Obama proposes more spending.

[dbroncos78087]

With the baby boomers retiring, we're getting a lot more retirees (and who are now living a lot longer) with a lot fewer workers to support them. The system, as it is now, is unsustainable. We need large tax increases and/or some way to reduce payouts (raising the retirement age, means-testing of benefits, reducing benefits, etc).

What about the ever increasing size of the labor force? Will that stagnate as more and more people are born?

[cabernetluver]

With the baby boomers retiring, we're getting a lot more retirees (and who are now living a lot longer) with a lot fewer workers to support them. The system, as it is now, is unsustainable. We need large tax increases and/or some way to reduce payouts (raising the retirement age, means-testing of benefits, reducing benefits, etc).

It turns out that the living a lot longer meme is not a complete statement. The wealthy are living a lot longer. The middle income are living longer, but not near as long as the wealthy. The poor, they are not seeing any substantial growth in their life span.

WASHINGTON — New government research has found “large and growing” disparities in life expectancy for richer and poorer Americans, paralleling the growth of income inequality in the last two decades.

New York Times

[TylerSL]

Here is how I believe we solve the Fiscal Cliff:

The highest contributors to our deficit is Social Security, Medicare, and Defense spending. Obamacare will reduce medicare spending by 716 billion over the next 10 years. Obama and Panneta have worked together to reduce defense spending by 487 billion over the next 10 years. Those savings alone add up to 1.203 trillion in savings.

We wasted 150+ billion in defense spending this year because the DoD budget was 707.5 billion when they only asked for 553 billion in 2012. We need to stop giving the DoD money they do not even ask for. However, the DoD is not the entire defense budget, as the defense budget includes FBI (2.9 B), International Affairs, such as the State Dept and CIA, (63 B), Energy Dept. (21.8 B), Veterans Affairs (70 B), Homeland Security (46.9 B), NASA (8.7 B), Veterens Pentions (54.6 B), interest on previous wars (109.1-431.5 B), and Mandatory Spending (8.2 B). NASA has been cut enough over the last 10 years, nobody is going to cut Veterans Affairs or Veterans Pentions, and we have to pay interest on previous wars.

I propose that we slash Homeland Security because it has wasted millions countless times in the past by starting operations and then stopping mid way through and such. I think after gutting Homeland Security we should increase the FBI budget accordingly so they can take over all the operations of homeland security. In getting rid of Homeland Security we could increase the FBI budget and save billions.

Next is Social Security. I am a twin who grew up off of Social Security. My father died when I was 4 months old and my mother quit her job (with the intention of going back to work when me and my brother got older.) to raise me and my brother. Me and my brother recieved full Social Security benefits until we turned 18, and my mother recieved full time Social Security benefits until me and my brother turned 16, as she never went back to work. That needs to stop. If parents could work, but choose not to they should not be allowed to recieve any social security benefits. Even if the parent has a min. wage job, her children (such as me and my brother) recieve full Social Security benefits. I dont know how much that would save, but to me that is wasted money in Social Security.

I am not sure what the total spending reductions include if you take 1.203 trillion in savings discussed earlier with the slashing of Homeland Security and that waste out of Social Security, so we will call it 1.203+ trillion.

In Obama's latest Fiscal Cliff proposal, he has proposed 1.2 trillion in revenue increasing. This is something he has compromised on as he intially called for 1.6 trillion and raising tax rates for people making 250k+/year, now he is proposing 1.2 trillion in revenue and tax rate increases of people making 400k+/year. If you add that 1.2 trillion in revenue with the 1.203+ trillion in spending reductions you have 2.403+ trillion in defecit reduction over the next 10 years.

Now I agree that we should have stimulus spending in a Debt-Reduction package as long as it is paid for. Spending on wind and solar energy, science research, climate change, and infrastructure are pivatol for us if we want to succeed in the global economy. The tax increases on the wealthy would more than pay for that stimulus spending.

Obama has agreed to cut 3.4 trillion in spending over the next 10 years if you include the cuts he agreed to make in the debt ceiling debacle last summer. If you add the war savings projected due to the end of the Afghan and Iraq wars that pushes it to 4 trillion in spending reductions over the next 10 years.

Add the 4 trillion in spending reductions Obama agreed to and the savings from ending the wars to the 2.403+ trillion saved discussed earlier, that is a 6.403+ trillion dollar debt reduction package over the next 10 years.

Sources
http://www.defense.gov/releases/rele...eleaseid=15056
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2319075.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militar..._United_States
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a..._security.html

[grandsalami]

well republicans have aborted Plan B

[Longhornfan1234]

What about the ever increasing size of the labor force? Will that stagnate as more and more people are born?

You should do a little research before posting. There is not an ever increasing size of the labor force

The workforce is not growing as fast as you think it is and people retiring will outnumber new entry to the workforce sooner than you think.

I conceded a long time ago that I will never receive social security. So I plan and invest to provide for myself after retirement.

Source: http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2012/01/art3full.pdf

[Lancelot]

This was his campaign, just as rightists campaign to increase debt by giving tax breaks to the wealthy who fund their campaigns and superPACs. It's just to bad their aren't enough rich voters to impact the fiscal cliff negotiations.

Obama has no reason to negotiate on this. He should put an extension of the bush tax cuts for everyone under $250k and wait for that to pass. Do nothing until it passes, nothing. Then move on to the next item in the fiscal cliff. He holds all the cards, there is nothing stopping this path. Let John boehner have to pass just that pass or explain to America why he won't. This is the hardball Obama should be playing. Reid can deliver it in the senate

He's doing it

[papipapsmanny]

The Age of SS needs to be raised to 70. Why don't people understand that things expire in their effectiveness. People are certainly living longer now than they were in the 30s. It is only logical to do such things.

And why don't the republicans cut the crap with the top 1% of earners, that if we raise their taxes they will spend less. That is a load of ****, you think Bill Gates is going to not buy something because he got taxed more? Do you need Paris Hilton won't buy her rat dog an expensive *** diamond collar because her tax rate went up?

The answer is hell no.

And Defense needs to be lowered too, I mean what the hell, we have barely used F-22s and we now have F-35s. No one is really close to being on par with us, and honestly I don't see anyone trying to invade the U.S.

[Patsfan56]

He's doing it

You sound like the talking pig on the GEICO commercial screaming "WEE WEE WEEEEEEEE" all the way over the fiscal cliff.

Congratulations. Here's your pinwheel.

[Jester4k0]

I personally don't prefer paying into a system that I may never get to use---we could raise the number to 90, 110 years for all I care. I want my money back now and please close the system. People need to be self sufficient and responsible. I would rather make my own decisions without a safety net. I would think most would agree. Everyone is uber-educated, correct? Or, so it seems.

[Jester4k0]

I also want the cliff---the political thugs that negotiate on my behalf, as a citizen and a taxpayer, are completely inept and worthless. The populous needs to rise up and expect more from the two choices or move on and bury them (which I prefer).

[dbroncos78087]

I personally don't prefer paying into a system that I may never get to use---we could raise the number to 90, 110 years for all I care. I want my money back now and please close the system. People need to be self sufficient and responsible. I would rather make my own decisions without a safety net. I would think most would agree. Everyone is uber-educated, correct? Or, so it seems.

There is a reason why Social Security is the 4th rail of politics, because almost no one agrees with the point you are making. People would rather that there be a safety net be in place and that Social Security does not make anyone less self sufficient any more than does a savings account or 401k.

Social Security is by far (along with Medicare) in terms of the most popular government programs in the course of human history and not just the history of the United States.

[Jester4k0]

It's also just a random political bargaining chip---constantly held hostage by both parties during election cycles (probably stolen, err borrowed from, to fund politicians' pet endeavors in the past). Whatever is in there should be payed out immediately commensorate with age of the populous and those who invested in it. Young folks have plenty of time to save as they so choose. Then, no more arguments and the politicians can get back to tasks at hand.
Personally, I am done with the political scare tactics.

[stephkyle7]

geez guys, I try to be considerate of peoples opinions and not come off like a jerk, but some of you make it hard.

SS doesnt need any adjustment, it needs to be held seperately as it was meant to.
You pay into the system from the time you work to the time you retire.Your payments are based on earned credits ,which are based on your contributions.You work 50+ years paying that tax, and you collect it for what 20 years? if your lucky? how is there insolvancy In that set up?

The Government hasnt properly managed it, that is all.

Right now stimulus is needed, and wefare and UI are the most stimulative spending there is.

[Jester4k0]

^^I should probably not espouse my hypotheses while drinking,LOL. Insult to injury, I read comments from the other sites like MSN, Politico, Huff, Drudge before posting here, therefore I can be way more worked up than normal. We have some callous neighbors in our population, it seems. You guys are way more well-behaved and thoughtful on sensetive topics here. I sincerely apologize if I offended anyone. These topics are mired in misinformed rhetoric when I scan comments elsewhere.
Could we at least have our politicians audit these programs and explain to the citizens what the funding levels/obligations are? I can't seem to get a straight answer from the wolves guarding the hen house on the Hill. Plus all the data provided seems to skewed in generalities creating a narrative that fits one side or the others political message.

Some engage in scare tactics and doomsday equations to hold these popular programs hostage , IMO, for political reasons. I believe that these attitudes are counterproductive. Also, if the funds have been mismanaged for so many years, how can I believe that they won't continue their levels of managerial ineptitude in the future? When I speak on educated folks, I didn't refer to the participants here. What I want to clarify is that, HS kids are learning advanced math and science/problem solving earlier than when I was in school--which leads me to believe the young folks would be more adaptive to a new system and hopefully make logical decisions with their future in mind.

[stephkyle7]

http://www.google.com/url?q=http://w...lGgI9e5-3r-mPg

here is a great explaination.
now another imporatnt thing to understand about the debt, besides the notion of out of control Government spending is that revenue levels should grow at a steady rate based on growing populations, but when wages stagnate, and jobs are lost, then revenue starts to fall behind projections, when that happens, you have two choices, austerity(which basically brings revenues down even further) or stimulus which seeks in the short term to get the economy back on track.But to answer your question the above info is better then what i provided earlier.