livendive

Okay. Here's what I'd be willing to do: (1) not request a refund of the money that I have paid into Social Security and Medicare and then just simply say, "I'll be on my own, and come retirement age I won't take a damned thing. instead I'll make sure that I either take care of myself or I don't and I won't be anyone else's responsibility." So, there's my sacrifice. I'll decline having it available for me in the future. Which is also a benefit because I'll be able to use it to take care of myself. In exchange, I'd like to suggest that everybody plan for a time when they will have to take care of themselves and that the government won't be there to do it. That everybody out there under the age of 50 simply say, "Nope. Not gonna be there" and work on preparing for themselves. Anyone under the age of 65 will wait until they are 70 to get Medicare or Social Security. Anyone younger that 60 will be 75. Anyone under 55 will be 80. Anyone under 50 will be 85. Under 45 will be 90. And under 40 will not have it. This will provide a buffer and a grandfathering in. In fact, make it unavailable to anyone born Jan. 26, 1973 and later. I'll volunteer to be the FIRST person who won't have the benefits given. There's my sacrifice. My sacrifice is that I will be forced to take care of myself. It's actually a rather interesting thing what people do when thy have no choice. The people WILL take care of themselves. So there's my sacrifice. The vast sums I've paid into Medicare and Social Security will be forfeited. As will everybody born after me. For those born before me, they'll wait to get their money so they better prepare for it. And the budget will be balanced all by itself within 25 years because 2/3 of government spending by 2030 will be mostly eliminated. Yeah, I offered the same thing (and was born in 1968). If they'll quit taking it out of my check, they can keep everything they've already taken and I'll forgive the debt. That said, I do have some trouble rationalizing this when considering those who become disabled before retirement age. That 30 year old quadriplegic...should the public provide him some minimal standard of living, or leave it up to charities? Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

If you want to change it then it requires acknowledging that DougH is part of the problem. I'm not part of the famine problem in Somalia...that doesn't mean I can't be part of the solution. This thread assumes that some belt-tightening is required in order to balance our budget, and that it would be more productive to look at where we would personally be willing to sacrifice rather than to point out where we think others should sacrifice. If DougH believes he's already doing enough, then this thread isn't really for him. If everyone believes they're already doing enough, we won't get very far. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

I think limiting it to one home is a no-brainer, and I think capping it at some reasonable level would make sense too. Eliminating it altogether? Probably doable but it would hurt some people a lot more than others, and most would be those who can least afford it (recent buyers who spent close to their max budget while considering the deduction). Maybe a phased elimination, e.g. 90% of mortgage interest in 2012, 80% in 2013, etc...otherwise we'd be bankrupting a bunch of working class families. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Same. They can keep what I've paid in over the last 25 years as a gift. However this offer is only good for one quarter century...I'm keeping the next 25 years worth for myself. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

It would help if people would read the thread title. Forget everyone else, what (else) would you give up? If the answer is nothing, you are part of the problem. I thought of another thing. I trust my adult neighbors to decide for themselves how much tobacco, drugs, alcohol, gambling, and/or prostitution is right for them, and would gladly give up the "public service" of prosecuting and imprisoning them. Further, I'd gladly submit to a 50% tax on those vices anytime I choose to partake. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

So in other words, you like the status quo and don't want to sacrifice anything to improve it? Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

This. The downgrade was because the Congress just proved they are incapable of responsibly managing our economic problem. Both parties cater far too much to their voters and not enough to the greater good. Personally, I think the Republicans own most of that in the recent grandstanding, with the whole "don't touch my tax breaks until you've cleaned out welfare" thing, but the Democrats get some blame too. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

"If the US Government was a family, they would be making $58,000 a year, they spend $75,000 a year, & are $327,000 in credit card debt. They are currently proposing BIG spending cuts to reduce their spending to $72,000 a year. These are the actual proportions of the federal budget & debt, reduced to a level that we can understand." - Dave Ramsey I like that take on the whole scenario. Maybe this will be the wakeup that people need to realize that we all need to make sacrifices across the board to get out of this mess. Its not just the government overspending, its also fueled by us voters supporting anyone who finds a creative way to give us more money, whether it be tax breaks, or spending programs. I've given 12 years and counting to the military and I'm facing a severe cut in my retirement, where is everyone else stepping up to make a sacrifice? ^^ Our political system currently operates on the basis of two parties offering economic benefits to ~50% of the population, and getting votes in exchange for those gimmes. We need to stop basing our votes on what's best for our individual ledgers and start basing votes on what's best for our country as a whole. As a wise man once suggested, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." Instead of pointing fingers at where other people should sacrifice for the deficit, offer up what you'd personally give. I just started a thread for such a discussion. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

It seems to me that every argument on either side of this debate includes something along the lines of "my side can't/shouldn't give up X" but "the other side can/should give up y". Democrats insist the rich be taxed more, Republicans insist the poor get less welfare. Let's try something different for a change. Without regard to what you think others should give up, would benefit do you currently enjoy that you'd be willing to sacrifice to help balance the budget. For starters, I'd give up the mortgage interest deduction on my second home and the deduction of my state sales tax from my taxable income. I'd gladly forego Saturday mail delivery and I be willing to drive on roads maintained half as well as they currently are. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

I'm not convinced. Let's say we had a social network on FB consisting of hard cord Disney fans. These are people that have truly drunk the Koolaid and have a tendency to believe the swill the company has dished out over the course of nearly 100 years. Rabid fans; think things should be "practically perfect in every way." Ok so one guy has a beef. He starts a campaign and gets all the rabid fans to agree with him. Is that really representative of the population as a whole? I don't think so. Most spices are incredibly strong tasting all by themselves, and very poorly representative of the dishes to which they're added. If a particular flavor starts to dominate the dish, perhaps a good cook would evaluate why and try to reduce its proportion. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

And GWB was voted in by retards, retards, and more retards. The GOP specifically targeted retarded voters, knowing that 96% of them would vote for Bush. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Interesting article about how whiners take their battles to the internet when generally speaking nobody would have really cared. Since they can find a niche that will support them, it can appear as if they have support, when in fact it may just be a vocal minority willing to click a FB page. I tend to agree with the thesis of the article that it tends to blow things out of proportion. I think it gives that minority a voice that allows them to put things in exactly the right proportion. If 10 people hate something that 10 million people love, their complaints won't even register as noise, but if 80% of israeli cottage cheese consumers are angry about the 3 biggest dairies colluding to raise prices by 75% overnight, and they get that rolled back, good on 'em. Companies might complain about this sort of publicity (see slaughterhouses trying to legislate freedom from video exposes), but they could also look at the bright side...information on why consumers leave. In the last 10 years, I've spent over 20 thousand dollars on cell phones and internet service. AT&T didn't get a dime of it, and they don't even know it, as I'm just one lousy customer who got frustrated, closed three lines of service, and walked away. If people like myself collectively aired our complaints, perhaps AT&T would see exactly how they drove some small subset of consumers away, and thereby save some of that lost business. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Shocker! My favorite parts have been the comparisons to Joplin, Hendrix, Morrison, Cobain...as if, lol. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Oddly enough, I get exactly the same impression of the congressional Republicans. "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Everyone involved in this debate seems to think the answer lies with those other people, not them. The wealthier faction says "leave my taxes alone, go get it from the overpaid/entitlement folks", and the less fortunate say "I can't afford anymore (or any at all), go get it from those who can." The only difference I see right now is the wealthier faction seems to also be able to afford megaphones. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

I mostly agree with two of those. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Fine by me. In a society that touts freedom of religion, those religions that support polygamous and same sex marriages between consenting adults should be allowed to conduct them. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Obama and Paul each got hundreds of dollars in donations from me in 2008. Paul will definitely not be getting any from me in 2012 (I put him in my spam filter last week), and Obama will probably not be getting any from me (I'm only keeping the option open if the GOP nominates an especially retarded candidate, e.g. Palin) Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

I seem to notice a theme, and the Y-mod is ancillary to it. Fit your harnesses correctly folks, and the presence or lack of a Y-mod won't matter. There may have been thousands of Y-mod jumps without issue since 2006, but there have also been millions of jumps without the mod since then, also without issue. It may be an advisable backup, but the real key is to not need it. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

I don't see why it wouldn't be possible...they strap totally unrelated things together now...subsidies for hog farmers in a military appropriations bill, a ban on funding for stem cell research attached to an arts and literature program...why not "fix our debt" attached to a "fix our debt" bill? I agree without about there needing to be a change in mindset. I think they could demonstrate that change by crafting and passing a bill that both dramatically reduces spending and increases the revenue we have to pay those expenses we can't eliminate. If it only does one or the other, I won't believe the required change of mindset has occurred. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

that's great in your ideal world, but Bolas has it right. Currently, raising 1M$ in taxes will just create 1.5M$ in more spending programs. THAT is what needs to be fixed first. The concern that you and Bolas are stating is that an increase in taxes will not be followed by a decrease in spending. I wholeheartedly agree. What Billvon and I are *also* saying is that a decrease in spending will not be followed by an increase in taxes. Our government has two seperate but related problems: 1) not generating enough revenue to cover its... 2) excessive spending. Our politicians have aligned themselves in approximately equal proportions against one problem or the other, and neither of those groups of politicians should be trusted to change their tune, as it will cost them votes. Remember when Bush Sr's "no new taxes" policy got a closer look at the post-Reagan books? "Ooops, uh, what I really meant was..." So, given that we can't trust either of these groups to make significant spending cuts or tax reforms without substantial concessions from the other, the only logical choice is to make them both happen at the same time. If Obama is offering 6:1 cuts to tax "increases", a respectable House should take that in good faith. However, I would also like to see substantial legislation put in place governing how the income:expenditures should relate to each other in the future. In fact, I think this might be a good time to consider a constitutional amendment related to management of the public debt. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

I disagree, because like communism, it sounds kinda nice on paper but will not work in real life. It's a disingenious "you first" argument from the GOP, to be followed by "Meh, your sacred cow was good enough, let our's live". Remember, these are the same people who don't consider a tax break "spending", but do consider the removal of that break a tax "hike". There needs to be some serious concessions on both sides of the deficit, and it ought to hurt the the rich, poor, and middle class somewhat equally. Massively simplify the tax code, primarily by eliminating loopholes that allow corporations/individuals to declare their income to be tax exempt. Also reduce welfare benefits substantially (again, to individuals AND industry). Cut defense spending to, say, the combined total of our 5 biggest national security threats, and road construction to only those highways that are necessary for trade between major economic hubs...let the states handle smaller stuff. Stop paying the poor to have more babies, stop giving tax breaks to those who pay them for having more babies. We've been screwing up our economy since World War 1, and it's been spiralling out of control for the last 30 years. It's time to admit our mistakes, face the reality of the situation, take a second job, eat some top ramen, and fix this. To say "let the poor tighten their belts first" is simply unrealistic, and unfair. All of us have been eating at this buffet, and we all need to do our share of the dishes to cover the tab. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

That's my point. They didn't prove it or there would have been a guilty verdict. All it took to free the defendant was reasonable doubt, and the jury obviously had that. Sums it all up right here. You need to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It doesn't matter if you "feel" like she's guilty. And showing the mother partying a week after the child's disappearance is not proof. It barely even qualifies as circumstantial evidence. This. I think Casey probably killed her child, but I'm not convinced beyone any reasonable doubt. From what I heard on TV and read online, the prosecution didn't even prove the child was murdered, much less who did it. We know the kid is dead, there was an attempt to cover up the death, and the mother reacted strangely to the child's death/disappearance and lied about things. None of these are proof that Casey actually killed the baby, much less intentionally. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

If you were in the market for a new AAD, would $44 help out? 44 *cents* might be insignificant, but $44B is 3.5% of $1.3T...a small but significant dent. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Thanks for the birthday wishes, much appreciated...and for everyone else, Rosie actually speaks the truth for a change. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)