A. Pelletier: Obama's plan is better

Well, the Republicans finally came up with a proposal for the "fiscal cliff" calamity. It is now very clear how they want to hit the entitlement programs rather then increase revenues by reinstating the Clinton era tax structure and reducing military spending.

They propose $600 billion in health savings, including Medicare reform. (Pay into Medicare all your life and enjoy the program when you are 80.)

They propose $600 billion in overall spending cuts. (But not a clue about what is being cut.)

They propose to save $200 billion by revising the Consumer Price Index — a new way to stop any increases in Social Security payments and raise the age requirements once again.

There has to be a better way to dig the nation out of the Bush-induced mess other than attacking Medicare and Social Security, all the while providing no explanation of "overall spending cuts."

The majority of voters supported President Obama and his plan. Republicans better realize his plan is better than anything they have come up with that makes any sense, unless a person is making more than $250,000 a year.

The next election is two years away for most of them.

Al Pelletier, Norway

What do you think of this story?

Login to post comments

Our policy prohibits comments that are:

  • Defamatory, abusive, obscene, racist, or otherwise hateful
  • Excessively foul and/or vulgar
  • Inappropriately sexual
  • Baseless personal attacks or otherwise threatening
  • Contain illegal material, or material that infringes on the rights of others
  • Commercial postings attempting to sell a product/item
If you violate this policy, your comment will be removed and your account may be banned from posting comments.

Advertisement

Comments

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Al, Let’s examine some facts,

Al,
Let’s examine some facts, shall we.

1. According to the Urban Institute, the average American will receive approximately $192,000 more Medicare benefits than they contributed to in a lifetime. Hence, one of the two main sources of unfunded liabilities that Americans keep hearing about. Medicare must be changed.

2. The debt hole has been dug and is being dug by many presidents, including Bush and including the current president. Thus far, Obama holds the record in debt spending just in his first term.

3. The Obama plan is not better than the republican plan for the following reasons:
a. Both plans are relatively neutral in terms of budgetary impact – about $800 Billion over the decade. However, the Obama plan includes about $ 53 Billion in new stimulus spending, so the republicans win the net argument here.
b. The republican plan starts to address continued growth in government spending by adjusting the CPI and starting to address the unfunded liabilities in Medicare. Obama’s plan does not.

Lastly, let me say that neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are serious about any real changes in spending that MUST occur to bring this nation on solid finical footing. We are likely to exit Obama’s second term with over $20 Trillion dollars in debt.

Why does Medicare need to be changed ...again?

Yes. I agree. Medicare does need to be changed.

It needs to be "increased".

It needs to be available to "everyone" from cradle to grave, so to speak...and not just to the elderly.

And, of course, the rich must pay for it.

It has nothing to do with "budgetary impacts" ...and $800 billion is, relatively, a cheap bargain for ten years of health care that is still insufficient for ALL Americans.

Americans are, indeed, serious about changes in spending ...they're not going to spend or exempt from taxation any longer on the rich 1 or 2 percent. Their welfare spree is over...and this includes their Mormon infested CIA, NSA, DIA, FBI, GE, Bechtel, Northrup, Boeing and their precious, private bank cartel... the misnamed "federal reserve" ponzi schemers.

Now. That represents, literally, trillions opon trillions in spending cuts ....ya think?

You don't have to answer that.

The Urban Institute may be right ...but it doesn't matter. They'll be even more right once our President ...our Robinhood ...finishes his redistribution work.

Signed:

Republican for Obama

MARK GRAVEL's picture

I think someone watches too

I think someone watches too much TV!

First, ACA is projected to cost $1.7 Trillion over a decade according to the last CBO report I read. About 2x the original estimate.

Second, like the fancy Robinhood, your Robinhood will have to resort to holding citizens at gunpoint to extract its booty metaphorically speaking.

Your line of thinking is not new and has failed many times before. Why? The answer is that people change behavior; that is, they will not sit there and take it.

In closing, good luck and keep dreaming. Perhaps a bit of hard work is will get you ahead faster than your Robinhood fantasies. One more dimension to this issue is to consider what happens when you drive all the wealth creators away? You are certainly not a wealth creator, so who will take their places to fund your fantasy land – who?

Answer – no one.

The People have voted already ...for Obamacare ...at any cost!

Spending cuts do not benefit the needy.

Tax increases on the wealthy does ...and for 98 percent of Americans.

All wealth is "owned" by the 98 percenters ..too.

The 98 percenters aren't "serfs" and beholden to "owners". Give your head a shake, man.

You ain't never heard of a "windfall profits tax"?

Big business has, and they know its a comin... fur sure. Call it any name you want. The welfare fund has run dry for 'em. You know it and the rest of us do, too.

...and it's sound American policy (and, eventually, the law) ...as determined by our recent election results....and the election of 2014 will clean out the rest of the hold-outs, Bohner and McConnell included.

Imagine the savings once corporate welfare and bankster ponzi schemes like fractional reserve banking is ended over these next months (hopefully). It'll be in the trillions ...and more than sufficient to pay for Medicare for all.

The next stimulus should be one that pays off everyone's mortgages, loans and credit card debts ...and nothing else. Send it straight to the People.

Then, eliminate the federal reserve and borrow money, at 1 percent or less interest (at cost of printing and distributing nationalized dollars), directly from our own government.

Yes. Eliminate the middle banksters like Barclay's, the Bank of England and their puppet banks here like Chase, Citibank, J.P. Morgan, ex-Lehman Brothers, the Rockafeller fundsters and gag order that liar Greenspan and his Goldman Sach's stepchildren ...Bernachi, et. al.

Eliminate, even, the banks on the corner who do business with these fraudster ripoffs ...pen 'em all up with their fellow Madoff, Abramoff (Oh...they released him recently and...he's sqealing like a pig now ...or ratting everyone else out now) and Scooter Libby and company.

Dig Nixon up and drag him into the bunch just to tone down the ambiance, even.

So. With the ending of corporate and federal reserve welfare and fractional reserve ponzi schemes, that would create huge wealth contrary to your allegation that I am not a wealth creator.

In answer to your question as to whom would take their place? The answer is, we will...the People of the United States of America ...and we have.

While we're talking wealth increase. Let's eliminate the border between us and Mexico and the rest of the Americas to our south. That would also save trillions and increase our security and human resources exponentially, which is what every Republican businessman wants. Right?

Canada? Let's just buy it.

Give each Canadian a million dollars and they'll sell in a heart beat ... (i.e. 3 trillion ...peanuts)...

Ask any Canadian. There's an American just dying to get out of every one of 'em.

Ship the resisters, if any, back to 10 Downing Street....

Another Seward's Folly you might say ....

A good buy, says I.

...and that'll end the Maine and Canadian wood and fish subsidy issue once and for all...and in our favor. Won't it?

With an increased South and North American labor pool, we'll have no problem harvesting those trees, fish and tar sands from a post-Canadian landscape for our own and international markets. Would we?

MARK GRAVEL's picture

You are correct. Spending

You are correct. Spending cuts do not benefit the greedy.

"Windfall Profits Tax" today!

We just need to "claw back" the Reagan / Bush / Bohner giveaways to the rich, which have increased the past 25 years and crashed with G.W.'s giveaway of billions and trillions to the Iraq / Afghanistan bankster and military industrial complex war profiteers (i.e. welfare recipients).

These giveaways ....this windfall profit ... over the past 25 years or so and the present 16 trillion in "stimulus" and so-called fiat "debt" can be "nationalized", without tax increases to the 98 percent, and wiped clean and, on top of that, still have a robust "Windfall Profits Tax" as a, sort of, penalty for aggravated damages caused by the rich, 1 percenter's, against the common American voter who earn "less than" $250,000 for their carrying out of war threats and bilking the American treasury and attempting to bilk the American voter for more in this week's "offer" from that loser, Speaker Bohner.

That guy is surely on his way out in 2014, if not before.

The People have voted already ...for Obamacare ...at any cost!

Spending cuts do not benefit the needy.

Tax increases on the wealthy does ...and for 98 percent of Americans.

All wealth is "owned" by the 98 percenters ..too.

The 98 percenters aren't "serfs" and beholden to "owners". Give your head a shake, man.

You ain't never heard of a "windfall profits tax"?

Big business has, and they know its a comin... fur sure. Call it any name you want. The welfare fund has run dry for 'em. You know it and the rest of us do, too.

...and it's sound American policy (and, eventually, the law) ...as determined by our recent election results....and the election of 2014 will clean out the rest of the hold-outs, Bohner and McConnell included.

Imagine the savings once corporate welfare and bankster ponzi schemes like fractional reserve banking is ended over these next months (hopefully). It'll be in the trillions ...and more than sufficient to pay for Medicare for all.

The next stimulus should be one that pays off everyone's mortgages, loans and credit card debts ...and nothing else. Send it straight to the People.

Then, eliminate the federal reserve and borrow money, at 1 percent or less interest (at cost of printing and distributing nationalized dollars), directly from our own government.

Yes. Eliminate the middle banksters like Barclay's, the Bank of England and their puppet banks here like Chase, Citibank, J.P. Morgan, ex-Lehman Brothers, the Rockafeller fundsters and gag order that liar Greenspan and his Goldman Sach's stepchildren ...Bernachi, et. al.

Eliminate, even, the banks on the corner who do business with these fraudster ripoffs ...pen 'em all up with their fellow Madoff, Abramoff (Oh...they released him recently and...he's sqealing like a pig now ...or ratting everyone else out now) and Scooter Libby and company.

Dig Nixon up and drag him into the bunch just to tone down the ambiance, even.

So. With the ending of corporate and federal reserve welfare and fractional reserve ponzi schemes, that would create huge wealth contrary to your allegation that I am not a wealth creator.

In answer to your question as to whom would take their place? The answer is, we will...the People of the United States of America ...and we have.

Eliminate the border between us and Mexico and the rest of America to our south. That would also save trillions and increase our security and population exponentially.

Canada? Let's just buy it.

Give each Canadian a million dollars and they'll sell in a heart beat ... (i.e. 3 trillion ...peanuts)...

Ask any Canadian. There's an American just dying to get out of everyone of 'em.

Ship the resisters back to 10 Downing Street.... another Seward's Folly you might say .... a good buy, says I.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

California dreaming on such a

California dreaming on such a winter’s day.

Tell the readers that if you are so brilliant, why are you on the bottom? Answer is not brilliant.

Still sounds like the only way you can get ahead is to threaten and steal from others.

Threats and stealing? Hah... that would be bank behavior. Right?

Like I said, get rid of the middle banksters and get our dough directly from our own federal government.

No-fault insurance too....at cost.... with caps ...just like Medicare, but for everyone.

Having stopped the ponzi, fractional reserve schemers and their insurance industry stepchildren, we go after the Halliburton's and their ilk... No more $600 hammers. No more private, corporate mercenary assassins running around the desert illegally killing human beings for corporate profit. In short, no more war for profit. Time to devolve, Mark. Time to give back what we stole. Time to make and, therefore, bring peace to the world....(i.e. caring and true world leadership).

You trying to be brilliant, Mark?

I hadn't thought about it.

On the "bottom"?

Interesting meaphor. Makes me think about what you're thinking.

And, I'm thinking that you're a guy that "needs" to be "on top". You've probably bought in ...totally... to the republican / corporate delusion of "might makes right" ...and "war for profits always was and will always be alright!".

It's illegal. The majority of the world ...(99 percent) ...oppose it. And, the other 1 percent probably think you're "on the bottom" and are a "threat" to them.

I am an American voter. That means I am on "the top" and big government, industry and corporate educators have and will always consider me a "threat", because they know I have, with my vote, already "fired" them ...and, in my view, they should get no "golden parachute", no "get out of jail free card" and they go, following a fair trial, straight to jail or to obtain necessary medical care for their dangerous, delusional thinking.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Two questions, Al. 1.If you

Two questions, Al.
1.If you were still a U.S. Sailor, would you as much in favor of cuts to the Military budget as you are now?
2. In what year will oBAMa' s failures cease to be Bush's fault?

A true leader would find a way to reach across the aisle to find common ground with a less than friendly congress rather than to continuously piss and whine about their constant bellicosity. He ran for his first term as a 'uniter'. He has proven himself to be anything but. Our country hasn't been more divided since the Civil War. It's time he gets called out for his own failures, but none of the liberals are doing it. He's about to begin his second term. When does he get to own the crap he's created?

AL PELLETIER's picture

All good points you guys.

But Paul and Mark, if I was still in Vietnam you bet your asses I would want cuts in military spending. Back then and to this day I don't believe in wars that accomplish nothing, but if they do, are of no major importance to our national interests.
We pour billions and billions of our tax dollars in buying the friendship of countries that would just as soon slit our throats as spend our money. Pakistan for example, a country that hid Osama from us, gets millions in military aid from us. These are the kind of military cuts I'm talking about. Denying our troops the support, medical care and benefits they so deserve is not.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Fair enough. Except for

Fair enough.
Except for Israel, U.S. foreign aid should be abolished atltogether.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Paul, Let me speculate an

Paul,
Let me speculate an answer to question 1 for Al. Absolutely, not.

Not that there is anything wrong with Al’s position. It is human nature to vote in one’s self-interest. That is why Al would rather have military cuts over Medicare cuts; his self-interest has changed his position over the years.

Given the gravity of your National debt, I say cut the Military, Medicare, and other programs to reduce the deficit by 25% each year over the next 4 years. Here is your challenge President.

Cut the military....Yes. ...Not medicare...

Speaking as a veteran, we have moved beyond the time, as our President rightly pointed out, when our security was assured with the use of swordsmen on horseback or millions of infantry with bayonettes. We now have those things called "submarines", which are ships that go underwater.

Geez. I loved that line when the President said it to Rmoney during the October 16th debate.

The costs ...the costs of maintaining millions of soldiers in arms and at the ready is huge and, if significantly scaled back, it would provide a huge yearly cost savings, which could be transferred over to add to tax increases for the 2 percent that make more than $250,000 to pay for everything else.

Then, increase the minimum wage to $10, across the board. While, at the same time, order a price and profits freeze, simultaneously. Such a minimum wage increase with a consequent price freeze would stimulate the economy by correcting a huge imbalance between wages and profits, and providing purchasing power to Americans while maintaining a reduced, but moderate, profit margin for existing property / business owners...employers.

In my view, that'd just about amount to a robust beginning to our national healing.

The good news is that Bohner seems to be weaning himself from some of his republican addiction to all things corporate, according to recent press reports, where he is said to be willing to go along with increases in taxation of the wealthy, provided there are "spending" reductions (i.e. reductions to "entitlements", which, he must fully realize, will defined as cutting corporate welfare to the military industrial complex without scratching Medicare or Social Security).

In fact, his position is all about taking extreme, unrealistic positions as his response to the inevitable minimum wage increase and the lowering of the age of eligibility for Medicare health care coverage for all Americans to zero.

Keynes would be proud of us.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Two comments. 1. Who will

Two comments.

1. Who will protect you if your governemnt cannot, or your government is the enemy?
2. Price fixing never works.

Review your history on both accounts.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Those "ships that go

Those "ships that go underwater:" really got it done in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I believe Nixon tried wage and price freezes. Don't think they worked too well.
If I owned a business, I'd shut the doors and go on welfare myself before paying $10 bucks an hour to an individual whose IQ on a hot summer day wouldn't match room temperature, keeping in mind that the air conditioner would be on.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

The old soviet union was a

The old soviet union was a master at wage and price freezes. Well, we all know how at worked out don't we!

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Yup, we caused it because we

Yup, we caused it because we had the right president in office.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Are you saying that we have

Are you saying that we have the right president in office to retry fail policies of past government intervention?

Price controls in the old soviet union produced what? Answer - empty store shelves. Funny how people tend to forget and think the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence when all that you'll find is more fertilizer (i.e. S**t).

Better living through smaller government.

Cheers

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Well stated... Cheers to you

Well stated...
Cheers to you as well, my friend.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

The parrot sez he's more

The parrot sez he's more likely to INCREASE the National debt by 25% each year over the next 4 years.

Zack Lenhert's picture

Most serious economists

Most serious economists acknowledge that a financial collapse of the magnitude suffered in 2008 would take more than four years to recover from regardless of who was sitting in the oval office. see: "rest of world"

The entire global economy suffered. Take a look at which countries are recovering slower than others and having double-dip recessions... those that have proposed austerity measures. From the New Yorker-

"In making his annual Autumn Statement to the House of Commons on Wednesday, George Osborne, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was forced to admit that his government has failed to meet a series of targets it set for itself back in June of 2010, when it slashed the budgets of various government departments by up to thirty per cent.....

....Having adopted the policies of Keynes in response to a calamitous recession, the United States has grown more than twice as fast during the past three years as Britain, which adopted the economics of Hoover (and Paul Ryan). Meanwhile, the gaping hole in the two countries’ budgets has declined at roughly the same rate, and next year the U.S. will be in better fiscal shape than its old ally."

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/12/austerity-economic...

So the question begs asking... how do you propose the US reduce its deficit? Severe budget cuts as republicans propose? or small tax increases on the wealthy, smaller spending cuts, and a bit of stimulus, as proposed by the White House?

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

That's up to oBAMa to decide,

That's up to oBAMa to decide, and he ain't gettin' it done. What if he doesn't right the economy in his second term? Still Bush's fault because of its magnitude, or are you guys just going to hand him a third term? Oh, yeah, it can be done.
Then, WWII must've been Roosevelt's fault for having had the country so ill prepared for the Japanese attack which we had been warned was coming.
Moreover, Truman must be responsible for the deaths of all those innocent civilians who were killed when the A bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Someone has to own something. When does oBAMa's turn come?

Zack Lenhert's picture

What is the GO(T)P gonna

What is the GO(T)P gonna complain about WHEN the economy comes back?... my bet is they stop referring to it as "oBAMa's" economy and pivot to saying presidents don't have much effect on the economy.

When does LaPage start owning Maine's budget shortfall?

"or are you guys just going to hand him a third term? Oh, yeah, it can be done." - your just straight crazy with this assertion. Want to bet $10,000 Obama doesn't seek a third term?

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

I'd bet $10 grand you

I'd bet $10 grand you couldn't come up with much more than $4200.
oBAMa not attempting a third term? Just watch him.

Zack Lenhert's picture

Put your money where your

Put your money where your mouth is then... If YOU can only can only come up with $4200 I'll settle for that.

The bet will be "Does Obama seek a third term."

Where do you come up with these conspiracy theories?...and who's dumb enough to actually believe them?

You plutocratic puppeteers really have got you in a frenzy, haven't they?

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

This is the first time I've

This is the first time I've ever been approached by a faceless person whom I don't even know, looking for a $4200 handout. What's this country coming to? What do I do? Drop the money off in a brown paper bag, nothing bigger than a 20, in a dark place (TBA) on a dark and stormy night?

Zack Lenhert's picture

You're right about one

You're right about one thing... betting you any amount of money that the president would seek a third term would like taking a "handout". Pretty much free money.

Keep changing the subject to the money though and don't address your ridiculous assertion that Obama will seek a third term.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

And if I do?.....

And if I do?.....

Zack Lenhert's picture

...you'll continue to look

...you'll continue to look like an intellectual light weight.

What evidence do you have of Obama seeking a third term? Its just scare tactics to get grandma to vote republican, and it's working on you!

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Man, you're really a smart

Man, you're really a smart one, aren't you? I'll bet if you knew half as much as you think you know, you'd know twice as much as you really know. And, you're a wise ass and a smart ass to boot. I find you rude and offensive and not nearly as informed as you consider yourself to be. Do us both a favor; if you don't like what I post, ignore it and move on. Otherwise, grow some manners.

Zack Lenhert's picture

Wasn't trying to be rude, I

Wasn't trying to be rude, I was a bit frustrated that you refuse to offer any evidence to back up your assertion that Obama is seeking a third term and continue to dodge the question. The "bet" was an attempt at mocking Romney's $10k bet to Perry. Which, if I'm considered rude, was just as rude of you to "bet" that I couldn't come up with $10k. A failed joke on my part I guess.

"if you don't like what I post, ignore it and move on".... that's not really the point of the comments section.

I apologize in advance, if you continue to make unsubstantiated claims I will continue calling you on it and I would expect the same from you.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Fair enough. For what it's

Fair enough.
For what it's worth, there is no evidence (yet) to back up my assertion that obama is/will seek a third term. It was an opinion based on my frustration and dislike for the man. I do believe opinions are allowed here. I firmly believe he will attempt it. It may not happen, but believing something and not having it happen are not illegal (yet).
Your $10K bet mocking romney, though humorous, went over my head, I guess. I probably should not have thrown the $4200 comment out there, either. That was inflammatory at best.
No harm, no foul, o.k.?

Zack Lenhert's picture

Fair enough... I really do

Fair enough...

I really do enjoy "sparring" with others that have differing opinions. I try my to keep it from getting personal but am only human and realize I can get snarky at times. I look forward to having other debates with you and will do my best to keep it civil.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Sounds like a plan; sign me

Sounds like a plan; sign me up.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

When have you heard LePage

When have you heard LePage complain and whine about the shortfall Baldacci left him? (Crickets, please.)

Zack Lenhert's picture

I seem to remember LePage

I seem to remember LePage complaining that Baldacci had expanded medicare (MaineCare) further than was required by the Federal government, creating a budget shortfall.

"LePage has complained, in part, that the former administration helped create a budget shortfall by insuring too many people."

http://www.sunjournal.com/news/state/2011/12/15/baldacci-staffer-lepage-...

I don't hear any crickets.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Hold your breath; they're

Hold your breath; they're coming.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

My prediction is that Obama

My prediction is that Obama will exit his second term with another $4-6T in new debt.

RONALD RIML's picture

My prediction is Grover Gravel will eschew any Tax Increase

.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

I retract that last

I retract that last statement. Please continue to refer to me as America’s Mr. Right; that is good enough.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

"Would that be right as in

"Would that be right as in correct? Or is it right as in the opposite of left?" inquired the inquisitive nit-picking parrot.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

As in correct.

As in correct.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

I would prefer you address me

I would prefer you address me as President Gravel; it Christmas, be generous (aka don’t be greedy)

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Any tax increase is hard to

Any tax increase is hard to eschew and much tougher to swallow. 0O:-)

MARK GRAVEL's picture

In Ronald’s world, tax

In Ronald’s world, tax increases are only for the rich and administered rectally.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Interesting point of

Interesting point of view....0O:-)

 's picture

When does oBAMa's turn come?

Inauguration Day 1/17, although he'll still be kicking and screaming.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

That's if he doesn't figure

That's if he doesn't figure out a way to become the first president since Roosevelt to serve a third term. Everything else he's done has been unprecedented; why not this?

Zack Lenhert's picture

What are your feelings on Jan

What are your feelings on Jan Brewer seeking a third term?

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-12-13/arizona-s-brewer-may-challen...

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

If the state constitution

If the state constitution says it can't be done, then she can't do it. I don't believe she can pass an executive order and award herself the right to do it. obama, on the other hand does have executive power to declare a state of national emergency and somehow, I believe, declare himself president for a third term in order to save the country. I further believe that those who elected him for a second term would be o.k. with it. Disclosure: The above are merely opinions and may or may not necessarily be supported by fact.

Zack Lenhert's picture

haha... thanks for the

haha... thanks for the disclosure.

I believe we're still technically in a state of emergency...

from wiki -

"President Barack Obama extended George Bush's Declaration of Emergency regarding terrorism on September 10, 2009, on September 10, 2010, on September 9, 2011, and on September 11, 2012"

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Unless the North Koreans get

Unless the North Koreans get us first, I believe that 4 years from now, the existing emergency regarding terrorism may prove to be among the least of our concerns. George Will once said that the value of well placed pessimism is not to be understated. If you are correct, you will be looked upon as a man of vision. If you are wrong, something good will have happened. Win win?

FRANK EARLEY's picture

Its only a matter of time.....

Its only a matter of time, until Republicans start to realize, that using the same old, lame proposals, the same ones that lost them the election, has to stop. Social Security should not even be considered in the mix. It has no impact on the deficit whatsoever. It's just a "problem program" Republicans have hated for many years. SS and Medicare should "be off limits" to Republicans. To many people, such as myself, have paid our fair share, earned the right to, and are entitled to receive these much needed services. No one knows how long it's going to take for the Republican Party to accept the fact that they have lost the election. Until they accept the loss, they continue business as usual, the voters have spoken. This Right Wing stance is only slowing any progress from the Governor on down. The people of Maine, deserve better........

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

"No one knows how long it's

"No one knows how long it's going to take for the Republican Party to accept the fact that they have lost the election."
No one knows how long it will take oBAMa and the democrat party to stop blaming Bush for all of oBAMa's failures and "the mess he inherited from Bush. When does oBAMa start to own HIS mess?

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Yes, Frank, and the Nation

Yes, Frank, and the Nation has all that Trust fund money locked up with the fairy dust.

Moreover, Social Security is finance using the payroll tax, which Obama cut temporarily. That said, benefits must come out of the trust fund. You know, those bonds that are locked up with the fairy dust. Contemplate for a moment here the money comes from when one of those bonds are cashed? It is easy if you try.

The CBO predicts that Social Security will remain solvent until 2038 – not too far off.

Don’t worry Frank, you’ll get to draw much more than you contributed to the system by 2037.

FRANK EARLEY's picture

2038, that is a ways off....

Hopefully, if I'm even still alive, They will have invented a new drug to make me feel like I'm 54 again. Then again that wouldn't take much effort, I feel like crap at 54, at eighty I'll still feel like crap, but I'll be happy in knowing that I drained as much money out of the system as possible. After many years of partying, falling off my Harley, truck driving, and working in night clubs, I wouldn't put much money on me making it to eighty anyway, My little bit to help the budget......

MARK GRAVEL's picture

I’ll take your comment about

I’ll take your comment about draining as much money out of the system as you can to be humor. Otherwise, I would have to say you are exhibiting systemic greed that is embedded in the US entitlement system.

Zack Lenhert's picture

"...My plan is to start

"...My plan is to start taking from the government as soon as I pay off my homes.

If I cannot get lower taxes, I'll take my refund on the backend."

Mark Gravel December 3, 2012

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Note the conditional

Note the conditional statement. If and only if Obama or any other President gets crazy with taxes.

FRANK EARLEY's picture

I was wondering how you would take that......

You can call it humor, sick humor, systemic greed, anything you want. When you are conditioned your entire life to have this system in place, you pay for it out of every pay check you take home, you have no choice but to participate in this program. Then they come up with an optional plan to save for the future, as in 401k's. That was a lame excuse of a plan to do away with the Social Security program. Problem with that brilliant idea, it was to be on the honor system, anyone old enough to fully understand the need for retirement, was to old to fully enjoy this plan. Younger people just plain didn't care, the future was so far away they didn't see the urgency. Another flaw to IRA's was the lack of understanding of the real world. In a perfect world, everyone gets a good job, marries his high school sweet heart, has 3.5 kids, and then lives happily ever after. Their 401k is collecting funds year in and year out, the penalties for early withdrawal are such to keep the owner honest the rules governing how IRA's are administered are so strict that any activity at all requires an act of congress. Not many of us live in a perfect world, clearly those in Washington think everyone lives as they do. Very little thought was put into the fact that some people, by the nature of their occupation, switch from one employer to another. In the early years it was so complicating to switch your 401K, from company to company, many people just gave up. Personally I think it was planned that way. Myself, I kept most of my 401K's and eventually rolled them into a Roth account. It wasn't easy.
What I'm trying so poorly to say here, is this system of help is the best we got. No one so far has even remotely proposed any better ideas. I was sort of forced into this, I needed health insurance and assistance. I wasn't to thrilled about it, but I earned the right. At least thats what I've been told all my working life. I am in the system now, I get a check every month, and health coverage. Its not an entitlement, its a benefit. I still pay for it, and I get so pissed off when I hear of someone wanting to take away from SS or Medicare. Unless your to the point of needing these programs, you have no idea of the stress these idiots inflict on people who are already suffering. You can call me "Greedy", or that I consider myself "entitled", doesn't matter ,what you call me, one thing remains. I still get my check every month, and I see all my doctors every week. I'll be doing this until I die. Most all my relatives live well into their nineties. When I do die, it will be with a big grin on my face, hopefully in my boat, fishing. Now thats an entitlement........

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

401K=Retirement Plan Social

401K=Retirement Plan
Social Security= Supplemental Retirement income to enhance one's other retirement income sources. Was never intended to be one's only means of retirement income. Still isn't today, but many, because of circumstances, are forced to have it be their only means of retirement income. When it was started, I believe the number payers to takers was like 30 or 40 to 1. Now, it's something like 3 or 4. Now, I know you psycho statisticians out there will come up with numbers that will walk all over what I've just written, but if that's your inclination, have at it. Putting just about anyone who asks for it on Supplemental Security Income hasn't helped the situation any either. Particularly in the face of once a person is on SSI, they're on for life. I got on a Federal website by accident a few weeks ago and discovered that an individual can qualify for up to $698 a week in benefits and $1098 a week for a couple. I don't care jack s*** how physically or mentally screwed up a person has to be to get it, but that's a lot of freakin' money to pay someone not to work.

FRANK EARLEY's picture

Some of your reply is accurate, but.....

First of all, careful using "Social Security" and "Supplemental" in the same sentence. You mention two completely different programs. Supplemental Social Security is totally different from Social security. One is for folks who have paid into it all their lives, the other is for folks with no employment history. The benefits for the two are calculated with two totally different methods. I honestly can't agree or disagree with your exact numbers, but a single person, based on how well their life went, will be paid accordingly. The more you earn, the more you get. there are caps in place. I do know that I get at least two to three times more than a couple of my friends. I also know that I have earned vastly more than my friends. In the reports I received from the SSDI office, they showed exactly what I earned every year for my entire life. The way the system is set up. for better or worse, is, they take the three or four largest years, in the past seven or so, and calculate you monthly benefit. That of course is based on how much you have contributed over your lifetime.
Another statement I have to take exception with, is "being paid not to work". You make it sound like I don't want to work. Yes I do get a check every month, and if that were all I had, I would definitely have financial problems. However, there's more to the story. For six years or so I was covered on my personal "Long term disability Insurance", This was insurance I paid into before I got sick. It's not something a lot of people have. After six years they instructed me to switch to SSDI. They did all the paperwork and handled all the necessary records research etc. Basically I just sat at home and waited for the phone to ring, or the mail man to arrive. Yes I get SSDI, but I also get a little something from my personal insurance as well.
As for the 401K's and retirement savings, I feel they would have been much more helpful, if I was more aware of how they worked at a much earlier age. As it is, I was able to roll over two or three separate IRA's into a Roth IRA before I "Retired" from trucking. Problem was, I knew I needed at least two more college degree's to pursue my chosen field, "Robotics". Nothing eats up savings faster than college. I had a whole future ahead of me, so I gambled my savings on education and lost. I received my education, but unfortunately lost my ability to work soon after. Thus my new profile, The most educated cripple on my street. It's not an easy position to fill, but I do my best.
It's true, most of the time you start SSDI, its for life, but in many cases so is the disease that qualified you. Something some people may not realize is that some folks don't enjoy sitting home all the time and not having to worry about work, that was something I used to dream about, as I drove across Texas in the middle of the night many years ago. I used to dream of working in a nice plant somewhere, indoors and out of the weather. I got that, if for only a couple of years. Now I just stay home, I don't enjoy it. I did for the first couple of months, after that forget it. I know there are those out there who do enjoy that lifestyle, but I think there are a lot more who despise it. I guess at this point, there's not much more to do but sit home and wait for the phone to ring. I'll check the mail tomorrow, I kind of like to spread out the excitement......

AL PELLETIER's picture

Just a footnote Frank

I'm retired, but still operate my small tea business. I paid into SS for 50 years and at 65 am thrilled with the financial return I'm receiving, the medicare coverage and VA benefits I've earned.
My wife is still in the work force and has paid into her 401K for 28 years. In 2007-2008 she lost $18,000 in 401K savings and has yet to recoup that loss. What I'm saying is that a 401K is a crap shoot and Social Security is not ( as long as republicans don't try to monkey with it ).

FRANK EARLEY's picture

I hear ya brother....

I think SS and Medicare are a godsend. It helps to have a little extra, but what I get after paying in for 35 years amazes me. I feel it would be political suicide to pull a Paul Ryan on Medicare. I have been Disabled for seven or eight years now, and still eleven or twelve years away from retirement age. I guess all those years of driving trucks and chasing around drunk people at rock concerts in Boston, are finally paying off. my schooling isn't a total loss, if my computer ever brakes, I can just build a new one.....

AL PELLETIER's picture

Now there's a talent!

I'll know who to contact the next time my lap top crashes.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Republicans wouldn't dare

Republicans wouldn't dare mess with Social Security, nor the dems for that matter, out of fear that the 'geezers' would hand them their political heads.
The Pirate also lost $18K in 401K just about the same time your wife did. Never recovered from it; in fact, I ran the damn thing dry just last month.

AL PELLETIER's picture

Sorry about that, Paul

But I guess we're small potatoes. My inlaws lost well over 100K . There goes my wife's inheritance, double whammie !!!!

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

That has to hurt. I haven't

That has to hurt. I haven't heard of neither Bush or obama wanting to do anything to help out the working stiffs who lost all that swag on their 401Ks, have you?

AL PELLETIER's picture

Ever heard of government pension?

As long as either one of them is getting it or is going to get they could give a s--t!

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Ain't that the truth. Ever

Ain't that the truth. Ever since being a Washington politician became a full time career and for some, a lifetime career, this country has been headed for the toilet.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

As I said in my post, Social

As I said in my post, Social Security IS supplemental retirement income. It was never intended to be a person's sole source of retirement income. That's why it's supplemental, and yes, Security and Supplemental do fit in the same sentence.
When I talk about Supplemental Disability Income, I'm talking about all the fakers, I know of many, who are taking checks every month for having no more of an affliction than lacking the motivation to get their asses out of a chair and finding a job. And, these are the ones who enjoy the lifestyle.

FRANK EARLEY's picture

Those are the ones that really piss me off....

I love those under cover shows where they catch these people who can't walk enough to get to their office job, but get caught putting a new roof on a house. (under the table of course). I remember thirty five years ago, I worked in High school for a security company out of Boston, they supplied and trained crowd control and security for large venue events like the old Shaffer Stadium or Foxboro Stadium and the Boston Garden. I think it was a year after I graduated High School, The company I worked for went Union. In like three days the list of eligible employees dropped to about half, due to the fact that the company could no longer pay cash under the table. Think there could have been any welfare cheats in that crowd????????

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

I do want to point out that

I do want to point out that none of my caustic comments are aimed at you, personally, nor anyone else who may be in a situation similar to the one you're in. It's the sandbaggers that I'm beatin' on. As you have often said, we are all just one moment away from life altering circumstances. Your courage is admirable. It is obvious, your body may be broken, but your spirit is not.

FRANK EARLEY's picture

Paul, It would make me nervous....

Paul: It would make me a little nervous if you started being to nice to me, but thanks though....

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Probably one of those

Probably one of those piratical diversionary tactics? I know just what you mean. 0O:-)

Advertisement

Stay informed — Get the news delivered for free in your inbox.

I'm interested in ...