no idea what the cumulative effects would be ... they're never even debated or voted on in combination. It would also embed a new moral hazard in a world already too full of them ... people at the margin saving for their own futures are going to be less motivated knowing it would reduce the net return on their own efforts. People that make a lot money in addition to their SS benefits are already going to pay a lot more income tax anyway ... if that's still not enough then revisit the tax code, not the SS formula. And we sure don't need to add new paperwork to Social Security. More to the point, means testing wouldn't address the problem. People are living to an older age but the benefit eligibility age did not move with it, so you have ever more people receiving benefits in relation to those paying in. The direct response is to move the eligibility age, and that's all that need be done to make Social Security viable and sustainable. Long term, you need something that adjusts the eligibility age to keep the number of recipients a roughly stable percentage of working age people. That and only that will solve the problem.

Fixing the other entitlements, unfortunately, will not be so simple …

I was at a small lunch meeting with a republican senator who was talking about the wasteful military spending. Its one thing to debate the amount of military spending, but the cronyism and wasteful spending is crazy. He said defense contractors compete for new contracts and, for example, a winning bid is $1 billion. After the company spends the $1billion and goes over budget $4 billion more the govt just gives them the money, nobody is held responsible for anything. There are no rules.

The problem with means testing anything is that it doesn't help. It's just a boon for lawyers. If they means tested social security, there would be a whole new group of lawyers finding loopholes to get money out of your estate so you can collect the full amt. Much like people do today so they can collect Medicaid in certain instances.