(6 hours ago)JimmyinSD Wrote: I agree that it isn't sustainable,  but how do you fix SS/Pensions/Retirement  for people that have worked for years counting on that as part or all of their income in their post working years?  Those are damn tough areas to focus on.   Same with other entitlements,  unfortunately we have created generations of people that have not prepared themselves to suddenly having to take care of themselves financially,  if we were to slash those expenses as some suggest I think we would see cities burn and turn into bigger crime zones than they already are as people would be come even more desperate.  There are no real easy answers,  but I've said it for years,  we all are going to need to bleed a little if this is ever going to get resolved.  Higher taxes for earners,  and incremental social program cuts, as well as belt tightening for other gov't areas like defense,  but of course they always take their budget cuts out on the working soldiers and their families and not where the cuts should likely come from.

I met a young guy running for office from my district this weekend,  we talked about a lot of areas, but one we spent time on was school lunches,  he said despite being fiscally conservative,  he did think school lunch programs should be free for all,  followed up with no kids should  go hungry.  I told him that it is very very unlikely that kids are going hungry,  most school districts have a policy that kids that dont have lunch can get a free lunch,  it might just not be what all the others are getting served.  He thought that was to shameful,  I said I agreed,  its sad that the kids get hurt,  but that schools already make countless attempts to get the parents to fill out the federal forms for free/reduced lunches,  but they often never hear back from the parents,  I told him instead of putting that burden on the already tapped education system,  how about coming up with a way to make those negligent parents legally bound to either fill out the forms or face legal troubles if they arent paying for their kids lunches. ( seems like a social services issue to me )

this will likely need to get relocated,  but since we are keeping it pretty neutral thus far it can ride,  if it turns a little to the partisan blame game its gone though. ( which it shouldnt as neither party should try and point a finger on our govt financial issues.)

(Yesterday, 07:20 PM)OhJimmyinSD Wrote: I'm betting your targeted cuts are met with a lot of opposition from those that dont think like you.  And therein lies the problem.

(4 hours ago)Waterboy Wrote: The only way we get back to fiscal sanity is to do things to change entitlements.  They eat up around 60% of our money and that is only likely to go higher.  The day that the govt was allowed to raid Social Security to fund other gimmees, we were screwed.  

The hypocrisy of many Americans is easy to see bleeding through this site.  People bragging about their vacations but then talking about how Darnold should lose money to do his job. They like to draw the line of who should pay more just comfortably enough above their own income levels so that they aren't affected.   The top 10% of earners pay roughly 75% of federal income taxes.  The top 1% pay 40%.   The top 20% pay 85%.  I would claim that is somewhat unfair proportionally already.  But, it's really fun and easy to just tax the rich, as long as you're not the one being defined as rich.  lol

The country would be much better off with the proposals I made, but I know until there's no other alternatives, that politicians will kick the can down the road and that a certain constituency of voters will actually believe taxing the shit out of the rich is the total answer. lol

(4 hours ago)Waterboy Wrote: The only way we get back to fiscal sanity is to do things to change entitlements.  They eat up around 60% of our money and that is only likely to go higher.  The day that the govt was allowed to raid Social Security to fund other gimmees, we were screwed.  

The hypocrisy of many Americans is easy to see bleeding through this site.  People bragging about their vacations but then talking about how Darnold should lose money to do his job. They like to draw the line of who should pay more just comfortably enough above their own income levels so that they aren't affected.   The top 10% of earners pay roughly 75% of federal income taxes.  The top 1% pay 40%.   The top 20% pay 85%.  I would claim that is somewhat unfair proportionally already.  But, it's really fun and easy to just tax the rich, as long as you're not the one being defined as rich.  lol

The country would be much better off with the proposals I made, but I know until there's no other alternatives, that politicians will kick the can down the road and that a certain constituency of voters will actually believe taxing the shit out of the rich is the total answer. lol

(5 hours ago)BigAl99 Wrote: Raise the contribution ceiling from 184 k to 250, and leave the funds alone.  What's been payed in has been appropriated for other uses for years, remember the whole "lockbox" kerfuffle of the 90s?