Here is a lovely article for you.
http://news.yahoo.com/coburn-proposes-9 … 45582.html
Do what you want with what you read. Sounds like more trouble coming to me. And, no real answers for bettering America.
Then again, what else is new from politicians.
I agree with everything he proposed, except the entire "increasing taxes" thing.
A very sensible plan, overall, though sadly politics prevents progress...
Yeah I read the first paragraph! That was enough! So it's time to speak out America and fight back !
Yeah, I didn't want to read passed the first paragraph, but I did want to see what "cuts" were going to be part of the proposal and after reading it(the cuts), I was only sickened by it.
It will only produce MORE money for the upper 20%, and even MORE money for the UPPER 1%.
If it passes, then a lot of people are going to have HUGE adjustments to make to their life and the saddest part is that it will have been done for no reason, except to give the wealthy more money.
Just absolutely absurd.
It wont pass... they should heavily tax the rich who are not donating...
That actually is part of the overall answer. Those who DO donate to worthy causes are giving the money to either friends or friends of friends.
Those businesses(charities and non-profit companies) are NOT doing what they claim to be doing and haven't for years.
Which means, two things- (a)cheating the system in place and (b)failure of government regulations that are already in place.
Too many charities and non-profits not doing what needs to be done with the revenue they receive. It's pathetic.
I read it, and once again some rich guy has found a way to screw seniors and veterans, so that the rich can keep their current low tax rate, only throwing American's a bone by making it look as if he is punishing the rich for having a second home, but only those that are over $500,000.00 when a majority of American's like myself can barely afford to pay $700.00 a month for a piece of shit apartment.
As for the retirement age, raising it is ridiculous. If anything they should lower it. Get these old fuckers out, so that people who are raising families can move into those higher paying jobs. All they are doing is increasing the size of the workforce by keeping people in longer, when there are not enough jobs to go around as it is. If you are going to raise the retirement age, raise the working age, and get all these high school kids out of the workforce, and give companies a reason why they should pay more for an older worker. It would also give kids more of a desire to stay in school and go on to college. Some kids don't because they are the only ones in their household that are working. Even if they just spend the money on themselves.
The people who run our government are totally clueless to the real struggle of American's these days. Most of them have been rich all their lives, and only see what life has brought them, but never think about how it effects everyone else.
I actually grew up being told by my dad that people on welfare and government assistance were lazy. But, it's so untrue. But, I'm sure there are still people like Ronald Reagan who thought people are poor because they choose to be, not because of the lousy economy and the fact that the people in charge don't care.
Yes, it's all distortion now from politicians.
Actually, they not only are kicking those "old f'ers" (that's "lovely" of you, by the way. ) out of their jobs, but they aren't hiring a lot of people who are as young as in their late forties. My sixty-two-year-old older sister who supports herself faces potential homelessness if she can't fine work. She was forced into "retirement" last year as an option to being laid off (with a bunch of other people over 50).
My ex-husband (biomedical engineer and software designed) was laid off from his work in his late 40's and not able to find work (because nobody wanted to pay for an experienced professional, and nobody believed he'd be happy taking less money. In fact, nobody believed he'd be happy working in retail when he tried for that. As a result, he had to sell the house that my kids viewed as "home" when they were with him. In my area, rents aren't 700 a month. They're at least 900, most often 1500/1700 (if the place is decent). Anyway, my kids lost a home base, and when my college-age son's roommates moved out my son was left with no choice but to live miles away from his work (to my house).
I know tons and tons of people over 45 who haven't been able to find work. There are people on here who say the same thing. In fact, I, myself, have had to patch together my little freelance business (and supplement it with stuff on here) because I couldn't find work in my late 40's. My daughter has been in college since I passed my fiftieth birthday (and her father passed his 60th.
So, trust me. While you may think being over 55 or 60 is a big, giant, luxury; the reality in this economy is that huge numbers of people who still have kids and families to support (and if not that, then grandchildren they're supporting or caring for, or elderly parents) are the first to lose jobs. Are the first who don't get hired because nobody believes them when they say they'd be happy to "do any work" (to save their homes/home bases for even their more grown families) or "take any pay" - and instead jobs go to less capable people whom they believe will be happy to settle for the rotten pay.
I'm not all that far from 60, myself, pal. Believe me, I'm waiting for the life that I've been robbed of (through divorce courts and the bad economy) to be something I can, for once in f'ing all, get back before I die.
The people in the government aren't the only ones who are "clueless" it appears. Good luck finding work and a home before you find yourself and your ruined because of prejudice, ignorance, and bigotry about age. (Because 60 isn't the age most people use when they show their ignorance about what being 60 really is. It's more like 45/48.)
What you are saying bears out, at least in my experience as I observe middle-aged friends who've lost their jobs.
My ex-husband was under-employed for a long time, and strangely, that might have been his saving grace once the bad times hit here in the U.S. After our divorce, he went to Russia for a year, and I wondered, when he came back, if he'd have any difficulty getting work.
Actually, he didn't have too much difficulty, because he already proved, over several years, that he'd accept lower paying work like retail -- and had the W2's to prove it. He's currently working as a greenskeeper at a municipal golf course, and supplements with part-time security work, plus carrying on with being a landlord for two houses that he owns. You get lots of nice deductions on your income tax when you own rental property!
The fact that he'd deep-sixed and messed up his professional career in the late 1990's actually worked out well for him in the long run. My heart goes out to those people who were in high-paying professional jobs who now can't find work.
Life is odd sometimes.
Hey Lisa HW. My main point with my post isn't really about older workers, it's about creating a larger workforce when there are no jobs. They could also go the other way, and let 13 year olds work at McDonalds. Stating that other countries still allow children to work, and in Agriculture in the US. they do.
The sad thing about raising the retirement age, is that it will only allow companies to work people longer, as a lot of them will work their employee days before retirement and let them go, so that they can't receive their full retirement packages. I know of people who retired from the company I worked for who dropped dead just weeks after retirement.
Part of my comments about getting out the old farts, also has to do with them receiving their retirement benefits at an early age so that they can have time to enjoy it. I also think they should lower the age for receiving social security.
We all know the only reason they want to raise the retirement age, is because of the huge amount of baby boomers that will be leaving the workforce, and they don't want to have to pay for them, also trying to go with mandatory healthcare, to take the future burden of the boomers off the healthcare system. Once they are gone, things will be different.
When I first moved back to the U.S., I couldn't find work even in the most demeaning jobs that nobody wanted (one job went unfilled for six months and they refused to hire me because I had a graduate degree). Their excuse was "You would get bored." Even my explaining to them that few things are as boring as playing scales for hours each day did not make an impact. If it had not been for my family I would have starved, and no amount of begging to work at minimum wage would change the minds of those in charge. Finally in desperation I started my own business and made a go of it, but if I hadn't I'd be in my fifties and living with Mom and Dad.
Brimancandy, as I probably fall into the category of what you regard as an 'old f***ckr' I find your remarks quite offensive. Everyone has the right in a democracy to work to support themselves, and over here in the UK the retirement age is permanently creeping up.
What do you want us to do? Go sleep in a doorway somewhere or top ourselves because we are inconveniencing you by continuing to breathe?
The challenges of an ageing population are facing most Western countries, and need to be dealt with in a way that is fair to all sections of society.
Please remember that you too will be old one day (and it comes faster than you think it does!) and that it was the taxes of the old f****ckers that paid for your education etc
Not at all. You should you decide to leave whatever employment you have, and receive all of the benefits you deserve, along with any social benefits you might receive as a senior. Just because you are a senior doesn't mean that you can't work. But, you should be allowed to retire early if you like.
I'm not saying that older people should be forced to retire. I'm saying that they should have a choice, and the goverment shouldn't make it more difficult for older workers to retire, which is exactly what they are doing. Next thing they will do is make you retire at 62 and then raise the age to collect social security to 70. Then what are you going to do?
So, ask yourself? How long do you want to work? And, at what age do you think it will be ok for our government to dictate to you when you can retire from a company that will take advantage of you until the last minute? Basically that is what raising the retirement age is all about.
The plan is very sensible and contains all of the basics needed to start seriously dealing with the deficit. The plan doesn't give tax deductions to people whose second homes are worth over 500k, it takes it away from all second homes plus primary homes worth over 500K.
The social security age has to be raised to keep the program solvent; 70 is probably not raising it enough. Life expectancies have risen dramatically over the decades; it's reasonable that the retirement age should reflect that.
There are constant cries of "Tax the rich!", but even if we were to tax those making over 250,000 per year at 100%, it wouldn't come close to closing the deficits.
This proposal will be trashed as heavily by the Teabaggers as it will be from the radical left. That's usually a very good sign that you're on the right track.
I agree that it's pretty sensible, but I demand massive cuts in spending before a single tax is raised.
We've heard the "we'll raise taxes now, then cut spending" WAY to many times to believe it.
Cut spending down to current tax income levels, THEN raise taxes (and continue to cut).
I was surprised to hear a sympathetic reply to the proposal from you, Ron!
me so happy
The plan is sensible, cutting spending down to 16% of GDP (current tax revenues) is not. Even the most outrageous proposals from the right reduce spending to 18% of GDP which means taxes will still have to be raised.
The necessary cuts have to be made carefully and gradually, you can't just pull the rug out from under people. brimancandy is correct in saying that the politicians and policy wonks have no clue as to what the victims of their ineptitude are being put through.
It sounds like he went for as much cut as he could, hoping to get most of it, yet knowing if it was adapted it would be watered down some. I agree with Cag's statements. Good for the top 1%.
It's typical of these cowards to pick on the most defenseless of our country.I'm sure if someone with some brains went through the tax code they could "Find" a whole lot of deductions that are not in the best interest to the majority of our citizens.It's illegal to kill someone in this country but if they die of starvation or sickness helped along by REMOVAL of social programs it's ok.If you don't have a check for your politicians re-election campaign you don't exist.These losers don't even mention bringing the troops home,elimination of all corporate welfare,Taxing all financial transactions on(Wall St),sweetheart deals for drug companies.This is the way cowards operate,pick on the weakest.After they cut these programs the term "Incumbent" will be a thing of the past.
Classical geek, I so feel your pain. I'm in the same position, and trying to complete post-grad school while also trying to start an online business.
By all means, tell me how you did it?
I had the advantage of unique knowledge (I had trained in a conservatory in Europe, as opposed to a local university) and a unique background, and I went around to business people trying to learn how to capitalize on my unique training and background. They came up with some wonderful ideas for me and after six years it is starting to work.
The best advice I have to offer in starting your own business is 1) network, network, network, with people in every walk of life and 2) do whatever you can to help other people. Get to really know business people in a semi-social setting like networking groups and refer business to them. They will return the favour!
I read the proposal. While I don't agree with all of the proposals, he's right. Its usually a good sign that he's on the right path when a plan is criticized by both sides.
Social Security age should be raised. It has to go up. Social Security was originally designed to kick in a year AFTER the average citizen died. It hasn't been adjusted accordingly since.
There is a lot of waste and fraud in Medicare and Medicaid, and there is a lot of room for reform in those two programs. But to truly deal with the growth of these programs will require better managing the current rate of health care increases.
I agree that new revenue will be needed. I don't agree with the size of cuts for many social net programs, but it does form a basis for true debate.
I love that he proposes $1 Trillion in cuts to the military industrial complex though. There's a lot to be said for discontinuing welfare for weapons contractors.
It is fair to disagree with parts of this plan. At least it is a plan.
Obviously we cannot delve deeper and deeper in debt forever so what is your favorite debt reducing plan?
You must have one if you are part of the solution unless.....?
Can anyone give me the washed-out version (easy guide) to WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON WITH OUR GOVERNMENT?!!
(I'm very ADD and can't read the full article... seriously.)
Jedi Mind Trick.
We elected officials based on their claims that they know how to fix the problems we all face. Then they go to Washington and spend their time staying employed.
It really comes down to the fact that the extreme Right has somehow come to view "compromise" as a dirty word. And while I won't paint the left as being faultless, the fact is, America exists in the middle.
Unfortunately, our politics are being further dominated by the fringes. That and the big money interests in our politics.
These big companies aren't spending. They're investing.
There. That's it in a nutshell.
Oh...yeah, and we as citizens continue to ask our elected officials to lie to us. And they are more than happy to oblige.
The problem isn't so much our government, as it is us.
I think it is pathetic that the elderly, sick, disabled, poor and retired military (again) get a swift kick in the a** to ease political stress. Wake-up people-- Social Security is a thing of the past; a thing I have paid into for more than 35 years and will never see. Even though the promise the gov made was to take care of my money, using it as investment for the good of the US economy, until I was old enough to need it back. They agreed to use it carfully and to manage growing it during my working years so I had a cushion in retirement. They are, simply put, liars and thiefs! To keep raising the age for SS is simply telling the elderly we don't care about them. In 20 years (when I am 70) not a penny will remain; but the politicians will continue to collect thier (more than) equal share. Americans are truly blind to what is going on...
Thanks for the link Cags, a real eye opener...
So we'll work till we die. Retirement will be abolished, we better stay young!
by Stump Parrish 3 years ago
The tax cuts that are being debated in Washington have been described as a jobs creating nessessity by the republicans. These tax cuts have been in effect for 10 years now and I have to wonder where all the jobs they created during their existence, have gone. Are we to believe that they will...
by Iðunn 9 years ago
regardless of anything Iran does or doesn't do, before he leaves his office?My opinion, he's stepping up media agitprop the way he did on Iraq before he invaded that sovereign nation. I think he'll do it and I think not only will he, my stupid Dem Congress will gesture and throw their hands...
by Deforest 4 years ago
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … 9243932001Austerity measures against the people but in favor with big corporations. Cuts to the people and no tax for the corporations. What's next?
by Holle Abee 8 years ago
Four Democrats and Lieberman voted with the Republicans. I have mixed feelings about this, according to the research I've done. It seems that "economy experts" are split on their views. Some argue that increasing taxes on the upper economic class will stifle jobs, while others say that...
by proton66 7 years ago
The word is, in 2022 retirement age will be 67; Is this better than 66?There is much controversy on whether or not to increase the retirement age. Some like the idea because by working longer, more money goes to the SSN acct. thus less money is needed to save for retirement. On top of that, the...
by mikelong 7 years ago
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/07 … k1%7C77674If businesses could play by the rules, perhaps they wouldn't need to be watched...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|