Draft letter to congress, comments/suggestions welcome

[elegysix]

Congressmen,

Why have you allowed such a massive budget deficit to persist?

I can only see three outcomes for such a course:

1) Unprecedented budget cuts.
2) Unprecedented tax increases.
3) If neither above, the destruction of the value of the dollar as an international currency.

So what is your plan?

To prove sincerity, will you provide basic accounting for your plan?

respectfully,
...

 

[skippy1729]

Their choice is door number 3. It doesn't require them to collectively take a stand on taxes or cuts. Each side can wash their hands and tell their base that they are fighting for them. Screw gold, invest in long term food storage and ammo.

 

[ThinkToday]

I can only see three outcomes for such a course:

1) Unprecedented budget cuts.
2) Unprecedented tax increases.
3) If neither above, the destruction of the value of the dollar as an international currency.

So what is your plan?

To prove sincerity, will you provide basic accounting for your plan?

respectfully,
...[/QUOTE]

Too general. Allows them to insert generic talking points. If you want specific answers, ask specific questions.

e.g. A public resources are spent on people that haven't had a job in years, some looking in good faith. What is your expectation of those that receive government benefits? Do you support recipients having to work in exchange for any benefit they receive?

 

[turbo]

The CEO of AIG recently said that people should work until they are 80. Apparently, he has never worked in a physical job in his life. I have seen people in their 60's who have been beaten to a pulp by their physically demanding jobs. (I am one, BTW) If his intent is to keep people out of retirement longer and longer (it seems that's the point), he should reverse that thinking, and allow people to retire at younger ages, so that young people can step in and fill the vacancies, so that they can have jobs.

We can't all be WalMart greeters. It's easy to pontificate when you're earning millions every year, but it's hard to see why the media pays attention to that crap.

Back to elegysix: Nobody in DC wants to address spending honestly. (Well maybe Bernie, but nobody else) We have an entire government that is bought and sold, and the members spout nonsense meant to placate their sponsors with a wave to the folks back home.

Slash military spending, end all subsidies for agri-giants, energy companies, etc. (They are already pulling in record profits) Then increase the wage-limit for SS so that wealthier people have to pay more into the fund, and keep that limit tied to incomes so we don't have to fight to increase it again and again. We don't have to do much to get the US back on an even keel, but the politicians in DC lack the will to do what is best for the citizens.

 

[aquitaine]

Why have the deficits been allowed to continue for so long? Well, not too long ago we had a vice president who said "Reagan proved deficits don't matter", and so neither the Bush administration nor our current president have seen an expenditure they didn't like.

But also, it's not entirely clear to what extent congress takes this problem seriously. The whole "supercomittee to cut $1 trillion" fiasco a year ago, was really about cutting $1 trillion over a period of 10 years, so basically $100 billion a year, which is nothing compared to the $1.3 trillion deficit we're expected to have in the coming fiscal year. Even so, if they do take this problem seriously, then they really are not being honest with us about it partly because we the people are not being honest with ourselves about the problem. The fact that this is barely even on the radar of the current presidential campaign could mean either one of these.

Which leads me to my next point, given what the potential consequences are for this problem to continue unresolved, I think that's a really bad omen for what's to come. So, likely no matter who gets elected in the executive and legislative branches, I seriously doubt anything substative is going to come about this problem. What is more likely to happen is they will keep the game going as long as they can by raising taxes (so we can spend more on interest payments to keep borrowing more) and continue supressing interest rates to lower the borrowing costs, again to let us borrow more. Of course none of this will last more than a few years, if that. What stopping the reckoning from happening now is the trouble in the Eurozone, which will likely linger on for a few more years. As long as that remains the case, investors and nations will be scared into continueing the purchasing of American debt.

 

[ThinkToday]

The CEO of AIG recently said that people should work until they are 80. Apparently, he has never worked in a physical job in his life. I have seen people in their 60's who have been beaten to a pulp by their physically demanding jobs. (I am one, BTW) If his intent is to keep people out of retirement longer and longer (it seems that's the point), he should reverse that thinking, and allow people to retire at younger ages, so that young people can step in and fill the vacancies, so that they can have jobs.

Respectfully disagree. Until the advent of SSI, there was never the notion in America that you get to be a freeloader at age X. Even when SSI was created, it was only intended to supplement retirement, not replace saving for retirement. BTW, my dad is 86 and still works. He could easily afford to retire, but it's not in his nature to sit around doing nothing. That's not how the older generation was raised. IMO, if you've saved enough to retire and want to, more power to you. Have a nice life. On the other hand, IMO, you shouldn't expect the rest of us to foot the bill because "you" didn't want to work anymore and didn't save enough. In short, if you can't afford to retire and are physically able to work... work and pay your own bills. This isn't Europe, and we don't retire for others to carry our burden because we feel like it. BTW, if you haven't noticed, the retire early strat hasn't worked so well in Europe.

 

[nitsuj]

Respectfully disagree. Until the advent of SSI, there was never the notion in America that you get to be a freeloader at age X. Even when SSI was created, it was only intended to supplement retirement, not replace saving for retirement. BTW, my dad is 86 and still works. He could easily afford to retire, but it's not in his nature to sit around doing nothing. That's not how the older generation was raised. IMO, if you've saved enough to retire and want to, more power to you. Have a nice life. On the other hand, IMO, you shouldn't expect the rest of us to foot the bill because "you" didn't want to work anymore and didn't save enough. In short, if you can't afford to retire and are physically able to work... work and pay your own bills. This isn't Europe, and we don't retire for others to carry our burden because we feel like it. BTW, if you haven't noticed, the retire early strat hasn't worked so well in Europe.

Here is an excerpt from a "Q&A" regarding CPP (Canadian Pension Plan)

5. Why are my contributions important?

Your contributions are used to determine if you or your family are eligible for a benefit, and to calculate the monthly amount.


Normally, the more you earn and contribute to the Canada Pension Plan over the years, the higher the benefit will be (when you become entitled) because you will have built up a lot of Canada Pension Plan pension credits.

Your Canada Pension Plan credits can also be affected by "credit splitting".

See, I put in REAL CASH today, and the Gov' turns it into a "credit" of sorts, that is currently a diminishing return. Nice calculation.