Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

News & Politics News & Politics

A Balanced Plan to Avert the Sequester and Reduce the Deficit

Posted by   + Show Post


A Balanced Plan to Avert the Sequester and Reduce the Deficit


President Obama believes that our guiding focus must be growing the economy and strengthening the middle class. That’s his North Star, and it's why he won't accept cuts that force the middle class to bear the burden of deficit reduction.

The President has put forward a specific plan that will avoid sequestration's harmful budget cuts and reduce the deficit in a balanced way — by cutting spending, finding savings in entitlement programs and closing tax loopholes.

Both parties have already come together to cut the deficit by more than $2.5 trillion and today the deficit is coming down at the fastest pace since then end of World War II.

President Obama's plan builds on this progress and would cut the deficit by another $1.5 trillion, bringing it below its historic average.

Learn More 




by on Mar. 7, 2013 at 6:57 PM
Replies (21-27):
DSamuels
by Gold Member on Mar. 9, 2013 at 11:18 AM
Neither congress nor the president get their salaries for life. Sigh, I wish people would research this.

Congress pays into SS and into the federal pension plan. They must work 5 years to be eligible, that's one term for a senator (6 years) and three terms for house member which is a two year term. They are only eligible for a percentage of their highest salary, I believe it's 2/3, which is around $65,000. The president gets 1/2, or $200,000.

As for extra money for being on a committee? I've never heard that one.
Quoting 143myboys9496:

 "Encourage beneficiaries to seek high value health care and ask the most fortunate to pay more."


Leads me to think this includes the taxes and fees imposed on those that will be able to maintain their employer sponsored health care...


Riiiggghhtt..because NONE of those people would be middle class...


 


"Reform postal service and TSA passenger security fees."


Wait..has there been a TSA surcharge for being felt up? And who from the postal service would need security?


 


"Reform federal retirement programs."


Can we start with congressional retirement? How about the fact they get paid their congressional salaries for life? how about NOT paying them extra money to sit on commitees?


I'll believe it when I see it.


 


Are we moving forward yet??


 



ETA: the average pension in 2007 was $36,000. They have to be 62 to collect and for the full benefit had to have worked 20 years. The 5 years is just to be fully vested.

From the Washington Post:
Members of Congress are eligible for a pension when they turn 62 if they have completed at least five years of service, according to the Congressional Research Service. Members are eligible for a pension at age 50 if they have completed 20 years of service, or at any age after completing 25 years of service. The amount of the pension depends on years of service and the average of the highest three years of salary. By law, the starting amount of a member of Congress' retirement annuity cannot exceed 80 percent of his or her final salary.

In 2007, — the most recent year for which numbers available — 435 retired Members of Congress received federal pensions. Of this number, 286 retired under the Civil Service Retirement System, a pension plan for federal employees who served prior to 1984, and received an average annual pension of $63,696. The remaining Congressmen retired under both CSRS or the Federal Employees' Retirement System, a newer pension plan, or under FERS only. In 2007, their average annual pension was $36,732.
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
SallyMJ
by Ruby Member on Mar. 9, 2013 at 12:21 PM
1 mom liked this

Have you already forgotten that Obama got his tax increases as part of the fiscal cliff negotiation in late December?! That was only 2-1/2 months ago!

And no, the House did NOT get their spending cuts, because Obama refused it, and because of the sharp deadline for the fiscal cliff, and its impact on the US credit rating.

Do you read the national news and keep up on major events? If you did, you would know all this.


Quoting mommom2000:


Why do you keep sticking to that line that Obama already got his tax cuts.  If you look at what has already been done , then you can say the Republicans already got their spending cuts, so why are they asking for more.  The revenue he got wasn't near the figure he was asking for.  He is offering even more cuts and the repubs are refusing any revenue.  Facts are facts  Obama has given on 1.4 trillion on spending cuts and he only got 600 billion in revenue.  Which number is much bigger?  Who has already compromised the most?  Who refuses to give at all at this point?

Quoting SallyMJ:

The plan is balanced.

Obama already got his tax increases in the fiscal cliff negotiation in Dec. 2012.

Now, part 2: the cuts to increases in spending items. These smarter cuts will take the place of the sequester.

Very easy.

But Obama is a bit greedy, and wants to put his hand in the cookie jar again.

Sorry, Mr. President!! :)





ashleywright88
by New Member on Mar. 9, 2013 at 12:40 PM

I have a great idea on how to balance a budget. CUT ENTITLEMENT SPENDING! Have you see the incredible increase of people that are collecting welfare? Many collect simply because they think they "deserve" it. Obama wants us to rely on the government, it makes us weaker and easier to control. And another thing, go and Google "Government Funded Programs", there is a huge list and I am sure that we can cut back on quite a few of those. Also, why give money to the Muslim Brotherhood? Why give money to Syria? How about before we give all this money away we should fix our problems here. Cut THOSE out of the budget and it settles a good chunk of the deficit. Also, put more restrictions on China for trading and start giving a big incentive to U.S. based companies to move their manufacturing operations back to the US. Therefore creating more jobs in the US. MAKE IT WORTH THEIR WHILE! Also, while we are at it, make a clause in their contracts saying that for the first 6 years they do not have to pay taxes but after that they are required to but the contract would state that they HAVE to stay in the USA for atleast 20 years. It gives room for a better foundation for whatever company moves their operations back to employ plenty of people. We should also invest in small business, encourage more, have more grants for people who have a great idea and want to make it happen. Our money should go to help US, not people in foreign countries, or using money as a way to keep a terrorist group from forming an attack against the US. Use our money to have a major military defense. Better yet, make me president. ;)

mommom2000
by Bronze Member on Mar. 9, 2013 at 5:29 PM

 

Oh boy, I will say it again. Obama already has written into law1.4 trillion in sending cuts, that is a fact. In December the Bush tax cuts or people making over million dollars expired which will bring in 600 billion in revenue  Fact.

Both sides wanted more, fact.  So one side gave over twice the amount as the other side.  1.4 trillion in cuts compared to 600 billion in revenue.  Fact

Now both sides are asking for more. fact   One side is agreeing to give more spending cuts. Fact.  One side is refusing to give any more revenue. Fact

So which side has already given more then the other side?  Which side is willing to give even more, while other side wants to give nothing?

Quoting SallyMJ:

Have you already forgotten that Obama got his tax increases as part of the fiscal cliff negotiation in late December?! That was only 2-1/2 months ago!

And no, the House did NOT get their spending cuts, because Obama refused it, and because of the sharp deadline for the fiscal cliff, and its impact on the US credit rating.

Do you read the national news and keep up on major events? If you did, you would know all this.

 

Quoting mommom2000:

 

Why do you keep sticking to that line that Obama already got his tax cuts.  If you look at what has already been done , then you can say the Republicans already got their spending cuts, so why are they asking for more.  The revenue he got wasn't near the figure he was asking for.  He is offering even more cuts and the repubs are refusing any revenue.  Facts are facts  Obama has given on 1.4 trillion on spending cuts and he only got 600 billion in revenue.  Which number is much bigger?  Who has already compromised the most?  Who refuses to give at all at this point?

Quoting SallyMJ:

The plan is balanced.

Obama already got his tax increases in the fiscal cliff negotiation in Dec. 2012.

Now, part 2: the cuts to increases in spending items. These smarter cuts will take the place of the sequester.

Very easy.

But Obama is a bit greedy, and wants to put his hand in the cookie jar again.

Sorry, Mr. President!! :)

 

 

 

 


 

SallyMJ
by Ruby Member on Mar. 9, 2013 at 5:41 PM

I am talking about the fiscal cliff agreement, negotiated Dec. 31, 2012.

I think you may be referring to the debt ceiling crisis agreement signed on Aug. 1, 2011. I believe those are approx the numbers called for then - a bit higher for cuts to spending increases vs. tax increases -that they couldn't negotiate in time, so put into the agreement, with the promise to work it out by Jan. 1, 2013.

Quoting mommom2000:


Oh boy, I will say it again. Obama already has written into law1.4 trillion in sending cuts, that is a fact. In December the Bush tax cuts or people making over million dollars expired which will bring in 600 billion in revenue  Fact.

Both sides wanted more, fact.  So one side gave over twice the amount as the other side.  1.4 trillion in cuts compared to 600 billion in revenue.  Fact

Now both sides are asking for more. fact   One side is agreeing to give more spending cuts. Fact.  One side is refusing to give any more revenue. Fact

So which side has already given more then the other side?  Which side is willing to give even more, while other side wants to give nothing?

Quoting SallyMJ:

Have you already forgotten that Obama got his tax increases as part of the fiscal cliff negotiation in late December?! That was only 2-1/2 months ago!

And no, the House did NOT get their spending cuts, because Obama refused it, and because of the sharp deadline for the fiscal cliff, and its impact on the US credit rating.

Do you read the national news and keep up on major events? If you did, you would know all this.


Quoting mommom2000:


Why do you keep sticking to that line that Obama already got his tax cuts.  If you look at what has already been done , then you can say the Republicans already got their spending cuts, so why are they asking for more.  The revenue he got wasn't near the figure he was asking for.  He is offering even more cuts and the repubs are refusing any revenue.  Facts are facts  Obama has given on 1.4 trillion on spending cuts and he only got 600 billion in revenue.  Which number is much bigger?  Who has already compromised the most?  Who refuses to give at all at this point?

Quoting SallyMJ:

The plan is balanced.

Obama already got his tax increases in the fiscal cliff negotiation in Dec. 2012.

Now, part 2: the cuts to increases in spending items. These smarter cuts will take the place of the sequester.

Very easy.

But Obama is a bit greedy, and wants to put his hand in the cookie jar again.

Sorry, Mr. President!! :)









mommom2000
by Bronze Member on Mar. 9, 2013 at 6:03 PM

 

It doesn't matter when either of them happened.  Its the same debate they have been having over the deficit. I'm talking about all of it.  The first round I believe there was no revenue and only spending cuts, and then in December there were some revenue, which were part of the Bush tax cuts expiring.  Either way both sides want more, and one side is willing to do more.

They shouldn't even be worrying about this right now.  Our number one priority should be getting people back to work, which in turn would help the deficit, because the more people working the more revenue we would bring in.

Quoting SallyMJ:

I am talking about the fiscal cliff agreement, negotiated Dec. 31, 2012.

I think you may be referring to the debt ceiling crisis agreement signed on Aug. 1, 2011. I believe those are approx the numbers called for then - a bit higher for cuts to spending increases vs. tax increases -that they couldn't negotiate in time, so put into the agreement, with the promise to work it out by Jan. 1, 2013.

Quoting mommom2000:

 

Oh boy, I will say it again. Obama already has written into law1.4 trillion in sending cuts, that is a fact. In December the Bush tax cuts or people making over million dollars expired which will bring in 600 billion in revenue  Fact.

Both sides wanted more, fact.  So one side gave over twice the amount as the other side.  1.4 trillion in cuts compared to 600 billion in revenue.  Fact

Now both sides are asking for more. fact   One side is agreeing to give more spending cuts. Fact.  One side is refusing to give any more revenue. Fact

So which side has already given more then the other side?  Which side is willing to give even more, while other side wants to give nothing?

Quoting SallyMJ:

Have you already forgotten that Obama got his tax increases as part of the fiscal cliff negotiation in late December?! That was only 2-1/2 months ago!

And no, the House did NOT get their spending cuts, because Obama refused it, and because of the sharp deadline for the fiscal cliff, and its impact on the US credit rating.

Do you read the national news and keep up on major events? If you did, you would know all this.

 

Quoting mommom2000:

 

Why do you keep sticking to that line that Obama already got his tax cuts.  If you look at what has already been done , then you can say the Republicans already got their spending cuts, so why are they asking for more.  The revenue he got wasn't near the figure he was asking for.  He is offering even more cuts and the repubs are refusing any revenue.  Facts are facts  Obama has given on 1.4 trillion on spending cuts and he only got 600 billion in revenue.  Which number is much bigger?  Who has already compromised the most?  Who refuses to give at all at this point?

Quoting SallyMJ:

The plan is balanced.

Obama already got his tax increases in the fiscal cliff negotiation in Dec. 2012.

Now, part 2: the cuts to increases in spending items. These smarter cuts will take the place of the sequester.

Very easy.

But Obama is a bit greedy, and wants to put his hand in the cookie jar again.

Sorry, Mr. President!! :)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

littlelamb303
by Member on Mar. 10, 2013 at 1:29 AM

federal retirement packages were cut drastically under the reagan administration.  Futhermore, my dh PAYS into his pension, retirement and healthcare(that alone is 10k a year, healthcare) Where is the SSI and welfare reform on your list? I don't see it. Lots of abuse there.

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)