What is actually going to happen?

[SecondCor521]

Regarding the current news about the US debt ceiling negotiations.

I'm curious what the folks here predict will actually happen. Please note this may not match what you want to happen, and note that you can pick multiple options.

If I've missed any significant poll options let me know and I can try to add them.

2Cor521

[GregLee]

#1, #7, #10, #11, #12, #13, #14, #15. At least.

[Rambler]

There will be plenty of blame. There will a lot of puffed chests. At the end of the day though, the way that I see it, there have to be cuts to entitlements...and I'm talking more about the kinds that pay for illegals, and folks who can but refuse to work (i.e., dignity welfare), those who can but refuse to pay their student loans, etc., than I am about SS for those who have paid into the system for years, and those who have defended our country with their own blood.

There will also need to be revenue increases. I'll have to pay more...I'm classified by the Obama camp as "rich", as I'm sure many of us here are. But I really think we should all pay a little more, and I think that the tax structure needs to change. You simply can't have a very small percentage of the population paying for the entire country. Remember, something like 50% of the population pays no income tax. That has to change.

Welfare programs need to change, such that people who are able to do "something", are asked to do something. If you can only work 3 hours a day before debilitating exhaustion due to prior injury or disease, then work 3 hours a day...etc. I think that if you have enough energy to play with your computer all day, sit in a chair and watch TV all day, or work in your yard all day, while collecting welfare, then you should be doing something to earn your keep. If you don't think there are people scamming welfare like this, then I cordially invite you to come to just about any community in California and take a look...and remember that the fed budget pays for a lot of the welfare checks that go out.

Just my two cents, FWIW.

R

[devans0]

Partisan stonewalling and blame games will stop, leaders from both sides will emerge in a bipartisan effort, to make the structural changes and cuts to balance the budget. Tax policy will become simple and fair for all.

[obgyn65]

I checked all the answers except "I like bacon".

[Gumby]

Quote:

Originally Posted by devans0 Partisan stonewalling and blame games will stop, leaders from both sides will emerge in a bipartisan effort, to make the structural changes and cuts to balance the budget. Tax policy will become simple and fair for all.

And my hair will grow back and I'll lose 20 pounds.

[donheff]

I checked a bunch of them. Clearly we expect an eventual resolution that sorta sucks with both sides laying clain and blame.

[Midpack]

I hope they cut spending and raise revenues/taxes. IMO anyone who thinks we can even come close to balancing the budget without both is not facing readily available facts. We all need to accept less and pay more, the folks that insist don't touch X make me sick to my stomach - the deficits are much too large for that.

We have got to quit kicking the can down the street on health care, we pay more per capita than any other country for inferior results, that can't continue.

Demographics suggest we need to increase the Soc Sec eligibility ages, tweak COLA adjustment and/or increase FICA - though not for those already in the system.

Taxes need to be simplified, but they're progressive enough IMO so rates should be raised across all income levels. However, the Bush tax cuts will probably end at some point soon.

Defense spending will hopefully decrease as we wind down in Iraq and Afghanistan, but our defense costs will always be large. From what I've read our defense spending will only drop by half if we leave the two "wars."

[MichaelB]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SecondCor521 If I've missed any significant poll options let me know and I can try to add them. 2Cor521

Needs more cowbell

‪CowBell‬‏ - YouTube

[rescueme]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Midpack Demographics suggest we need to increase the Soc Sec eligibility ages, tweak COLA adjustment and/or increase FICA - though not for those already in the system.

We've been here before:

"The 1983 Amendments

The National Commission on Social Security Reform (NCSSR), chaired by Alan Greenspan, was empaneled to investigate the long-run solvency of Social Security. The 1983 Amendments to the SSA were based on the NCSSR's Final Report. The NCSSR recommended enacting a six-month delay in the COLA and changing the tax-rate schedules for the years between 1984 and 1990. It also proposed an income tax on the Social Security benefits of higher-income individuals. This meant that benefits in excess of a household income threshold, generally $25,000 for singles and $32,000 for couples (the precise formula computes and compares three different measures) became taxable. These changes were important for generating revenue in the short term.

Also of concern was the long-term prospect for Social Security because of demographic considerations. Of particular concern was the issue of what would happen when people born during the post–World War II baby boom retired. The NCSSR made several recommendations for addressing the issue. Under the 1983 amendments to Social Security, a previously enacted increase in the payroll tax rate was accelerated, additional employees were added to the system, the full-benefit retirement age was slowly increased, and up to one-half of the value of the Social Security benefit was made potentially taxable income"

Reference: Social Security (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The last SS modification was done almost 30 years ago, based upon information and projected data.

Heck, in 1983 DW/me were both 35 years of age, and well into our "earnings years" when the program was changed (with certainly no discussion with us, on the subject). Now that we are closer to the current SS challange, and preparing to consider the next 50 years, why is a portion of our "leaders" unwilling to make changes to the system? (Just a rhetorical question - no response required)...

[MichaelB]

Quote:

Originally Posted by obgyn65 I checked all the answers except "I like bacon".

On another thread you asked me a question about bacon which I did not answer. Sorry, didn't mean to be rude. It wasn't intentional, just busy babysitting the granddaughter (Hurricane Leila).

Quote:

Originally Posted by obgyn65 Hello MichealB - I have seen recent references to bacon a few times on this website. Never really understood why people refer to "bacon" in a FIRE context. I only joined this webite a year ago, is there anything I missed regarding the use of bacon ?

Well, there is a bacon thread http://www.early-retirement.org/foru...art-32035.html where you may learn many new bacon options. I found the being FIRE'd means I have more free time in the morning to cook bacon for breakfast. Also, being retired means being old (or so says my DW) and that much closer to meeting my maker, so I can go back to eating bacon without being too concerned about the health effects.

The human mind is a wonderful thing - there is no limit in its ability to rationalize something and find a way to a sin into a sacrifice.

[Walt34]

First off, I like bacon.

They will kick the can down the road for as long as they can and only when forced into a corner will they actually make significant changes. There will be token tweakings of tax rates and expenditures but nothing significant.

[steelyman]

The only thing I know for sure is going to happen is that steelyman (me) will be at the polls in November, not having forgotten how this ongoing gridlock has proven to be so detrimental to meaningful progress as a country.

[scrabbler1]

I prefer a spending reductions/revenue increase mix closer to 50%-50%. End all the Bush tax cuts because they were enacted under a false pretense - that the projected budget surpluses from 2001 would go on forever. Phase them out slowly, one percent per bracket per year, until they are gone. The one on divdends was larger so that will have to be phased out more quickly. Extend the FICA Medicare tax to investment income so those who are not working (like me, an early retiree) will have some "skin" in the game.

Get rid of all those tax loopholes which allow corporations to pay little or no income tax. Fully tax SS benefits. I think the whole "tax simplification" thing is overstated. Many people file the simplified tax forms such as 1040EZ and 1040A. Remember, the complexity of the tax system is figuring out the taxable income, so having fewer brackets does not translate to having a simpler tax system. Most people look up their taxes due in a chart so any change in brackets is invisible.

For SS, I would phase in some form of price indexing into the calculation of indexed wages in the benefit formula. This, instead of raising the FICA tax or FICA tax cap, saves less money today and more money in the future which is just what SS needs. Raising the FICA tax today just gives Washington more money now to spend elsewhere which is what has weakened SS with its cashless trust fund.

None of this could ever be enacted because the extremes of each party will collectively not vote for it, and they won't all join hands and jump off the cliff together the way they did it the mid-80s to fix SS (for a while).

I don't oppose a Balanced Budget Amendment but get the conservative ideology out of it such as a cap of %-of-GDP spending and the supermajority to raise taxes. A BBA should be silent about the former because all a BBA needs to say is expenses can't exceed revenues, not how high or low each can be. And the supermajority for taxes is as silly as a supermajority to cut spending as both would hamstring any ability to bring a budget into balance.

[Purron]

Suggested option: they'll bring in those who successfully negociated the NFL lockout.

[brewer12345]

Any time, Porky...

[REWahoo]

Bacon!

[Alan]

‪Queen - Another One Bites The Dust‬‏ - YouTube