Deficit panel - hit SSI, mortgage deductions, medicare

[Bonestorm]

Perhaps if you actually bothered to READ what my actual points are on the topic you wouldn't come off looking like the complete idiot that you are.

I have stated many times that the solution to SS is:

1) Privatize SS (which does NOT mean putting everything into the stock market)

2) Reinstate the SS tax on income over $1mm

So again.... pull your head out of your masters ass and take a look around at what people are actually saying rather than simply chirping in that dark hole as you consume more shit.

Tell me more about #1 above. When does it start? How does it work? Who does it apply to? How are the private accounts funded? What is the purpose?

If you do #2 (albeit at a lower level, say $500,000) you don't need to do much to shore up SS finances.

 

[Bfgrn]

from my picture? WTF are you talking about?

Your avatar

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Tell me more about #1 above. When does it start? How does it work? Who does it apply to? How are the private accounts funded? What is the purpose?

If you do #2 (albeit at a lower level, say $500,000) you don't need to do much to shore up SS finances.

When they pass the bill, money goes into a private account (all their future contributions go directly into this account), anyone under the age of 50 (optional for those over), the money is funded the same way it is today, the purpose is to get the money out of the hands and control of the government while also providing better return potential for the individual

 

[NOVA]

Yea, even when Republicans try to tell you that Republicans are trying to help the rich steal the pennies off the eyes of the dead, your dogmatic pin for a head starts pointing left.

What Paul Craig Roberts is trying to tell you is:

We constantly hear from Wall Street gangsters and from Republicans and an occasional Democrat that Social Security and Medicare are a form of welfare that we can’t afford, an “unfunded liability.” This is a lie. Social Security is funded with an earmarked tax. People pay for Social Security and Medicare all their working lives. It is a pay-as-you-go system in which the taxes paid by those working fund those who are retired.

Currently these systems are not in deficit. The problem is that government is using earmarked revenues for other purposes.

What Paul Craig Roberts is trying to tell you is:

We constantly hear from Wall Street gangsters and from Republicans and an occasional Democrat that Social Security and Medicare are a form of welfare that we can’t afford, an “unfunded liability.” This is a lie.

You having hallucinations sonny...FICA and Medicare taxes are payroll taxes as EVERYONE KNOWS....No Wall Streeter or Republican ever claimed it was an "unfunded liability"...maybe under-funded but not unfunded....
So you above statement is a lie....or is that a Roberts lie ?

Currently these systems are not in deficit. The problem is that government is using earmarked revenues for other purposes.

So if the systems are in the pink what the hell is Roberts complaining about and accusing Wall Street of???
================
*Hank Paulson urging that the mess he caused be fixed by taking away from working Americans the SocSec and Medicare..Utter Bullshit from Roberts

*Wall Street’s approach to the poor has always been to drive them deeper into the ground.....Utter Bullshit from Roberts

*Social Security revenues that could be used to finance other government spending...Thank LBJ for this...

*"Wall Street has got away with its raid on the public treasury.
Wall St. can't raid anything, they didn't force Wash. to give them the money

*"Now, pockets full, it wants to pay for the heist by curtailing Social Security and Medicare. Wall Street doesn't have the power to curtail any government programs, they don't make the laws....

IN short ... Roberts has got a hair up his ass and is ranting nonsense....none of his claims are provable or found anywhere else...

 

[Bfgrn]

What Paul Craig Roberts is trying to tell you is:

We constantly hear from Wall Street gangsters and from Republicans and an occasional Democrat that Social Security and Medicare are a form of welfare that we can’t afford, an “unfunded liability.” This is a lie.

You having hallucinations sonny...FICA and Medicare taxes are payroll taxes as EVERYONE KNOWS....No Wall Streeter or Republican ever claimed it was an "unfunded liability"...maybe under-funded but not unfunded....
So you above statement is a lie....or is that a Roberts lie ?

Currently these systems are not in deficit. The problem is that government is using earmarked revenues for other purposes.

So if the systems are in the pink what the hell is Roberts complaining about and accusing Wall Street of???
================
*Hank Paulson urging that the mess he caused be fixed by taking away from working Americans the SocSec and Medicare..Utter Bullshit from Roberts

*Wall Street’s approach to the poor has always been to drive them deeper into the ground.....Utter Bullshit from Roberts

*Social Security revenues that could be used to finance other government spending...Thank LBJ for this...

*"Wall Street has got away with its raid on the public treasury.
Wall St. can't raid anything, they didn't force Wash. to give them the money

*"Now, pockets full, it wants to pay for the heist by curtailing Social Security and Medicare. Wall Street doesn't have the power to curtail any government programs, they don't make the laws....

IN short ... Roberts has got a hair up his ass and is ranting nonsense....none of his claims are provable or found anywhere else...

All that ranting and you don't even have a clue WTF you're talking about. WHAT Roberts is talking about is the looming threat of cutting social services in the wake of the meltdown caused by Wall Street and mostly Republicans.

First off, thank Reagan, not LBJ for raiding SS.

Wall Street doesn't have the power to curtail any government programs, they don't make the laws....

Here's your words for the day, study up sonny...'Regulatory capture'

 

[NOVA]

All that ranting and you don't even have a clue WTF you're talking about. WHAT Roberts is talking about is the looming threat of cutting social services in the wake of the meltdown caused by Wall Street and mostly Republicans.

First off, thank Reagan, not LBJ for raiding SS.

Wall Street doesn't have the power to curtail any government programs, they don't make the laws....

Here's your words for the day, study up sonny...'Regulatory capture'

Pinhead says:

It is a pay-as-you-go system in which the taxes paid by those working fund those who are retired.

Currently these systems are not in deficit. The problem is that government is using earmarked revenues for other purposes.

Pinheads always want to have it both ways....

so SS and Medicare are currently doing just fuckin' great....
But there is "looming threat" of cutting social services in the wake of the meltdown caused by Wall Street and mostly Republicans.

I see why your ignorant, you still in friggin' denial......try this...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM&feature=player_embedded"]YouTube - Timeline shows Bush, McCain warning Dems of financial and housing crisis; meltdown[/ame]
Timeline shows Bush, McCain warning Dems of financial and housing crisis; meltdown
---------------------
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVVVzEKauzY&feature=related"]YouTube - The Democrats and Obama caused the financial crisis of 08 by supporting Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and covering up their bad books.[/ame]
The Democrats and Obama caused the financial crisis of 08 by supporting Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
------------------
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs&feature=related"]YouTube - Shocking Video Unearthed Democrats in their own words Covering up the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Scam that caused our Economic Crisis[/ame]
Democrats in their own words Covering up the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Scam that caused our Economic Crisis
-----------------
2004 Dem. coverup of Fanny and Freddie
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usvG-s_Ssb0&feature=related"]YouTube - Explosive Video, Fannie Mae CEO calling Obama and the Dems the "Family" and "Conscience" of Fannie Mae[/ame]
Fannie Mae CEO calling Obama and the Dems the "Family" and "Conscience" of Fannie Mae
------------------
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivmL-lXNy64&feature=related"]YouTube - EVIDENCE FOUND!!! Clinton administration's "BANK AFFIRMATIVE ACTION" They forced banks to make BAD LOANS and ACORN and Obama's tie to all of it!!![/ame]
Clinton administration's "BANK AFFIRMATIVE ACTION" They forced banks to make BAD
-----------------
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nU3fNh-PRk&feature=related"]YouTube - Follow the Money: How Fannie Mae Bought the Democrat Party[/ame]
How Fannie Mae Bought the Democrat Party

2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/20/washington/19cnd-cong.html?_r=1

 

[NOVA]

First off, thank Reagan, not LBJ for raiding SS.

Now try this...

Beginning in 1969, Social Security funds were counted officially in the budget....This was done administratively by President Johnson....
SS now was counted and included in the regular US budget....

In the 70's, SS faced problems and because the Federal budget deficit remained large, interest in cutting SS was considered...this led to concerns that SS cuts were being proposed to make budget look better rather than problematic ones...

In 83, 85, and 87, neasures were enacted to make SS a more distinct part of the budget, permitting floor objections to be raised against bills trying to change SS....(R Reagan)

SEE SNOOPS

 

[Bfgrn]

Pinhead says:

Pinheads always want to have it both ways....

so SS and Medicare are currently doing just fuckin' great....
But there is "looming threat" of cutting social services in the wake of the meltdown caused by Wall Street and mostly Republicans.

I see why your ignorant, you still in friggin' denial......try this...

YouTube - Timeline shows Bush, McCain warning Dems of financial and housing crisis; meltdown
---------------------
YouTube - The Democrats and Obama caused the financial crisis of 08 by supporting Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and covering up their bad books.
------------------
YouTube - Shocking Video Unearthed Democrats in their own words Covering up the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Scam that caused our Economic Crisis
-----------------
YouTube - Explosive Video, Fannie Mae CEO calling Obama and the Dems the "Family" and "Conscience" of Fannie Mae
------------------
YouTube - EVIDENCE FOUND!!! Clinton administration's "BANK AFFIRMATIVE ACTION" They forced banks to make BAD LOANS and ACORN and Obama's tie to all of it!!!
-----------------
YouTube - Follow the Money: How Fannie Mae Bought the Democrat Party

2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/20/washington/19cnd-cong.html?_r=1

LOL...I hate to see you go though all those gyrations to build a straw man that goes down with one match...

The 1977 Community Reinvestment Act wasn’t the cause, or even a major contributor, to the subprime mortgage debacle.

Among the specific findings in “Lending in Low- and Moderate-Income Neighborhoods in California: The Performance of CRA Lending During the Subprime Meltdown”:

# Overall, lending to low and moderate income communities comprised only a small share of toal lending by CRA lenders, even during the height of the California subprime lending boom.

# Loans originated by lenders regulated under CRA in general were “significantly less likely to be in foreclosure” than those originated by independent mortgage companies that weren’t covered by CRA.

# Loans made by CRA lenders within their geographic assessment areas covered by the law were “half as likely to go into foreclosure” as those made by the independent mortgage companies.

# 28% of loans made by CRA lenders in low income areas within their geographic assessment areas were fixed-rate loans, compared with 18.2% of loans made by independent mortgage companies in low income areas.

# 12% of the loans made by CRA lenders in these areas were high-priced loans, a technical definition of subprime, compared with 29% of the loans made by those lenders outside their assessment areas and 52.4% of loans made by independent mortgage companies in low-income areas.

Don’t Blame CRA (The Sequel) - Wall Street Journal

Don’t Blame CRA - Wall Street Journal

Don't Blame the Community Reinvestment Act

Even efforts after 2001 to press Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to buy sub-prime loans, as part of the Bush administration's "Ownership Society," do not implicate CRA. Those who scapegoat CRA often contend that it was a reckless push for homeownership -- by both the Clinton and Bush administrations -- that led to the sub-prime crisis. But while homeownership increased significantly during the Clinton years, sub-prime (and also Alt-A) lending was still under 10 percent of mortgage originations when President Bill Clinton left office. President George W. Bush's further pressure for homeownership, which included substantial pressure on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to purchase loans, in particular low-documentation loans, was dubious policy, but cannot be blamed on CRA. In 2006, the height of the sub-prime boom, almost two-thirds of the high-cost loans made were for purposes other than the purchase of a home by an owner-occupant -- they were mostly refinancings to extract equity. But even this overstates the case against homeownership. As the Center for Responsible Lending has demonstrated, between 1998 and 2006, only about 9 percent of sub-prime loans went to first-time homebuyers.

 

[Good Luck]

Yea, even when Republicans try to tell you that Republicans are trying to help the rich steal the pennies off the eyes of the dead, your dogmatic pin for a head starts pointing left.

Typical brain dead anti-business, pro mommy government despotic rhetoric.

What Paul Craig Rpberts is trying to tell you is:

We constantly hear from Wall Street gangsters and from Republicans and an occasional Democrat that Social Security and Medicare are a form of welfare that we can’t afford, an “unfunded liability.” This is a lie. Social Security is funded with an earmarked tax. People pay for Social Security and Medicare all their working lives. It is a pay-as-you-go system in which the taxes paid by those working fund those who are retired.

Currently these systems are not in deficit. The problem is that government is using earmarked revenues for other purposes.

The second problem is the relationship between revenues from the working/contributing population and beneficiaries who are no longer contributing is rapidly changing. Reagan recognized that, which is why he implemented the FICA contribution changes and created the SSI surplus fund. Estimates indicate the SSI surplus, which to this date has been (theoretically) growing, will be needed to fill in the gap between revenues and obligations. From this point on we will be dependent on all those IOUs in the SSI surplus fund.

Yes, we can increase the SSI tax. We can raise the retirement age. We can cut off benefits to people who "make too much". But these "answers" are stop-gaps, as the ratio of contributors to beneficiaries will only continue to change for the worse. Keep using the "tax more, raise retirement age, limit benefits" solution (and I use the term loosely) and we'll be paying 15+ % of all income into FICA, and requiring people to work into their 90s, and giving benefits only to people who are below 75% of the poverty level.

OTOH, keeping most of the system intact, but investing the surplus in the manner pension funds are invested we can create the self-sustaining retirement system SS was/is supposed to be. Investing will, first, keep the money out of the hands of congress. (whomever decided it was a good idea to "invest" it in t-bills, thus transferring the funds to the general fund, was a real truth twisting twit.) Second, investment will give the fund an additional revenue that is NOT dependent on taxes (ever consider who pays the interest on t-bills?) AND, over the long term, far greater than t-bills. AND, before you go the "market unstable, recent losses devastating" route, remember that investment of the SSI surplus fund is a LONG term investment, not just a lifetime, but spanning generations into the indefinite future. To wit, had we done so from the creation of the SSI trust fund in 1984, it would now be more than 4 times its current value INCLUDING THE RECENT CRASH!!! And that is not including dividend payments.

INVESTING the surplus can change a band-aid solution to a long term, fully self contained retirement system.

Also, why would you care if "wallstreet gets their hands on it"? Do you own any stock, or have any retirement based on stocks? YES, businesses which are invested in by SS trust fund dollars will use those dollars to make more money. And as ANY investor, the value of the stock GROWS with the growth of the company. YES, the rich will make more money off it. So what? the trick is SO WILL THE PEOPLE, without resorting to tax increases and decreased benefits.

 

[Bfgrn]

Now try this...

Beginning in 1969, Social Security funds were counted officially in the budget....This was done administratively by President Johnson....
SS now was counted and included in the regular US budget....

In the 70's, SS faced problems and because the Federal budget deficit remained large, interest in cutting SS was considered...this led to concerns that SS cuts were being proposed to make budget look better rather than problematic ones...

In 83, 85, and 87, neasures were enacted to make SS a more distinct part of the budget, permitting floor objections to be raised against bills trying to change SS....(R Reagan)

SEE SNOOPS

Here's your new assignment...go back and READ IT this time.

 

[Good Luck]

LOL...I hate to see you go though all those gyrations to build a straw man that goes down with one match...

The 1977 Community Reinvestment Act wasn’t the cause, or even a major contributor, to the subprime mortgage debacle.

Among the specific findings in “Lending in Low- and Moderate-Income Neighborhoods in California: The Performance of CRA Lending During the Subprime Meltdown”:

# Overall, lending to low and moderate income communities comprised only a small share of toal lending by CRA lenders, even during the height of the California subprime lending boom.

# Loans originated by lenders regulated under CRA in general were “significantly less likely to be in foreclosure” than those originated by independent mortgage companies that weren’t covered by CRA.

# Loans made by CRA lenders within their geographic assessment areas covered by the law were “half as likely to go into foreclosure” as those made by the independent mortgage companies.

# 28% of loans made by CRA lenders in low income areas within their geographic assessment areas were fixed-rate loans, compared with 18.2% of loans made by independent mortgage companies in low income areas.

# 12% of the loans made by CRA lenders in these areas were high-priced loans, a technical definition of subprime, compared with 29% of the loans made by those lenders outside their assessment areas and 52.4% of loans made by independent mortgage companies in low-income areas.

Don’t Blame CRA (The Sequel) - Wall Street Journal

Don’t Blame CRA - Wall Street Journal

Don't Blame the Community Reinvestment Act

Even efforts after 2001 to press Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to buy sub-prime loans, as part of the Bush administration's "Ownership Society," do not implicate CRA. Those who scapegoat CRA often contend that it was a reckless push for homeownership -- by both the Clinton and Bush administrations -- that led to the sub-prime crisis. But while homeownership increased significantly during the Clinton years, sub-prime (and also Alt-A) lending was still under 10 percent of mortgage originations when President Bill Clinton left office. President George W. Bush's further pressure for homeownership, which included substantial pressure on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to purchase loans, in particular low-documentation loans, was dubious policy, but cannot be blamed on CRA. In 2006, the height of the sub-prime boom, almost two-thirds of the high-cost loans made were for purposes other than the purchase of a home by an owner-occupant -- they were mostly refinancings to extract equity. But even this overstates the case against homeownership. As the Center for Responsible Lending has demonstrated, between 1998 and 2006, only about 9 percent of sub-prime loans went to first-time homebuyers.

What all your precious "don't blame us!!" analysts ALWAYS leave out of their figures is the rate at WHICH loans made to applicants went into default. As usual, your sources demonstrate fully the old saying "there are liars, damned liars, and statisticians." First, not all CRA loans were made to applicants who would not have otherwise qualified, so analyzing ALL CRA loans is a bust right there. Second, the analyst fail to account for the manner in which CRA gained access to larger loans to qualified applicants, under the intent to "increase the value of a neighborhood by encouraging large value homes to be built in the area." Third, not all high risk loans were made under CRA, yet can be attributed to CRA pressures elsewhere.

Yet is is those loans, made because of CRA requirements and/or lawsuits filed under CRA (Obama himself was involved in a lawsuit requiring housing loans be made in low income areas of Chicago), which resulted in loans being made to otherwise unqualified applicants that are the crux of the crisis. Whether the applicants were plain not qualified, or whether larger loans were made to applicants who should only have qualified for a smaller loan, it was those high risk loans that went into default at rates far greater than otherwise would have occurred. If loan defaults had not skyrocketed, the rest of the house-of-cards structure would not have collapsed in the manner it did. It was not the loans themselves, being sold off as AAA packages that CAUSED the crisis, though that practice definitely added to the mix. But as the number of loans defaulted on escalated, the "AAA packages" had nothing to back them up and the whole structure came down. Had loan default ratios remained stable, the investors buying those loans would have gotten their money, the banks would have gotten their money, and no crisis would have hit us.

And the bottom line is the REASON loan defaults escalated was due to the number of loans being made to applicants who would not have qualified without CRA mandates.

 

[NOVA]

LOL...I hate to see you go though all those gyrations to build a straw man that goes down with one match...

The 1977 Community Reinvestment Act wasn’t the cause, or even a major contributor, to the subprime mortgage debacle.

Among the specific findings in “Lending in Low- and Moderate-Income Neighborhoods in California: The Performance of CRA Lending During the Subprime Meltdown”:

# Overall, lending to low and moderate income communities comprised only a small share of toal lending by CRA lenders, even during the height of the California subprime lending boom.

# Loans originated by lenders regulated under CRA in general were “significantly less likely to be in foreclosure” than those originated by independent mortgage companies that weren’t covered by CRA.

# Loans made by CRA lenders within their geographic assessment areas covered by the law were “half as likely to go into foreclosure” as those made by the independent mortgage companies.

# 28% of loans made by CRA lenders in low income areas within their geographic assessment areas were fixed-rate loans, compared with 18.2% of loans made by independent mortgage companies in low income areas.

# 12% of the loans made by CRA lenders in these areas were high-priced loans, a technical definition of subprime, compared with 29% of the loans made by those lenders outside their assessment areas and 52.4% of loans made by independent mortgage companies in low-income areas.

Well, then I stand corrected....Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are in great, great, shape....all those pictures of home foreclosures we saw on TV were just a figment of our imaginations....the housing crisis never happened and everyone paid their mortgages on time....
Happy days are here again and we can all gather round an sin kumbaya

So people saying

overdone easing in mortgage lending standards
the excess housing supply
and a household sector vulnerable to falling housing prices
are just mistaken...

Tax, legal and regulatory systems that encouraged households to increase their leverage and permitted lenders to enable that development didn't matter...

Fanny and Freddie are just fine all those foreclosures are just dust in the wind.....

PS....and CRA didn't play any part...of course not....its pinheads like you that believe the government and politicians that claim, "It wasn't our fault"....Micky did it...You really expect them to take any responsibility for their F.UPS?...go drink your Koolade sonny.....you're a lost cause...
Those foreclosures weren't caused by those that could afford the mortgages they took on....but just the opposite.

The only part you're right about is that the CRA only played a small part...Bush and his admin. WARNED the boneheads in Congress, like BarryFag and about the imminent meltdown and he just continued to say..."Its all OK...theres no problem"....AND THERE ARE VIDEOS TO PROVE IT.

 

[apple0154]

As the Center for Responsible Lending has demonstrated, between 1998 and 2006, only about 9 percent of sub-prime loans went to first-time homebuyers.

That was the biggest mistake in the CRA plan. Investors flipping homes caused the prices to rise. First time home buyers would have kept their homes. Also, first time home buyers are more likely to keep their home even if the value decreases as they are attached to it. Investors simply walk away.

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

LOL...I hate to see you go though all those gyrations to build a straw man that goes down with one match...

The 1977 Community Reinvestment Act wasn’t the cause, or even a major contributor, to the subprime mortgage debacle.

Among the specific findings in “Lending in Low- and Moderate-Income Neighborhoods in California: The Performance of CRA Lending During the Subprime Meltdown”:

# Overall, lending to low and moderate income communities comprised only a small share of toal lending by CRA lenders, even during the height of the California subprime lending boom.

# Loans originated by lenders regulated under CRA in general were “significantly less likely to be in foreclosure” than those originated by independent mortgage companies that weren’t covered by CRA.

# Loans made by CRA lenders within their geographic assessment areas covered by the law were “half as likely to go into foreclosure” as those made by the independent mortgage companies.

# 28% of loans made by CRA lenders in low income areas within their geographic assessment areas were fixed-rate loans, compared with 18.2% of loans made by independent mortgage companies in low income areas.

# 12% of the loans made by CRA lenders in these areas were high-priced loans, a technical definition of subprime, compared with 29% of the loans made by those lenders outside their assessment areas and 52.4% of loans made by independent mortgage companies in low-income areas.

Don’t Blame CRA (The Sequel) - Wall Street Journal

Don’t Blame CRA - Wall Street Journal

Don't Blame the Community Reinvestment Act

Even efforts after 2001 to press Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to buy sub-prime loans, as part of the Bush administration's "Ownership Society," do not implicate CRA. Those who scapegoat CRA often contend that it was a reckless push for homeownership -- by both the Clinton and Bush administrations -- that led to the sub-prime crisis. But while homeownership increased significantly during the Clinton years, sub-prime (and also Alt-A) lending was still under 10 percent of mortgage originations when President Bill Clinton left office. President George W. Bush's further pressure for homeownership, which included substantial pressure on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to purchase loans, in particular low-documentation loans, was dubious policy, but cannot be blamed on CRA. In 2006, the height of the sub-prime boom, almost two-thirds of the high-cost loans made were for purposes other than the purchase of a home by an owner-occupant -- they were mostly refinancings to extract equity. But even this overstates the case against homeownership. As the Center for Responsible Lending has demonstrated, between 1998 and 2006, only about 9 percent of sub-prime loans went to first-time homebuyers.

 

[christiefan915]

The middle class, what middle class...

The incredibly shrinking middle class.

 

[christiefan915]

What are you talking about? ...what is there to apologize for?

Bravo can't accept opposing theories. It's all black and white for him.

 

[christiefan915]

WE, the taxpayers, don't pay the fat cats on Wall Street.....
Don't send you money to them and that will be that....
You don't coonfiscate my property and give it to already overpaid government leeches....

Otherwise, it none of your business what other people in the private sector get paid....from CEO's to Walmart floor sweepers....

Just a week ago you and the cons were crowing about sending your leeches into the government, so let's see if these cost-cutters will put their money where their mouths are.

 

[christiefan915]

Not one word about eliminating the COL adjustments for lawmakers and ALL federal workers that already are paid more than comparable jobs in the private sector...

Or how about cutting the outrageous pensions of federal and even state workers....

And how about eliminating completely, pensions of congressmen....

How about a freeze on the military budget

How about Pelosi repaying the government for the use of her private, limo jumbo jet she uses to travel...

How about all travel by congressmen be done on military aircraft that are already making trips to or near their destination...

Their are thousands of ways to cut spending without taking money from seniors that have no other source of income and no other way to keep up with the rising cost of gasoline, food, medicine, etc., and of course, the constant drain of rising real estate taxes on their homes....

How about you doing a little research instead of spreading every internet rumor that hits your inbox?

Claim: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi demanded the use of a "big fat 200-seat jet," which she routinely uses to travel between Calfornia and Washington.

This November 2008 item about House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is a revised and recirculated version of a rumor that originally surfaced in February 2007 (just after Pelosi assumed the Speaker of the House position), claiming that Pelosi spurned use of the Air Force C-20B Gulfstream III 12-seat jet that had been made available to her predecessor, Dennis Hastert, and instead demanded the use of a larger, more luxurious aircraft...

After the 9/11 terrorists attacks in 2001, President George W. Bush ordered that the Speaker of the House (next in line of succession to the presidency after the vice-president) be afforded secure government transportation on military aircraft when traveling on official business, and then-speaker Dennis Hastert often used a C-20B to travel back and forth between Washington to his home state of Illinois. The current brouhaha kicked off when Speaker Pelosi inquired about the availability and rules regarding the use of military aircraft other than the C-20B (such as the C-21 or the C-37A). Critics quickly maintained that Pelosi had insisted on being allowed to use a "big fat 200-seat jet" (a C-32 Boeing 757, which the Air Force describes as seating up to 45 passengers) so that she could travel in luxury and reward her financial contributors with lavish trips. Speaker Pelosi said that her inquiry involved security issues, primarily that she should have access, when needed, to an aircraft capable of flying non-stop between Washington and California, a quality the Air Force said was not possessed under all conditions by the C-20 aircraft used by her predecessor. Those security concerns prompted her to inquire about the use of an aircraft that met those requirements, regardless of its size: Because the C-20 generally would need to stop and refuel to make it all the way to the Bay Area, Pelosi requested a plane that could make it to California without having to stop along the way...

Republican leaders stated — with no tangible evidence — that Pelosi wants to use the plane to reward financial contributors.

Pelosi's office denied that she wanted anyone to be able to travel on the plane other than those Hastert was able to bring along — security, staff, family and members of Congress going to the same airport.

Ultimately it was the House sergeant at arms, Bill Livingood, who issued the request that, if necessary, the Speaker have access to a military plane meeting the non-stop security requirements (not specifically a "larger" plane or a C-32, but simply any suitable aircraft capable of making the California-Washington run non-stop) for travel to and from her home district...

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi did not request a larger plane for personal use to travel cross-country without stopping, Bill Livingood, the House sergeant at arms, said.

Livingood said the request was his, and he made it for security reasons. The White House also stood behind Pelosi.

"As speaker of the House, she is entitled to military transport and ... the proper arrangements are being made between the Sergeant of Arms Office in the House of Representatives and the U.S. Department of Defense," White House spokesman Tony Snow said.

"We think it's appropriate," he added. "And so, again, I think this is much ado about not a whole lot. It is important for the speaker to have this kind of protection and travel."

In March 2009, Judicial Watch published various e-mails and memoranda related to Speaker Pelosi's use of military aircraft for other types of travel. As ABC News noted of those documents: In fact, it appears that Pelosi uses military aircraft less often than her predecessor, former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert.

The documents cover the period from January 2007 to November 2008 and show that Pelosi made the equivalent of 20 round-trips between Washington (Andrews Air Force Base) and San Francisco. That's an average of less than one round-trip per month. In contrast, former Speaker Hastert traveled home to his Illinois district virtually every weekend and, his former aides tell ABC News, he would almost always travel on military aircraft. Like Hastert, Pelosi also occasionally leads Congressional delegations on foreign trips (the documents show six foreign trips: one to Asia, three to the Middle East and two to Europe).

The URL for this page is http://www.snopes.com/politics/pelosi/jet.asp

 

[christiefan915]

Now try this...

Beginning in 1969, Social Security funds were counted officially in the budget....This was done administratively by President Johnson....
SS now was counted and included in the regular US budget....

In the 70's, SS faced problems and because the Federal budget deficit remained large, interest in cutting SS was considered...this led to concerns that SS cuts were being proposed to make budget look better rather than problematic ones...

In 83, 85, and 87, neasures were enacted to make SS a more distinct part of the budget, permitting floor objections to be raised against bills trying to change SS....(R Reagan)

SEE SNOOPS

I checked Snopes. Apparently you're the one who didn't read it through.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/socialsecurity/changes.asp

 

[cawacko]

That was the biggest mistake in the CRA plan. Investors flipping homes caused the prices to rise. First time home buyers would have kept their homes. Also, first time home buyers are more likely to keep their home even if the value decreases as they are attached to it. Investors simply walk away.

How does this make any sense? Sure there were investors and speculators in the market but nowhere near enough to cause the rise in housing prices we saw.

And it's not that hard to walk away from a home you've only had for a year and put no money down to buy. Nor do people particulary want to stay in a home where their mortgage is upside down and continue paying that overvalued amount.