In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 310
Online now 667 Record: 11761 (2/27/2012)
The Web's No. 1 forum for coverage and discussion of Terps sports
Visitor discussion of University of Maryland and college sports
A place for lively discussion for all other sports unrelated to Maryland athletics
Feedback for IMS and 247Sports
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
I understand and agree with that. I also think the drag is worth it, which is obviously where we differ.
There is a split in the Dem party as to how to handle this. One side thinks we ignore it as long as we can and try to get as much political benefit from being the defenders of entitlements as possible. The other thinks we can keep the structure of the programs intact if we start making cuts and adjustments now that can save the programs in the long term. Maddow and Axelrod had a very instructive argument over this on her show last week.
But yes, there certainly is not unity in the party. But Obama can bring the Dems with him if the Rs can give him a few carrots (read: tax increases) to offer them.
I'm on board with this, and don't really see any downside. If they fail, so what, we're no further away from solving this. And for whatever reason (maybe political cover), the bipartisian committee idea has worked on a number of issues.
But the depth of the issue really hasnt been addressed properly by either side. Here's a little tidbit from the end of the article you posted.
"Not everyone is on board with a bipartisan gang renewal.
Tennessee Sen. Bob Corker doesn’t think a budget gang can get the job done.
“I don’t think that’s probably the model for this,” he said.
But Corker is one of a handful of Republicans who publicly approve adding more revenue. He is also critical of the budget tactics of both Republicans and Democrats, and thinks a comprehensive approach is needed for a grand bargain.
“It’s going to take significant entitlement reform,” Corker said. “The House, the Senate and the president, none have offered the real things that we need to do to solve this fiscal problem. And it’s just none of them are serious in that regard.
“And that includes the House, the Senate and the president. What I hope is going to happen over the next few months is we’ll move into a realistic discussion about entitlement. And you know, 75-year actuarial soundness. … I think if we move toward that, the other pieces will fall into place."
I'm also not so sure that the 75 year actuarial soundness test means a whole lot at this juncture.
But we absolutely have to look beyond 10 years. We have an aging demographic, and fewer will be actually contributing to these entitlement programs 15-20 years from now than today.
So, what's the plan to deal with that reality?
Washington acts like that isnt their problem. And the goes for the House, Senate, and Executive branchs.
Maybe a committee would help them be more focused on the long term.
yeah, unfortunately, both sides are overstocked with imbeciles.
Walden is an idiot.
No doubt I'm an inhuman monster, but I'm just fine with leaving those guys naked in their single cells, and leaving a plate of food at their door twice a day - eat it or not, your choice. Check it every once in a while to see if they're still alive.
and now Obama is coming after your 401K/IRA's!
Yep. Can you imagine the taxes this administration will try to push through if the Dems regain the House in 2014.
"The feds may think $3 million is all you need after a lifetime of work, but that's roughly the value of a California police sergeant's pension if she works for 30 years, retires at age 50 and lives to normal life expectancy."
"The Occupy Wall Street crowd will be cheering this ideological assault, but the occupiers who mature into productive citizens will someday find themselves in the cross-hairs. The cost of a $205,000 annuity changes over time and inflation will reduce its value. The Employee Benefits Research Institute points out that such an annuity stream could be had for as little as $2.2 million, not $3 million, within the last several years. As a result, EBRI estimates that under such a scenario as much as 6% of today's younger workers age 26-35 could end up hitting the cap."
"Amazingly, Mr. Obama has surveyed the economic landscape and somehow decided that it's time to discourage savings if you make more than he thinks is 'reasonable.'"
The Wall Street Journal reports on President Obama's switcheroo on retirement savings accounts.
This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by Bradleyfan 12 months ago
it's $3 million today in a very low interest rate environment. By 2015 or 2016, it will be in the low to mid $2 million.
I don't see what the big deal is, it's only fair!
Go away, KA!
People who work hard and save a lot of money so that they can retire and not live off of social security or a government pension need to pay their fair share.
Isn't it about time that we learn exactly in what courses and sources Obama got his finance and economics training? I suspect that it wouldn't take long to list.
[sohl] they are being selfish by saving money and not spending it today to 'stimulate' the economy. They are unamerican!!!!
part of the Dem's math plan which is FUNDaMENTAL
This post was edited by BS19 12 months ago
Gun sales have gone through the roof with all the talk of gun control. So with changes coming to the ability to save and put money away for retirement, can we expect mattresses to be the next big growth market?
Thrift and doing smart things to be self reliant is not what Obama and his turdlings want. They want us all to be sheep living day to day off the tidbits they leave for us.
I love G$ transformation to fiscal conservative.
I've been a fiscal conservative for awhile, but my hatred of Obama hit an all-time high this week.
This is completely unrelated to financial matters but still set my phasers to RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGE.
Long a critic of Venezuela's government, the Globovision network is to be sold.
"And I try to har-mo-nize with songs the lonesome sparrow sings...
There are no kings inside the Gates of Eden."
There's a darkness descending on the world, including us.
South America as a whole is doing pretty well, or at least not floundering (Brazil, Chile, Argentina, etc.). We've increased our trade with them (various free-trade pacts under Bush and Obama) and their governments vary from tolerable left-leaning to tolerable right-leaning
Just not the oil-dependent shitbird regime in Venezuela. And the copycats in Bolivia, etc.
This can't be true.
When I mentioned this new policy last week, Paul assured me that I was wrong. And since I'm often wrong, I went ahead and believed him.
Scariest part of this is the official White House quote:
The White House explanation is that some people have accumulated "substantially more than is needed to fund reasonable levels of retirement saving."
Just what I want; the fucking White House telling me what a "reasonable" level of savings is.
Interesting what passes for a "loophole" these days. Waiting for the Home Mortgage Interest Deduction loophole to be closed soon.
It's only fair.
This post was edited by terp11 12 months ago
It's a scary piece of legislation. Obama wants as many people living off the government as possible. Also it's written to say that 205K/yr in income is enough for a person to retire on at age 62. I'm sure Obama realizes that 205K is probably 120-140K when the retiree is 82 thanks to inflation. This is also when this person starts having bigger medical bills. It's fantastic financial planning by the Obama administration. Anyone who voted for this guy needs to realize how dumb this administration is in terms of the economy and finance. It's scary.
I did what exactly?
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports