Old Fashioned Conservative

[cotts135]

I proposed no cuts, just hodling current wasteful spending practices until we can catch up.
Very difficult concept to grasp.

Holding spending is not cutting.



RK

Easy, easy, easy, I misunderstood you.

The definition of a cut, at least in New York State, is when you have an annual 13% increase in spending that is grandfathered into legislation and takes effect automatically every year and you slash that by 6-7%.
http://www.silive.com/opinion/editor...dget_sham.html

[road kill]

Easy, easy, easy, I misunderstood you.

The definition of a cut, at least in New York State, is when you have an annual 13% increase in spending that is grandfathered into legislation and takes effect automatically every year and you slash that by 6-7%.
http://www.silive.com/opinion/editor...dget_sham.html

We agree here.
And that in and of itself is the BIGGEST issue we face as a nation in regard to spending!!!


stan b

[Gerry Clinchy]

I wish they would do away with it for all but the poor that are past 65. I am not smart enough to lay out a plan for them to do it. Hubby and I are not really in need of government help and I feel that a lot of people our age are in a position to buy their own medical insurance.

I think we need to get one thing clear on Medicare. In addition to what a person has paid in, which only covers hospital expenses, one must additionally pay about $100/mo (subtracted from SS check or paid for if one has not started collecting SS) for other medical expenses outside of hospital confinement.

Additionally, I pay about $130/mo. for a Medicare supplement. Prescription coverage is then also additional, which can range from $15 to $115, depending on the plan you choose. I also have additional long-term care coverage for $54/mo.

Add that up & you get $300/mo (with the low scrip coverage) ... for one person.

The reason for Medicare is that regular medical insurance will increase with age. Based on statistics (that all of us can relate to if we're over a certain age), you're more likely to get sick (and seriously sick) the older you get. Total private insurance for people over 65 would have rates through the roof, if Medicare wasn't picking up some of the first-tier expenses. M&K can probably add some #s to this.

The statistics are gloomy, but real. If you get all persons over 65 paying for coverage (which they do), some will die quickly, and some will live longer & stay relatively healthy ... and that will offset the risks of those who will have expensive, protracted illnesses.

That is the whole basis for Obamacare as well. Many with pre-existing conditions CAN get insured, but the price is astronomical. One example might be $30K/year (or some such #) for someone who has had a previous heart attack. The insurance company is betting you'll either have another one or be subject to some protracted care to prevent that. They make out if you just fall over one day ... but if you need long-term, expensive care to prevent it, they'll take a hosing.

By the time someone gets to 65, there's a good chance they'll have some kind of pre-existing condition ... which is not likely to get a whole lot better between 65 and 75. I used the word "likely" ... not impossible. It's a matter of the laws of probability. And if one condition improves, it is fairly likely that you'll have one of the other parts wear out ... survive the heart attack, then need a hip or knee replacement, or cancer care.

So, with Medicare, you have the largest group of persons with pre-existing conditions and lower incomes (generally, after retirement).

Many people believe Medicare is in trouble ... and the basic A premiums do continue to increase. And, we're told, the program is not sustainable in its present form.

Those who do not provide for a supplement or long-term care coverage, end up on Medicaid.

Essentially, Obamacare is Medicare on steroids.

There will still be premiums to be paid for insurance. Those who cannot afford the premiums or cash payment will end up in Medicaid.

[Steve Hester]

Some of us have paid in tens of thousands of dollars into Social Security and Medicare with the promise by the crooks in Washington that we will have Social Security payments in our old age. Then the crooks robbed Social Security and used the money for other things. They should be forced to leave Social Security alone. If we as a country won't take care of our old people after they have paid into this bogus fund for all of their adult life, that speaks volumes about sad state of our country. Clean up all the welfare abuse, stop paying for people to be on permanent unemployment benefits, quit paying women to have more babies and stop paying illegal immigrants' education and medical expenses.

[huntinman]

Some of us have paid in tens of thousands of dollars into Social Security and Medicare with the promise by the crooks in Washington that we will have Social Security payments in our old age. Then the crooks robbed Social Security and used the money for other things. They should be forced to leave Social Security alone. If we as a country won't take care of our old people after they have paid into this bogus fund for all of their adult life, that speaks volumes about sad state of our country. Clean up all the welfare abuse, stop paying for people to be on permanent unemployment benefits, quit paying women to have more babies and stop paying illegal immigrants' education and medical expenses.

Here, here... you hit the nail on the head.

[mjh345]

Some of us have paid in tens of thousands of dollars into Social Security and Medicare with the promise by the crooks in Washington that we will have Social Security payments in our old age. Then the crooks robbed Social Security and used the money for other things. They should be forced to leave Social Security alone. If we as a country won't take care of our old people after they have paid into this bogus fund for all of their adult life, that speaks volumes about sad state of our country. Clean up all the welfare abuse, stop paying for people to be on permanent unemployment benefits, quit paying women to have more babies and stop paying illegal immigrants' education and medical expenses.

Well said Steve!!

[M&K's Retrievers]

Some of us have paid in tens of thousands of dollars into Social Security and Medicare with the promise by the crooks in Washington that we will have Social Security payments in our old age. Then the crooks robbed Social Security and used the money for other things. They should be forced to leave Social Security alone. If we as a country won't take care of our old people after they have paid into this bogus fund for all of their adult life, that speaks volumes about sad state of our country. Clean up all the welfare abuse, stop paying for people to be on permanent unemployment benefits, quit paying women to have more babies and stop paying illegal immigrants' education and medical expenses.

There you go making sense again. What were you thinking?

[Julie R.]

Some of us have paid in tens of thousands of dollars into Social Security and Medicare with the promise by the crooks in Washington that we will have Social Security payments in our old age. Then the crooks robbed Social Security and used the money for other things. They should be forced to leave Social Security alone. If we as a country won't take care of our old people after they have paid into this bogus fund for all of their adult life, that speaks volumes about sad state of our country. Clean up all the welfare abuse, stop paying for people to be on permanent unemployment benefits, quit paying women to have more babies and stop paying illegal immigrants' education and medical expenses.

Exactly right--Social Security was designed to be self sustaining, but then again it was never meant to pay out benefits to those who didn't pay into the system.

[Jason Glavich]

So I have a question about SS for all of you then, my grandmother was a homemaker, never worked outside of taking care of a family and grandchildren. My grandfather would not allow her to work, common for the times I think. She has never even driven a car. He passed on a few years after retirement, Should she recieve SS? I am not offended either way so don't worry about that. My granfather retired from 2 jobs served in the Military(did not retire) and his companies pensions went into the tank when everyone recieved bailouts and old timers pensions and health benefits were the first to go. So he paid in a never got to use it, should she recieve it?

IMO there is alot of abuse of that money.

[ducknwork]

How about raising tariffs on imported goods? That will do a few things for us:

1. The tariffs will be an increased source of revenue for the govt. More money in your paycheck leaves you more money to pay down your debt. It is a given that imposing tariffs will increase the cost of goods purchased by US consumers, no? Yes, that is correct.If you agree with that given, then your Item 1 presumes that the govt. better knows how to spend a surplus of money than you do (i.e. a non-tariffed t-shirt that you buy is $5 and a tariffed t-shirt would cost you $6...do you want the govt. to have that extra dollar or do you want to save that extra dollar?).I see it as 6 of one and a half dozen of the other. Are they going to take that extra dollar via tariffs or are they going to eventually grow enough nuts to let the tax cuts expire? One advantage for the tariff argument is that you are not forced to pay it....unless you choose to spend your money on imported goods....so, buy American and run the Japs/Mexicans/Koreans/Chinese out of business... If the govt is getting that dollar via income tax, you have no choice but to pay it, regardless of how you spend your money. One could make respectable arguments on either side, but you can't really claim that giving that dollar to the govt. is rooted in Conservative idealology.
2. They will force the price of imported goods to rise and therefore be more comparable to domestically made products. Using my t-shirt example above, what's better...to save one $10 hour American job making t-shirts or to save thousands of Americans who buy the t-shirt a dollar?Yeah, like only one person works in a t shirt factory. But it's not really fair to talk only small goods, like t shirts...what about automobiles, appliances, techonology, etc? I honestly don't know the answer, but I would think as a country we get more economic bang for our buck with the lower priced t-shirts than proping up a job that can only be profitable via govt. interference. How are we (americans) getting ANY bang for our buck by buying a t shirt that is made in china?

3. They may provide an incentive (if they are high enough) for companies to start moving factories back to the US. Most of the lost jobs are in cheap labor industries. Link?It doesn't make any more sense for our govt. to artificially prop up, say our textile industries, than it would have been wise for the govt. to subsidize horse carriages after the arrival of the Model T. Those types of jobs are lost forever and tariffs will only make our remaining industries less competitive internationally when all the countries we slap tariffs on turn around and do the same to our goods.Don't many countries already make it very difficult for us to export goods to them? And geez, if Americans won't even buy American made washing machines because they are more expensive than Korean ones, what makes you think that Koreans would buy USA made goods over their own cheap labor?
2&3 will both increase employment in America. More employment=more consumers at the store pumping money into the economy and more tax revenue from their paychecks. Using my rebuttal of your Item 1, tariffs will suck money out of the economy Not really. It will keep money in this economy because Americans will be much more likely to BUY AMERICAN if the prices are more comparable to imported goods, therefore, keeping more AMERICANS employed, who can take their money (which now is not coming from UE benefits--ooo more money saved) and spend it on more american made goods...see the cycle?(particularly, if as you said, the govt. should use tariff revenue to be applied to the debt).Once again, they are going (or should) pay down that debt via taxes or tariffs. I'd rather they paid the debt with China's money rather than mine.

I'm not big on protectionist tariffs to subsidize non-competitive industries and as a means of revenue for the govt (at the consumer's expense).What are other ways that the govt can raise it's income rather than just lowering expenses (budget cuts)? That said, however, we shouldn't be international patsies to other country's unfair trade practices (mainly China and Japan). If one of our industries in getting screwed by another country's tariffs/unfair practices (like when Japan would let our fruit sit days at the dock waiting for inspection ((also known as rotting ))) then I think we can use tariffs as a big stick to assure fair treatment.

It has been proven that Americans don't care whether a product is made here or not. The number 1 factor in buying a product is price. With that mentality (which won't change, especially when people are unemployed and strapped for cash), how do we get people to change their mind and support domestic companies? Answer: Make the prices comparable to imported goods. So, do we do that be restricting wages of workers in this country in order to lower prices? Or do we do it by making it more expensive for China to sell their t shirts here?


In the future, what will our economy be based on when their is no manufacturing?