US continues to go backward...

Government spending growth has been out of control. As I mentioned earlier, if we could have frozen spending levels of just 4 years ago, we would have had a budget surplus this fiscal year. Slowing rate of spending growth has to occur.

In the net neutrality posts we spoke about government grants to subsidize telecommunications networks. Literally hundreds of billions of dollars.

I really like what the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget has put together. CRFB is a non-partisan group. Now they have some revenue increases I don’t particularly like, but there will have to be a give and take to even get close to reducing deficit growth. Their thoughts and ideas are very reasonable IMO.

CFRB boasts some impressive board members: Leon Panetta, Erskine Bowles, John Kasich, Saxby Chambliss, Alan Simpson, and Oklahoman Dave McCurdy
https://www.crfb.org/papers/crfb-fiscal-blueprint-reducing-debt-and-inflation
So maybe I'm missing something there but other than the Medicare update, delaying retirement to 68, and capping discretionary spending (which is a big one but nevessary since congress cant function at a pace thats needed) almost all of that is fees or taxes increases and some benefit reductions. There is also some pushing infrastructure and green energy investment to state from fed and speeding up leases of federal land.

Tried to group some points by how I took it.

Taxes/fees:
Enact a Broad Deficit Reduction Surtax,
Reform Individual Tax Breaks,
Reform the Corporate Tax Code,
Replace the Estate Tax,
Improve Tax Compliance (Republicans have been fighting this one tooth and nail),
Secure the Highway Trust Fund with user fees,
Reform the payroll tax to efficiently raise more revenue,
Impose or increase premiums and user fees (Fannie May and Freddie Mac)

Reduced benefits:
Reform federal worker and retiree benefits,
Count all years of work equally for calculating benefits (adds weighting to lower income years and lowers your benefit)

My thought on the Medicare section:
Entire health industry needs an overhaul and huge savings (gov and population) would come here. Hospitals should not be for-profit entities.
 
Who knew my little deficit graph would spur a nice little SS discussion?

This won't be popular but I honestly don't think anyone is wrong here. This is a pretty reasonable difference of opinion.
Part of this is that we as a country know we need this program. We also know we have screwed it up to some extent. But, mainly, we have done a really poor job defining it.

I think it comes down to, are we paying a tax, or are we paying into a program?

I was always taught the income cap was because this "tax" wasn't really a tax but more like a payment into the SS system. If you paid up to the maximum benefit, there wasn't a good reason to be forced to pay more. Essentially, you had done your part. And, while the people who paid more got a bigger benefit, their benefit wasn't equivalent to the payment they had made. (ie the benefit-to-tax ratio gets worse the more you have contributed). Therefore while it is a regressive tax because of the cap, it is a progressive benefit based on lifetime earnings.

OTOH, we have been calling this a tax not a payment. Wealthy people don't use more Medicare yet pay into it up to their total income instead of up to the maximum payment into the system. Why should SS be any different? I agree that people would not want to pay it on their entire income, but they would just adjust to it like other tax changes.

I can see both sides to that argument. I wish our leaders were adult enough to discuss it in those terms and avoid scare tactics, finger-pointing, etc.

And, as someone approaching retirement age, the last thing from a personal selfish standpoint that I want to do is have them increase the retirement age. But, again this is something that I can see both sides. After all when this program was created the age to get SS was 65 and the life expectancy was 61 years. Now, it is nearly 80. We have to decide if we want to fund a significant retirement time for everyone. If so, we just have to pay more in. But, seems people want it there for a long time, but don't want to pay for it.

OIP.9m4APL4afdy-RvrEHI9YxQHaFg.jpeg
 
So maybe I'm missing something there but other than the Medicare update, delaying retirement to 68, and capping discretionary spending (which is a big one but nevessary since congress cant function at a pace thats needed) almost all of that is fees or taxes increases and some benefit reductions. There is also some pushing infrastructure and green energy investment to state from fed and speeding up leases of federal land.

Tried to group some points by how I took it.

Taxes/fees:
Enact a Broad Deficit Reduction Surtax,
Reform Individual Tax Breaks,
Reform the Corporate Tax Code,
Replace the Estate Tax,
Improve Tax Compliance (Republicans have been fighting this one tooth and nail),
Secure the Highway Trust Fund with user fees,
Reform the payroll tax to efficiently raise more revenue,
Impose or increase premiums and user fees (Fannie May and Freddie Mac)

Reduced benefits:
Reform federal worker and retiree benefits,
Count all years of work equally for calculating benefits (adds weighting to lower income years and lowers your benefit)

My thought on the Medicare section:
Entire health industry needs an overhaul and huge savings (gov and population) would come here. Hospitals should not be for-profit entities.
Don’t forget he said he’s not in favor of the proposed fees and other revenue increasing measures in that proposition…..which is a huge cog in the proposal's machine….but whatever.
 
Last edited:
Who knew my little deficit graph would spur a nice little SS discussion?

This won't be popular but I honestly don't think anyone is wrong here. This is a pretty reasonable difference of opinion.
Part of this is that we as a country know we need this program. We also know we have screwed it up to some extent. But, mainly, we have done a really poor job defining it.

I think it comes down to, are we paying a tax, or are we paying into a program?

I was always taught the income cap was because this "tax" wasn't really a tax but more like a payment into the SS system. If you paid up to the maximum benefit, there wasn't a good reason to be forced to pay more. Essentially, you had done your part. And, while the people who paid more got a bigger benefit, their benefit wasn't equivalent to the payment they had made. (ie the benefit-to-tax ratio gets worse the more you have contributed). Therefore while it is a regressive tax because of the cap, it is a progressive benefit based on lifetime earnings.

OTOH, we have been calling this a tax not a payment. Wealthy people don't use more Medicare yet pay into it up to their total income instead of up to the maximum payment into the system. Why should SS be any different? I agree that people would not want to pay it on their entire income, but they would just adjust to it like other tax changes.

I can see both sides to that argument. I wish our leaders were adult enough to discuss it in those terms and avoid scare tactics, finger-pointing, etc.

And, as someone approaching retirement age, the last thing from a personal selfish standpoint that I want to do is have them increase the retirement age. But, again this is something that I can see both sides. After all when this program was created the age to get SS was 65 and the life expectancy was 61 years. Now, it is nearly 80. We have to decide if we want to fund a significant retirement time for everyone. If so, we just have to pay more in. But, seems people want it there for a long time, but don't want to pay for it.

View attachment 4419
As a 40 something, my retirement plan does not count on SS. I half expect it to get shuttered before I retire or to have the age pushed later than I want to work. I luckily have a job that allows me to contribute to my own retirement.

I completely agree with making it the same as Medicare, flat rate of all pay. I don't use it, but I know several who do. It's vital for a lot of people. SS shouldn't provide a generous lifestyle for 30+ years, but it should support basic needs and reduce the burden on families as parents age out of the ability to work full-time. Pretty sure that was the initial purpose.
 
So maybe I'm missing something there but other than the Medicare update, delaying retirement to 68, and capping discretionary spending (which is a big one but nevessary since congress cant function at a pace thats needed) almost all of that is fees or taxes increases and some benefit reductions. There is also some pushing infrastructure and green energy investment to state from fed and speeding up leases of federal land.

Tried to group some points by how I took it.

Taxes/fees:
Enact a Broad Deficit Reduction Surtax,
Reform Individual Tax Breaks,
Reform the Corporate Tax Code,
Replace the Estate Tax,
Improve Tax Compliance (Republicans have been fighting this one tooth and nail),
Secure the Highway Trust Fund with user fees,
Reform the payroll tax to efficiently raise more revenue,
Impose or increase premiums and user fees (Fannie May and Freddie Mac)

Reduced benefits:
Reform federal worker and retiree benefits,
Count all years of work equally for calculating benefits (adds weighting to lower income years and lowers your benefit)

My thought on the Medicare section:
Entire health industry needs an overhaul and huge savings (gov and population) would come here. Hospitals should not be for-profit entities.
You pretty much have it. The CFRB proposal is roughly 60% reforms on spending growth reductions and 40% on revenues.
* I love Improve Tax Compliance
* Not a big fan on income tax surtax, but I get it
* Love extending cuts to personal tax rates
* Love repealing SALT
* Agree with corporate tax reform (but admittedly I don’t remember specifics they have included)
 
As a 40 something, my retirement plan does not count on SS. I half expect it to get shuttered before I retire or to have the age pushed later than I want to work. I luckily have a job that allows me to contribute to my own retirement.

I completely agree with making it the same as Medicare, flat rate of all pay. I don't use it, but I know several who do. It's vital for a lot of people. SS shouldn't provide a generous lifestyle for 30+ years, but it should support basic needs and reduce the burden on families as parents age out of the ability to work full-time. Pretty sure that was the initial purpose.
While I think you are smart as a 40-something to plan your retirement without SS, I think the chance of the program being shuttered within the next 3 decades is close to nil. Raised age and benefit cuts maybe, but not shuttered.

Of course, if you could search the old OrangePower I'm pretty sure you will find multiple quotes of me saying that Rs don't want Roe v Wade to go away as they like it as political fodder. So that should give you a guesstimate of the value of one of my government policy predictions. :D
 
How would Republican legislators like it if their teen-age children didn't get lunch? Or would that be just fine with them? It would somehow build stronger character.

Republicans appear to be doing a good job of giving in to corporate interests and their well moneyed lobbyists to give them freedom to treat workers like crap as much as they can legally. If you don't like how your crappy corporate boss is treating you, then no problem, just look for another job. But good luck with that. Supporters of what Republicans are doing to cut worker rights will say that if you value your job, you will agree with what corporate interests want, along with their Republican legislative sponsors.

Meanwhile, Republican Attorney Generals are being paid by the corporate agenda to dirty the Clean Air Act. One of the worst rulings the Supreme Court gave this century was allowing corporations to give to political campaigns.

Of course, Oklahoma is also subject to Republicans wanting to take bribes and slave to the corporate agenda. They are trying to get through a bill to let poultry companies evade water quality rules and responsibilities. Even former Gov. Keating and former AG Edmondson have expressed opposition to it. So, if you value your job at the chicken plant, you will support this bill and don't complain about the crappy drinking water.

 
Last edited:
How would Republican legislators like it if their teen-age children didn't get lunch? Or would that be just fine with them? It would somehow build stronger character.

Republicans appear to be doing a good job of giving in to corporate interests and their well moneyed lobbyists to give them freedom to treat workers like crap as much as they can legally. If you don't like how your crappy corporate boss is treating you, then no problem, just look for another job. But good luck with that. Supporters of what Republicans are doing to cut worker rights will say that if you value your job, you will agree with what corporate interests want, along with their Republican legislative sponsors.

Meanwhile, Republican Attorney Generals are being paid by the corporate agenda to dirty the Clean Air Act. One of the worst rulings the Supreme Court gave this century was allowing corporations to give to political campaigns.

Of course, Oklahoma is also subject to Republicans wanting to take bribes and slave to the corporate agenda. They are trying to get through a bill to let poultry companies evade water quality rules and responsibilities. Even former Gov. Keating and former AG Edmondson have expressed opposition to it. So, if you value your job at the chicken plant, you will support this bill and don't complain about the crappy drinking water.

If you don't want to deal with less protections, no pay increases and worse working conditions, it just means you don't want to work. It's your fault.

MAGA keeps talking about wanting to make America great again and take it back to its hay day. I can't figure out what timeframe that is.

Sounds like before the 50s with the abortion stance and pushing back on civil progress but the tax approach doesn't support that.

The push against EPA - cutting regulations so industry can prosper, blah blah blah- is going to bring us to the 60s with burning rivers and smog everywhere... woohoo leaded gas again.

The push against worker protections stuff makes it seem like the pre 1900 when you got pennies for work, had to start working full-time at age 6, had no protections or support when you were inevitably hurt at work, and they pushed back against unionizing.

Its the worst of every time period. I can't believe the illegals are making this happen to everyone.

Yes there's tons of sarcasm throughout.
 

Turning Point USA National Campaign Unit Turning, Point Action (which pushes 2020 stolen election lie) Senior Director resigns and ends his re-election bid after accusation of election related fraud. Forging voter signatures on official election paperwork in order to qualify to run for re-election in Arizona House.


PHOENIX — A top leader of the national conservative group Turning Point Action, which has amplified false claims of election fraud by former president Donald Trump and others, resigned Thursday after being accused of forging voter signatures on official paperwork so that he could run for reelection in the Arizona House.


State Rep. Austin Smith (R) — who was senior director at Turning Point Action, the campaign arm of Charlie Kirk’s Turning Point USA — was accused by a Democratic activist of submitting petition sheets with rows of voter names, addresses and signatures that “bear a striking resemblance” to Smith’s handwriting, according to a complaint. Smith “personally circulated multiple petition sheets bearing what appear to be forged voter signatures,” the complaint said.

The complaint was sent to the Arizona secretary of state, who forwarded it to the Arizona attorney general for review. State election officials do not assess the veracity of allegations made against candidates. A spokesperson for the state prosecutor’s office, which runs a team that focuses on claims of voter and election fraud after widespread claims following the 2020 election, declined to comment. Both state offices are overseen by Democrats.


Smith submitted his resignation to Turning Point Action on Thursday, according to a person familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk about it publicly. Smith also publicly ended his reelection campaign.

Smith did not respond to a request for comment.

In a statement, the first-term lawmaker said the allegations against him were “silly” and part of a “coordinated attack” by Democrats and “those unhappy with my politics.”

Smith is aligned with some of the most conservative members of the Arizona House — sometimes referred to as the “Freedom Caucus” of the larger Republican caucus — and he has previously derided signature-verification work by local election officials as “a joke.”

During his time with Turning Point Action, Smith worked to support the candidacies of conservatives who spread false information about elections. At a rally in Washington on Jan. 5, 2021, Smith tweeted a photo of himself speaking to “thousands of patriots.” In that since-deleted tweet, he urged followers “Don’t get comfortable” and to “fight like hell.” The next day, as Congress met to certify the 2020 election results, the U.S. Capitol came under attack.


Smith said the prospect of costly and public fallout from the allegations shaped his decision to drop out of the race.

“The recommendation I received most was that I bow out and live to fight another day,” Smith said in a statement posted on X, formerly known as Twitter. “I might be confident of victory, but all it would take is a judge believing any one person, and all would be lost. … To be better protected in the future, if and when I run again for something, I’ll rely exclusively on the online signature system, and eliminate paper petitions from my campaign. Then no one can make up any stories.”

The complaint alleged that Smith submitted multiple pages with dozens of forged signatures that he claimed to have collected, and it contained images of two of those pages.

Smith’s withdrawal drew immediate reaction from members of his own party, some of whom faced death threats and harassment for upholding the will of voters — and Republican losses — during the 2020 and 2022 elections.


Maricopa County Supervisor Clint Hickman (R), who lives in Smith’s district west of Phoenix, cast Smith as a hypocrite. Hickman rejected attempts by Trump to talk to him in the weeks after the then-president narrowly lost the 2020 election. Hickman has faced death threats, threats against his family and protests at his home. On Thursday, he called on Smith to resign from office.

“This is a man who has lied to the people of Legislative District 29 and the entire state about our election operations for at least three years,” Hickman said in a statement. “And now he is accused of lying about the signatures he personally collected to get on the ballot again. An investigation will reveal the truth.”
 
As a 40 something, my retirement plan does not count on SS. I half expect it to get shuttered before I retire or to have the age pushed later than I want to work. I luckily have a job that allows me to contribute to my own retirement.

I completely agree with making it the same as Medicare, flat rate of all pay. I don't use it, but I know several who do. It's vital for a lot of people. SS shouldn't provide a generous lifestyle for 30+ years, but it should support basic needs and reduce the burden on families as parents age out of the ability to work full-time. Pretty sure that was the initial purpose.
Sounds like you have a good plan. Put back as much as you can and live below your means.

I started in my early 20’s. Put about 1/3 of salary away in investments. Never traded up in houses and built equity. Drove the wheels off one car. Worked for a great company in a great industry at a very fortunate time. Retired in my early 40’s and wouldn’t trade a day of my retirement for anything. Get to spend every day w my best friend and travel to see the kids whenever we want.

Do research on early retiring or just retiring below your means. There are all kinds of vehicles out there that don’t get talked about. Rule 72T is a great one. There are also annuities that can be accessed early without penalty.

I for one never counted on SS as a part of my retirement. That said I don’t see any way SS goes away or they cut benefits. SS payments represent over 6% of the US economy. You can’t snap your fingers and take that out of the economy without major consequences. Even if you cut that by half or a quarter it would be devastating. Not to mention the tax consequences to the feds. There are also forecasts of 65+ US population increasing by almost 50% between now and 2050.

72% of US companies offer some sort of 401k match. 75% of Xers/millenials participate. Only 47% of Zers do but they are just getting started. Fewer than 15% of companies offer traditional pension plans and according to some that # will shrink. There is also a pullback in some sectors on how much a company matches.

So

1) more people retirement age
2) fewer $ going into personal retirement vehicles
3) fewer trad pension plans
4) SS isolvemcy and health care issues
5) Fewer immigrants if one party gets its way
6) more deportations

How do you solve?

It’s laughable that people think that raising the age of SS is not an attempt by conservative think tanks who are funded by billionaires dependent upon the service economy to force seniors back into the work force. You have to have bodies and they will come from the margins. Kids and olds.

You are already seeing it on the young end as state after state proposes and passes insane legislation. Next stop. Raising the SS age.
 
As a 40 something, my retirement plan does not count on SS. I half expect it to get shuttered before I retire or to have the age pushed later than I want to work. I luckily have a job that allows me to contribute to my own retirement.

I completely agree with making it the same as Medicare, flat rate of all pay. I don't use it, but I know several who do. It's vital for a lot of people. SS shouldn't provide a generous lifestyle for 30+ years, but it should support basic needs and reduce the burden on families as parents age out of the ability to work full-time. Pretty sure that was the initial purpose.
As a 60 something (and the youngest of 6) that is taking SS early I don't see the program getting shuttered. All my siblings were telling me how to handle my benefits. When I look into their comments I see changes for people born before 1947, 1949, 1955 and 1960. What sucks is a lot of these closed up certain "loopholes" for lack of a better word but who ever was benefiting from those loopholes were grandfathered in. I expect that kind of thing to continue with social security limping along to that tune.

Edit: I also did not plan my retirement in expectation of SS being a major factor.
 
Last edited:
As a 60 something (and the youngest of 6) that is taking SS early I don't see the program getting shuttered. All my siblings were telling me how to handle my benefits. When I look into their comments I see changes for people born before 1947, 1949, 1955 and 1960. What sucks is a lot of these closed up certain "loopholes" for lack of a better word but who ever was benefiting from those loopholes were grandfathered in. I expect that kind of thing to continue with social security limping along to that tune.

Edit: I also did not plan my retirement in expectation of SS being a major factor.

Yep. My MIL has turned MAGA and is constantly complaining about paying taxes, get government out of our lives, etc.

But, she is retired living mostly on her husband's retirement from Tinker. As a current federal worker, If I were to get the retirement plan that he got my benefits would nearly double. Somehow she can't put all that together.
 
Last edited:
Yep. My MIL has turned MAGA and is constantly complaining about paying taxes, get government out of our lives, etc.

But, she is retired living mostly on her husband's retirement from Tinker. As a current federal worker, If I were to get the retirement plan that he got my benefits would nearly double. Somehow she can't put all that together.
From what I’ve observed, once a relative or friend goes MAGA reasoning is futile. When my late FIL would start up with his Fox News propaganda, I’d say to him I love and respect you too but much to tell you how wrong you are, then say bye and leave. He finally quit promoting that garbage to me before he died. His Tinker retirement package was better than Teachers Retirement.
 
Last edited:
As a 60 something (and the youngest of 6) that is taking SS early I don't see the program getting shuttered. All my siblings were telling me how to handle my benefits. When I look into their comments I see changes for people born before 1947, 1949, 1955 and 1960. What sucks is a lot of these closed up certain "loopholes" for lack of a better word but who ever was benefiting from those loopholes were grandfathered in. I expect that kind of thing to continue with social security limping along to that tune.

Edit: I also did not plan my retirement in expectation of SS being a major factor.
No wonder you drink.

Not factoring SS into our retirement either.
 
I really hope there's nothing but small adjustments to SS, but I've been hearing about the need to raise the age, and cut benefits my entire adult life. When you hear that stuff for so long, you tend to decide to never count on it.

It would be hugely stupid to kill it, but not much surprises me any more. Never thought Roe would end or the craziness since then would happen either.
 
Back
Top