Congressional Supercommittee

Sen Toomey was on CNBC for 30 minutes this morning and gave a detailed recap of what he had proposed and what happened. Worth listening to in its entirety for a truthful account vice evening news recaps or "wing" blogs. Of interest but probably missed by most of the listeners was his detailed explanation of the historical opportunity legislatively for this process. That opportunity is past now but he seems like a glass is half full guy who laid out silver linings. Of humor was youngster ultra liberal Andrew Ross Sorkin's naivete.
 
I see no reason to send this thread to the Black Hole as long as we can keep it civil and continue to show respect for other Members.:D
rulez.gif​
 
This thread should probably be shut down. The 'Supercommittee' failed and has disbanded.

The Federal Government is now committed to spending $44 Trillion rather than $45 Trillion over the next ten years. Oh the humanity!!!
 
FireWeatherMet said:
You work for the government, right?

...throw out a thanks to Uncle Sam for taking care of you.:)
Click to expand...

Well, well, well. You certainly have a different self image from the others around here and virtually all of your federal service colleagues. We believe that we are making decisions to trade our labor, creativity, energy, loyalty, etc. in return for a compensation package, as other self-respecting people do. Whether one is in the private sector serving on corporate boards or as employees or as owners, or in the public sector, as employees of the government or other entity, we offer our talents in return for something. To the contrary, you have the self image that you are being “taken care of” by the government. There are many like you in the world. Just not as many in the USA. And those that are have been taught to devote their energy to seeking “benefits” from “programs”. What a group you associate yourself with.
 
FWM,

I picked a start of Jan 1, 2004 because I started entering data into Quicken on that date. I have exact numbers from then on. The other starting date I could have used was Jan 1, 1994 when I really started investing in TSP. I don't think you want me to start then:cheesy:.

Anyway, the gauntlet has been thrown on this dreary argument (see Amoeba:p), my current TSP balance is more than 4X what it was on 2001/01/01. My current balance is 6.5X more since 1999/01/01 It would take me forever to break out my contributions from those date through 2003/12/31 - so I would by fibbing if I call that growth all brilliant market timing or whatever. Actually, I don't even think I can access the ancient quarterly returns from 2002 or whatever. So, where do you get the Flat Market Theory? Pretty much, all I did was DCA into the C fund till February of 2000. After that I started moving assets around a bit more - but not a lot till 2008. And, in fact it looks like I DCA'd my way from 2003 through most of 2007 as well (looks like I averaged 4 IFTs a year from 2004 through 2007).

Regardless, the historical answer for someone DCAing into the 'C Fund' is that he/she can expect an annual return of over 10%, and a CAGR of almost 9%. Cherry picking the 2000 decade is as silly as cherry picking 1980 - 2000. However, my guess is that 2012/13 will prove similar to 1979/80. That is why I am more in the market than out. The boom coming over Jimmy Carter II will likely be similar to the boom after Jimmy Carter I.

So, pick a date.

On health care, are you including all the entry level jobs that teenagers get. I didn't get (or maybe buy) health insurance till I was 24. Also, gubmint plays the same exact 'part timer' game as private industry. I have personal experience with that with regards to state gubmint.



Back to topic. So, why do we think the Attorney Ignits we elect as Politicians can play a positive role? If spending is not demonstrably cut (we spent $145 Billion more in the Austerity Spending Plan of FY2011) than the Attorney Ignits will not play a role. If they do not play a role than we do not play a role - remember, they represent us. How much of a role are the ignits in Italy actually playing? A $300 - $600 Billion actual cut in spending from FY2011 would set the table. Spending has increased by $900 Billion since Septeber 2007. Is government the only entity that cannot tighten its belt? There is no balanced approach till spending is cut. Why should I agree to a tax increase when I have NEVER seen a spending cut.

Show me the cut. Maybe I'll accept a match in revenue. But a real cut please. The internet is a wonderful tool.
 
Failed Super Committee to Give Way To
‘Bob From Accountemps’

By Don Davis

rock-center-brian-williams.jpg


“ACCORDING TO LATEST REPORTS, THE GOP NOT ONLY
BELIEVES THAT ‘BOB’ WILL DO THEIR WORK FOR THEM,
BUT THEY CAN THEN SEND A MESSAGE TO THE 99%
BY CUTTING BOB LOOSE ONCE HE CUTS THE DEFICIT.

Who can fix budget? Outsource it to "BOB" ....from ACCOUNTEMPS”

 
FireWeatherMet said:
You work for the government, right?

You will be getting significant part of your retirement as a subsidized gov't pension payment? Not that much from your TSP, given by the flat rate of return the past 12 years.

You get your medical insurance thru a "socialized" program called FEHB that imposes strict regulations on insurance companies to qualify as "insurance".

Maybe you even benefit from the reduced internet costs that the gov't helps you get as you're reading this right now?

Maybe you're right...this reliance on the government is pervasive.(lol)

C'mon brother...ditch the angst.
Give thanks today.
And if you're situation is the same as most of us here...throw out a thanks to Uncle Sam for taking care of you.:)
Click to expand...

Too funny...

Take away the pension portion of our retirement plan - please. Give me back my contribution and increase my salary for only a fraction of the Federal subsidy (maybe half). Let me invest that in my 401(k) (that is, TSP) or beer. I do not, and never wanted, politicians from either side of the aisle promising me benefits in the future. Future politicians will be slashing and reneging on the promises of past politicians. Happens all the time. Are you paying attention? Slash, slash, slash.

By the way, I'm relatively close to doubling my money (minus contributions) over the past eight years. That includes 2008 and my crappy 2011 returns. With DCA and only moderate trading (unless you know what you are doing) I don't see folks being flat - unless you have been sitting in the 'G Fund'.

Again, my TSP will provide the vast bulk of my retirement. It will come very close to my current gross salary if I can keep my eight year average.

Finally, all large companies (and most others as well) provide a health insurance benefit. Its all part of the compensation package.
 
FireWeatherMet said:
Yup.

I posted on this the other day...that if Congress does what it does best..."nothing via gridlock" then we'll actually get a very effective deficit reduction plan bolder than anything Dems or GOP have proposed. The numbers my article had was over 7 Trillion, but either way it beats the heck out of the 1-3 trillion dollar reduction plans being floated around that would just kick the can down the road.

You have to wonder if behind closed doors the GOP and Dems have quietly agreed to posture to their respective bases all while secretly agreeing to each other that letting the automatic budget cuts take effect, along with expiration of all Bush tax rates by January 2013 is their only way out of this mess, before we turn into Greece.

Politics sometimes make for strange bedfellows.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

They're called Republicrats...
 
The democrat party will shift the employee share onto the employer share, or they will "waive" it forever on those with incomes below a certain level. This transfer payment stuff extends everywhere. From the 20 something being paid to tend to grandma from medicaid, while being paid a living stipend while attending an online university, and collecting unemployment after a seasonal job, to the application of corporate matching amounts to 401Ks. Did you know that corporations have to meet criteria that affect their matching percentage...criteria that looks at how much lower income employees are "able" to contribute relative to how much higher paid employees are "able" to contribute, and adjust up if it seems "unfair" that lower paid employees "cannot" contribute what they "should"? Wow. Not only does the FCC impose reduced rates for internet access for "needy" as part of a license.....this reliance on the government is pervasive.
 
FireWeatherMet said:
Yup. ... You have to wonder if behind closed doors the GOP and Dems have quietly agreed to posture to their respective bases all while secretly agreeing to each other that letting the automatic budget cuts take effect, along with expiration of all Bush tax rates by January 2013 is their only way out of this mess, before we turn into Greece.

Politics sometimes make for strange bedfellows.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Nah, that would mean they were being responsible.:o
 
I think cutting Social Security Premiums in 2011 and wanting to do it AGAIN in 2012 is a NO BRAINER! I thought we we were going to try and make it solvent? Who is doing that and why?
 
I continue to find it interesting that no one wonders why protecting the Nation is the province of Republicans and taking from Sam to give to Mary is the province of the Democrats. One would have thought Democrats would object to being omitted by the Media from being concerned about Defense cuts. The One has already shown he cares not for the tax paying members of the former middle class' access to quality physicians when he cuts from Medicare payments in order to create a new entitlement. But this whole Republicans=Defense and Democrats=Medicare/Medicaid is unseemly.
 
So...now what happens?

Wonkbook: The GOP's dual-trigger nightmare

by Ezra Klein

Imagine if the Democrats offered Republicans a deficit deal that had more than $3 in tax increases for every $1 in spending cuts, assigned most of those spending cuts to the Pentagon, and didn't take a dime from Social Security, Medicaid or Medicare beneficiaries.

Republicans would laugh at them. But without quite realizing it, that's the deal Republicans have now offered to the Democrats.

<,snip--..>

So now there are two triggers.

One is an extremely progressive spending trigger --half from the DoD--and worth $1.2 trillion-- that goes off on January 1, 2013.

The other is an extremely progressive Bush tax cut expiration- atax trigger worth $3.8 trillion that goes off on...January 1, 2013.

If you count reduced interest payments, the two policies alone would reduce future deficits by about $6 trillion. That's far more than anything the supercommittee came close to discussing. It's distributed far more progressively than anything the Democrats have even considered proposing. And all that needs to happen for it to pass is, well, nothing. Republicans can't stop these triggers on their own. They need Senate Democrats and President Obama to join them in passing an alternative, or they need House and Senate Democrats to join them in overturning President Obama's veto of their alternative. So the only way for Republicans to avoid this dual-trigger nightmare is to somehow convince Democrats to bail them out.
Click to expand...

A very interesting read. We'll have to wait to see what happens. Read it here:

More:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/won...
 
FWM,

We were last at around $400 Billion in FY2001.

Anyone remember the military personnel and materiel issues at the beginning of the WOT. Our military was too small to deter, too small to quickly fight, too small to accomplish the mission.

I'm not saying that the military has to be as bloated as it is now.

Cut it and every other expenditure by a meaningful amount. An actual cut of $100 Billion Gubmint wide will not even be felt. Cut the DOD to FY2007 as a starting point - that is a $150 Billion dollar cut to DOD. Cut everything else to FY2007 as well. We do it now or the Bond Vigilantes will do it for us!!!

Otherwise, watch Europe.
 
Alevin,

Very strange chart.

Our FY2011 interest payment was $450 Billion. This chart puts $350 Billion of that spending on DOD, Homeland Security, Veteran Affairs, and the odd ball 'DOD related' expenditures from other odd ball departments. Very odd, very strange.

So 78% of the annual deficit ($350 Billion of $450 Billion) is the result of 38% of the expenditures (~1,350 Billion of $3,600 Billion). Very odd, very strange...
 
I think you are correct Alevin.

I think the chart (or FWM) conflates the annual deficit with the accumulated debt.

We cannot deal with the accumulated debt till we run a surplus. I will gladly accept increased taxes to pay off the ACCUMULATED debt.
 
Too Funny...

Adding in 'DOD related' spending from other departments. Kinda washy. But I'm game. Hack from all those departments as well. However, we can't do much about the debt spending till we get things in balance. Hack, hack, hack.

This is the skinny. We are spending $700 Billion more inflation adjusted that we did in FY2007. Some of that is DOD spending. Hack it out. All of it. That will save $99 Billion. FWM, let us round that to $100 Billion. A 14% slash from actual FY2011 expenditures. I like it. Hack, hack, hack.

Now, where are you going to come up with another $600 Billion. Hack, hack, hack. I am game...

Let us make a deal. Cut DOD by 7% and the rest of the Federal Gubmint by an equal 7% and we'll see what happens next year. That will be a real $250 Billion. Not on an increase, a real cut from the FY2011 baseline. Anyone can cut 7% from their spending. That will be less than half of what we absolutely need - but it is a start.

If we don't do it the Bond Vigilantes will. And, their starting number will be a bit deeper.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top