Congressional Supercommittee

[Warrenlm]

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.

 

[Steel_Magnolia]

 

[rcknfrewld]

The government knows best...just ask them

 

[KevinD]

That gives us a number of 5-6 Trilion/10 years which btw is much larger than any other conservative plan out there (except maybe Ron Paul who advocates we close perhaps 600 of our 700+ Overseas Bases...as no overseas mission is that important anymore if we go back to 1929-1932 living standards here in the US.).

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/

 

[KevinD]

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.

They're called Republicrats...

 

[Boghie]

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.

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.

 

[James48843]

Failed Super Committee to Give Way To
‘Bob From Accountemps’

By Don Davis

“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”

 

[Boghie]

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), 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.

 

[Warrenlm]

You work for the government, right?

...throw out a thanks to Uncle Sam for taking care of you.

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.

 

[Boghie]

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!!!

 

[nnuut]

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.

​

 

[Warrenlm]

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.

 

[Warrenlm]

Toomey interview links. Two parts.
http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000058558

http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000059320

 

[Warrenlm]

I saw the video, (1st one) and all I saw was Toomey try to support cutting the top tax rate from 36% down to 28%, and pay for it by taking out various deductions which he didn't specify but are known to include mortgage interest deduction and tax deductions on health insurance premiums...aka hitting the middle class even harder while using a failed policy of cutting taxes for the ultra wealthy in the hopes that they'll create jobs here instead of China or Mexico.

And towards the end Tommey started to get his a$$ handed to him by some of the other panelists when he was asked why going back to 1999 tax rates was so bad when we flourished during that time. He had no answer to that, and his stuttering and sidestepping that question showed him to be the polished liar for the corporate country club that he really is.

Mischaracterization bolded and as usual. Amazing how the mind's eye can work. Need glasses. He did not stutter at all but answered the questions truthfully and at the end Sorkin was left looking like a novice.

 

[RealMoneyIssues]

But if you want to believe that somehow you are part of a corporation that is "entitled" to prime gov't benefits while you advocate stripping down other entitlement programs like Medicare, or the Affordable Health Care Act then I just don't understand your logic.

Your logic compares apple to oranges as usual, so you have no room to talk...

 

[Bquat]

Hate to be "Captain Obvious" here, but you cannot compare yourself to a "corporate board". You (nor I) work for a privately funded corporation. You (and the rest of us) are public servants. Your "return" on your talents in providing a service to the people is your salary. Any "benefits" we get are also suppose to be in line with the taxpayer. All I was trying to point out inititially was your hypocrasy. But if you want to believe that somehow you are part of a corporation that is "entitled" to prime gov't benefits while you advocate stripping down other entitlement programs like Medicare, or the Affordable Health Care Act then I just don't understand your logic.

I have to disagree with you here. The bennifits were one of the main reasons I went into civil service (FERS). The bennifits were offered to encurage higher educated people to enter the public service. I took a pay cut to get in. The retirement and medical benifits had a better cost to reward than the outside. You must remember that pay isn't everything. That is why cities are in such a problem. They had to offer too much to get the quality people they needed when the economy was booming. The contract is made when you sign up, not as you leave. Even companies whould offer high signing bonuses and a high salary to get people in good times. The government employment came with a 30 year contract and you had to weigh heavyly on your desision. Times were even better while CSRS was started. The end of our 30 years just happen to be during bad times. When the economy turns the government will have a hard time hiring with the fear of how they could cut pay and benifits during you 30 years. A lot of people won't want to take a 30 year chance or if there is a 62 year MRA.

 

[Warrenlm]

You (nor I) work for a privately funded corporation. You (and the rest of us) are public servants.

LOL Know before you post. I hold corporate director positions. And, I am an employee of another corporation. And, I also perform independent professional services to clients. Retirement is grand.

 

[Birchtree]

I had an inkling you were cool...now I'm sure of it.

 

[sdouglas3]

Super Committee was joke and just pulled the wool over the eyes of Americans to buy more time for the election.

 

[Bquat]

I think we agree here. It was one of the reasons (not all) that I chose to work for the National Weather Service. Agree with you on your CSRS point and especially on many of our TSP ears ending during a long term bear cycle.

I was just playing devils advocate and pointing out that conditions for our benefits from 20-30 years ago were under much different circumstances than today. 15-20 years ago a much higher percentage of private employees had health coverage. A much higher percentage had a defined pension, or a combo of pension and 401K. When I got into the NWS decades ago, most Fortune 500 companies had much better benefits than fed employees. That's no longer the case...as we're all being herded into a mindless race to the bottom.

"I was just playing devils advocate" is not really needed. We're getting too much negativity and people trying to tweak others into a responce as it is. We shouldn't keep pushing things to limits for just a responce. Used to be this site was for sharing investing ideas and maybe a breif comment of how the news may effect the market. The need for pressing each others biases is becoming a detractor and less and less posting by the investment wise people. I have seen a decrease from day to day post market trading thoughts. It may just be the bad market enviroment. I think we should get back to the team concept and start helping each other out. I think more promoting of fellowship and less pushing the political stuff is needed. JMHO