How low can you go

[LITE-INN]

you didn't the link I post second it past the house both dems and rep voted it in

[Bubstr]

Here is a just and honest question: why should I support SS and Medicare as it currently pays out benefits today when by the time I become eligible, I will likely only receive 75% of what current beneficiaries receive? Why shouldn't I insist that cuts to COLA start immediately to ensure I'm likely to receive the 75% for the rest of my natural life once I'm eligible? It seems to me to be the only truly fair policy. I would imagine if a Class Action Law Suit were to actually make it before a Federal Court that the retarding of COLA Adjustments may be mandated.

The way I look at it, my Dad paid for Grampa, Am I a lesser man? I'll tell you who is the lesser man. It's the politician that takes these contributions and doesn't want to pay the IOUs left in place. They used to call them dead beats, they call them politicians now. Raise the cap on FICA. It's happened to me several times. It happened to your Dad too. They call it a tax now anyway instead of a contribution. Why should one guy get taxed on 100% of his income, when the next only gets taxed on 1% of his. Problem solved.

Did you ever notice they use the word contribution when they say there are not enough contributions to cover the pay out, but like the word tax when you say, I made my contributions and want paid back.

The real problem I have is people have planned their retirement around this for 50 plus years and now they want to change the rules after the game has been played. I give a little old lady down the street rides to the store and doctors appointments, she is tickled to get the $20 something COLA on top of her $1200 a month to live on. It isn't like a lot of them don't need it.

[15D]

The way I look at it, my Dad paid for Grampa, Am I a lesser man? I'll tell you who is the lesser man. It's the politician that takes these contributions and doesn't want to pay the IOUs left in place. They used to call them dead beats, they call them politicians now. Raise the cap on FICA. It's happened to me several times. It happened to your Dad too. They call it a tax now anyway instead of a contribution. Why should one guy get taxed on 100% of his income, when the next only gets taxed on 1% of his. Problem solved.

Did you ever notice they use the word contribution when they say there are not enough contributions to cover the pay out, but like the word tax when you say, I made my contributions and want paid back.

The real problem I have is people have planned their retirement around this for 50 plus years and now they want to change the rules after the game has been played. I give a little old lady down the street rides to the store and doctors appointments, she is tickled to get the $20 something COLA on top of her $1200 a month to live on. It isn't like a lot of them don't need it.

Yep, we've been leaving IOU's in the SS trust fund since '65. All parties are guilty including those who vote for the politicians who are more than willing to steal from future generations to give to today's recipients.

Kinda funny that your proposal to fix this isn't too terribly different than Paul Ryan's. Raising the retirement age, slowing the increase to COLA's, and increasing both the amount of contribution and the cap would prolong when the large cuts to benefits would begin. I find it kinda immoral to force and 18 year old today to pay for this. It's very unlikely that when they get to retirement age that SS will exist as we know it today so for all purposes it is a tax to them.

I know there are a great many people who solely rely upon SS for their retirement. SS was meant to be a supplement, not the sole source. Here is the question; do we continue to rob from future generations to satisfy a segment of our society who did not plan for their own retirement?

[LITE-INN]

By John McCormack, The Weekly Standard The two-year budget deal crafted by Republican congressman Paul Ryan and Democratic senator Patty Murray sailed through the House of Representatives on a 332-94 vote last Thursday, just two days after it was introduced. If cutting a bipartisan deal is so easy, why couldn't Republicans and Democrats have reached an agreement before October 1 and skipped the government shutdown altogether? "I think the pressure of divided government has come full force, and I think the specter of one or two more government shutdowns concentrated our minds to make this divided government work," Paul Ryan said on Saturday afternoon, speaking with THE WEEKLY STANDARD by phone from his hometown of Janesville. "It's very clear that without this deal two things would happen: The military would have borne the full force of these cuts starting in January. And we would have at least one more government shutdown drama.” “We think that's bad,” Ryan said during a break between games at his son's basketball tournament. “We think that's not in our interest. We want 2014 to be a year where we don't keep cutting the military, and we focus on Obamacare, we focus on the conservative reforms we want to roll out, and we win the next election so we can start saving this country." But the Ryan-Murray deal is not without its critics. In the Senate, a growing number of Republicans have objected to bill's provision to reduce the annual cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) by one percentage point for military retirees under the age of 62. Senators Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Roger Wicker of Mississippi, and Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma have all cited the issue as a dealbreaker for them. Ryan defended the provision on Saturday as a modest reform that's part of a broader plan to save the military from devastating cuts. "We give them a slightly smaller adjustment for inflation because they're still in their working years and in most cases earning another paycheck,” Ryan said. "Our goal here is to make sure that no other country comes close to matching the U.S. military, and the stress on the budget in the future brings that whole entire notion into question. We still have a Pentagon budget that is not where it needs to be." Under the 2011 Budget Control Act, about $1 trillion was cut from the defense budget over 10 years--roughly $500 billion by the law's spending caps and another $500 billion through automatic sequestration cuts, which exempted personnel. The Ryan-Murray deal relieves $31.5 billion in sequestration cuts to defense over the next two years. "From my conversation with just Chuck Hagel and General Dempsey recently, the biggest relief this gets is military readiness," Ryan said. "The statistics are very, very concerning about our readiness." The COLA reduction for military retirees, which doesn't take effect until January of 2016, would save an additional $6 billion over 10 years in the defense budget. "The defense community asked us to look at compensation and their entitlement spending within the Pentagon. We knew we couldn't put back into the Pentagon's budget as much as we'd like to, and these reforms help them with their budget," said Ryan. "The savings stays with the Department of Defense and that comes on top of the money we're giving back through the sequester." The savings "can go to anything," said Ryan. "It can go to readiness, it can go to troops, it can go to brigades, buying equipment." But why not grandfather benefits for current servicemembers, like Ryan does for Americans over the age of 55 in his plan to reform Medicare? Ryan replied that grandfathering wouldn't achieve the savings the military needs, and he emphasized the pension reform only affects servicemembers who have served the 20 years necessary to qualify for a pension (just 20 percent of all veterans) and retired before the age of 62. The bill has a "catchup provision" so that at age 62 the retiree's pension goes up to where it would have been without the COLA reduction. "I don't think people know there's a catchup provision," said Ryan. "Once they hit the age of 62, this provision recalculates their benefits so they get the full adjustment for inflation and their pension pay goes up as if nothing had happened. And from then on they have full inflation protection." According to House Budget Committee staff, a man who enlisted at age 18 and retired at 38 as a Sergeant First Class in the Army would see approximately a 6 percent overall reduction in lifetime retirement pay because of the COLA reduction--that is, he would receive about $1.626 million in lifetime retirement pay instead of $1.734 million. Earning $108,000 less in retirement pay over a lifetime certainly isn't chump change, but Ryan points out that the budget deal achieves the same amount of savings over ten years from federal civilian employees' pensions ($6 billion) by requiring new employees to make higher contributions. "This is still far more generous than civilian retirees who receive absolutely no COLA before the age of 62," Ryan said. "We still kept the military retiree in a far better position than the civilian because we think that's the way it ought to be." Ryan also noted that the deal gives Congress time to come up with a better way to achieve the same savings. "We delayed this provision so that it doesn't take effect until the year 2016, which gives Congress and the military community time to address the broader compensation issue, including this provision, if people believe there's a better way to solve this problem," he said. The problem is that there's no way to painlessly cut $1 trillion (or close to it) from the military's budget. Defense secretary Chuck Hagel said in a November speech that because of budget cuts only 2 of the Army's 43 brigade active-duty combat teams are ready for combat, and Marine Corps units that are not going to Afghanistan are getting 30 percent less funding. At one point this summer, only 8 warplanes were ready to respond to an emergency away from front-lines operations. Simply structuring cuts more intelligently doesn't make it much better. Republican senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma introduced a proposal in 2009 to cut $1 trillion from defense as part of a plan to cut $9 trillion from the federal budget. Among other defense cuts, Coburn's plan called for closing down elementary schools on military bases, making veterans pay more for their health care, canceling the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, eliminating 1 of the nation's 11 aircraft carriers, and shrinking the Army by 65,000 soldiers. Anyone who thinks it's possible to save $1 trillion from defense by simply cutting "waste, fraud, and abuse" is mistaken. http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/ryan-defe

[Bubstr]

Yep, we've been leaving IOU's in the SS trust fund since '65. All parties are guilty including those who vote for the politicians who are more than willing to steal from future generations to give to today's recipients.

Kinda funny that your proposal to fix this isn't too terribly different than Paul Ryan's. Raising the retirement age, slowing the increase to COLA's, and increasing both the amount of contribution and the cap would prolong when the large cuts to benefits would begin. I find it kinda immoral to force and 18 year old today to pay for this. It's very unlikely that when they get to retirement age that SS will exist as we know it today so for all purposes it is a tax to them.

I know there are a great many people who solely rely upon SS for their retirement. SS was meant to be a supplement, not the sole source. Here is the question; do we continue to rob from future generations to satisfy a segment of our society who did not plan for their own retirement?

Nothing has changed. In the 60s they said SS wouldn't be around when we retired,in the 70s same thing, 80s same thing. They will be saying that in 2060s. As long as old people vote, and make no mistake, they are the only ones you can count on, to vote. It is political suicide to take SS away or reduce. If you don't think so, watch your polling place next election. They also know that when the government spends trillions it is just a matter of priorities of where they spend it. If it is more important to the government to kill people than to feed people, they will spend it on defense.

Yes SS was meant to be a safety net, but it seems there are a lot of people that for one reason or another need it for sole support. Terrible managed 401k to bankrupt businesses underfunding pensions and some where just too poor to save. I bet there are guys on this forum, that didn't start saving when they where in their twenties and will not or can not ever catch up enough to fund a retirement. I have news for them. Unless they die young, they will not or can not work till they die. If this is your plan, you better have your own business.

The piddly little $25 a month don't sound like a big cut, but if you look, it's like compound interest, because the inflation rate it is based off is like compound interest. It adds up to quite a lot over the normal retirement. The prices they pay for things will not stop going up. Now the government doesn't seem to mind paying this interest to the FED or bond holders but don't want to pay it to the retired person.

The worse part is this cut takes money out of circulation, actually hurting the overall economy. Saved money doesn't work like spent money.

Yes they have been putting IOUs since Johnson tried to hide the cost of war, since Reagan tried to hide the cost of his tax cuts, the list goes on.The fact is we where fooled by their bold talk and broken promises and for that we get to pay. Now who pays the bill? the have's or the have not's.

Did you really think about later retirements? With the bean counter cuts and lack of employer employee loyalty, we have today, I think a lot of 55 and older are going to be shut out of the job market, long before they can retire. I have a good friend that managed 5 states of a big trucking company. His boss told him to get rid of everyone over 45 in a year or he would be fired and they would get someone that would. It makes you wonder why. The old guys know the business best, they have been loyal and show up to work all the time. Well they also drive up insurance premiums, getting close to cashing in on retirements, get 3 or 4 weeks paid vacations and earn more per hour than the young guy. They where mostly the union guys in the right to work states. This is becoming more commonplace than you think. He was put out also just a few months before he locked in the employer contributions in his 401k. With later retirements we are going to see a trend for more SS disability claims. It isn't right, but can you really blame them? They got pushed into a corner for existence. When your a younger guy, it's easy not to pay attention to these things and say go get another job. But if you was hard to keep, your even harder to hire.

[Clayton_Wetter]

I have a couple questions for you. Why do Senators, Representatives and Presidents come out of office much richer than when they go in and pay an exorbitant amount to gain that office.

Go watch old cowboy movies where right always wins and the guy in the white hat always gets the girl.

BTW Litie's post said agreed on. Is that supposed to excuse the weasel, who has been whining cut cut cut on SS, Medicare and earned retirements since he was elected to office.

Not cuts to those past a certain age and those younger will still be able to invest into retirement other than SS. Medicare? I believe you are wrong once again, as no cuts by the Repubs.

ALSO:


Senate Dems block amendment to restore veteran benefits by closing illegal immigrant welfare loophole
Posted by National Director, Dee on December 18, 2013 at 4:47am in Congress
View Discussions

Senate Republicans were unable to stop military pension cuts when Senate Democrats blocked a vote on an amendment to prevent the cuts by closing a welfare loophole for illegal immigrants Tuesday night.

The two-year budget deal brokered by Senate Budget Committee Chairwoman Patty Murray and House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, would cut military pensions by $6 billion over ten years, leaving some Senate Republicans scrambling to stop the cuts.

“Removing this unbalanced treatment of our military retirees ought to be one of the key actions we should take before this legislation moves forward. In fact, greater savings than this can be achieved by passing a legislative fix recommended by the Inspector General of the U.S. Treasury that would stop the IRS from improperly providing tax credits to illegal aliens,” Alabama Republican Jeff Sessions said Monday, announcing his co-sponsorship of Mississippi Republican Sen. Roger Wicker’s amendment to restore the military retirement benefits Monday.

[Clayton_Wetter]

I do watch the Western Channel BTW, but to get away from the political scene!

[TS FAN]

When are moderate, reasonable Dems going to cast aside this political trash called progressive. The hits just keep coming, Podesta comes aboard. Another low life piece of political filth. Compares Rep. party to Jonestown.

[ss12]

Israel: 3.075 billion

Afghanistan: $2.327 billion

Pakistan: $2.102 billion

Iraq: $1.683 billion

Egypt: $1.557 billion

Jordan: $676 million

Kenya: $652 million

Nigeria: $625 million

Ethiopia: $580 million

Tanzania: $531 million

Here Are just a few countries that we supply money and military aid for. Instead of helping them why don't we cut here and start funding SS for our elderly and, the retirements for our vets!! My opinion we should cut more from the military budget. Our military budget is more then the top 10 countries combine.

[racin6mod]

When are moderate, reasonable Dems going to cast aside this political trash called progressive. The hits just keep coming, Podesta comes aboard. Another low life piece of political filth. Compares Rep. party to Jonestown.

WASHINGTON, September 23, 2012 — You think you’ve seen it all. That things can’t get any more cynical, but in Washington they can and they did. Last week thanks to the Republicans, Congress left town without passing a jobs bill that would have benefited our returning veterans. It was a slap in the face of the men and women who have put their lives on the line, but whom the Republicans thought not worth helping once they came home.

These are the same Republicans who wail and wring their hands on the floor of the Senate, bemoaning any cuts to the defense budget. These are the same Republicans who didn’t hesitate to send our troops into Iraq to fight a bogus war. These are the same Republicans who now thump their chests and bellow that we should consider sending our military into Iran, crushing their nuclear program in a preemptive strike.

But spend money on our vets who return from tours of duty overseas to help them get jobs? Never. And since it was President Obama’s bright idea: Never. Ever.

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Oka.) went so far as to call the bill “crap” on the “Morning Joe Show.”
back in September 2012 the rep. all but 5 voted against the veterans then Ryan puts this in the new bill and now it's the dems fault and they want to pull it out of the bill. this bill is already more of what the rep. wanted it's 70/30 at best. we never get 100 percent of what everyone wants the dems are willing to live with it even as it stands.they got little and cave to much.

[Clayton_Wetter]

Obama’s Thursday Energy Executive Order will cost us Billions.

How many billions has Obama cost this nation in five years?

[Bubstr]

Obama’s Thursday Energy Executive Order will cost us Billions.

How many billions has Obama cost this nation in five years?

Where are the billions?

Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy and Economic Performance - EXECUTIVE ORDER 13514

Demonstrating a commitment to lead by example, on October 5, 2009, President Obama signed Executive Order 13514, that set sustainability goals for Federal agencies and focuses on making improvements in their environmental, energy and economic performance. The Executive Order required Federal agencies to submit a 2020 greenhouse gas pollution reduction target within 90 days, and to increase energy efficiency, reduce fleet petroleum consumption, conserve water, reduce waste, support sustainable communities, and leverage Federal purchasing power to promote environmentally-responsible products and technologies.

The Federal Government occupies nearly 500,000 buildings, operates more than 600,000 vehicles, employs more than 1.8 million civilians, and purchases more than $500 billion per year in goods and services. The Executive Order builds on and expands the energy reduction and environmental requirements of Executive Order 13423 by making reductions of greenhouse gas emissions a priority of the Federal government, and by requiring agencies to develop sustainability plans focused on cost-effective projects and programs. Projected benefits to the taxpayer include substantial energy savings and avoided costs from improved efficiency.

The Executive Order requires agencies to measure, manage, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions toward agency-defined targets. It describes a process by which agency goals will be set and reported to the President by the Chair of CEQ. The Executive Order requires agencies to meet a number of energy, water, and waste reduction targets, including:

30% reduction in vehicle fleet petroleum use by 2020;
26% improvement in water efficiency by 2020;
50% recycling and waste diversion by 2015;
95% of all applicable contracts will meet sustainability requirements;
Implementation of the 2030 net-zero-energy building requirement;
Implementation of the stormwater provisions of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, section 438, and;
Development of guidance for sustainable Federal building locations in alignment with the Livability Principles put forward by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Transportation, and the Environmental Protection Agency.

Meeting these goals will reduce costs, reduce air and water pollution, and drive investments in local, clean energy jobs.

Implementation of the Executive Order will focus on integrating achievement of sustainability goals with agency mission and strategic planning to optimize performance and minimize implementation costs. Implementation will be managed through the previously-established Office of the Federal Environmental Executive, working in close partnership with OMB, CEQ and the agencies.

Under Executive Order 13514, Federal agencies were also asked to develop, implement and annually update a plan that prioritizes actions based on a positive return on investment for the American taxpayer and to meet energy, water, and waste reduction targets. Visit the Sustainability Plans webpage to view individual agency Strategic Sustainability Performance Plans.

On April 19, 2011, 24 Federal agencies and departments released, for the first time, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Sustainability and Energy Scorecards. These scorecards enable agencies to target and track the best opportunities to lead by example in clean energy; and to meet a range of energy, water, pollution, and waste reduction targets. On June 15, 2012, Federal agencies released their second annual scorecard. On May 31, 2013 agencies released their third annual scorecard. Visit the OMB sustainability and energy scorecards page to view individual agency scorecard results.

In January 2010, President Obama announced Federal Government-wide GHG emissions reduction targets for 2020 from 2008 levels of 28 percent of direct emissions, such as those from fuels and building energy use, and of 13 percent of indirect emissions, such as those from employee commuting and business travel. Reducing and reporting GHG pollution, as called for in Executive Order 13514 on Federal Sustainability, will ensure that the Federal Government leads by example in building our nation’s clean energy economy.
Learn more about individual Federal department and agency inventories, accounting guidance, and the Federal greenhouse gas reduction goals for 2020 by visiting the Federal Greenhouse Gas Accounting and Inventories webpage.

[TS FAN]

i see, Ryan put it in the bill, Murray had nothing to do with it. By the way, I guess the Conservatives should take responsibility for causing the Podesta comment.

[Bubstr]

Not cuts to those past a certain age and those younger will still be able to invest into retirement other than SS. Medicare? I believe you are wrong once again, as no cuts by the Repubs.

ALSO:


Senate Dems block amendment to restore veteran benefits by closing illegal immigrant welfare loophole
Posted by National Director, Dee on December 18, 2013 at 4:47am in Congress
View Discussions

Senate Republicans were unable to stop military pension cuts when Senate Democrats blocked a vote on an amendment to prevent the cuts by closing a welfare loophole for illegal immigrants Tuesday night.

The two-year budget deal brokered by Senate Budget Committee Chairwoman Patty Murray and House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, would cut military pensions by $6 billion over ten years, leaving some Senate Republicans scrambling to stop the cuts.

“Removing this unbalanced treatment of our military retirees ought to be one of the key actions we should take before this legislation moves forward. In fact, greater savings than this can be achieved by passing a legislative fix recommended by the Inspector General of the U.S. Treasury that would stop the IRS from improperly providing tax credits to illegal aliens,” Alabama Republican Jeff Sessions said Monday, announcing his co-sponsorship of Mississippi Republican Sen. Roger Wicker’s amendment to restore the military retirement benefits Monday.

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't this amendment put on the floor of the house of representatives, where the Republicans enjoy a majority. The bill was defeated with bipartisan vote which tells us that it was clearly a vote for Veteran cuts as the issue of illegal immigrant use of dependent deductions is illegal under previous statutes that are not totally enforced. It was thrown in this amendment to cloud the issue and intended to play a political blame game. So this amendment intended to remove the military retirement cuts was voted on and with a bipartisan vote defeated. There was republicans and democrats voting to defeat this, I haven't looked yet, but guessing Paul Ryan the weasel scum bag voted against this amendment. Which could be construed to he is for the cuts and illegal dependent deductions. When I check the vote I think I'll find someone from my district that voted against this. I'll be putting a few flyers on retired housing and assisted living warning them, who would take SS away for the next election. Just a thought, I could put some of them out in Ryan country on my trip from Prairie dirt classic to Cedar Lake and back.

Not cuts to those past a certain age and those younger will still be able to invest into retirement other than SS. Medicare? I believe you are wrong once again, as no cuts by the Repubs.

I have news for you. Most military, not all, are retired at least ten years before the upper cut off date of 62. They are forced out due to physical requirements. What income do you suggest they invest. They already contribute to their retirement and Tricare. It wasn't free.


The part that should really irritate everyone is this was supposed to reduce deficits, not cut retirements and spend it and a few more bucks on something else. The deficit went up. It was just another example of government picking winners and losers. The military retiree lost and some defense contractor won. And fo what? We still owe more money today than we did last week.

[LITE-INN]

adjustment for working age retirees (under age 62) by one full percentage point – setting the rate at one percent below the actual Consumer Price Index – the measure of inflation used to determine Social Security and VA program adjustments each year.Read more: http://militaryadvantage.military.co...#ixzz2nwdOgvJr MilitaryAdvantage.Military.com