[GregWeld]

Originally Posted by Mkelcy

I'm not sure I understand why you want to go after "entitlements" rather than, say, bullet trains or military spending.

I'm going to retire in a few years, with some savings both after tax and tax deferred. My savings are probably enough that I might be hit by your desire for a need test on benefits that I will have paid for for over 50 years. Why is that the best way to reduce the debt?

I doubt (but hope you are!) that you're earnings on savings will get you into the 1% category where I think the needs testing should be done. If you're going to make $300 or 400K in interest in retirement kudos to you. If that's the case you would be on my side of this discussion.

Moreover, I don't see anything in the Republican plans that looks like a needs test, all I see is across the board cuts. Again, why is that the best way to reduce the deficit, particularly while resisting any change to the top tax rates?

You seem to be like a lot of people and just believe what you read or hear on TV. BOTH sides are going to the extreme before they come back to some agreement somewhere closer to the middle. Don't believe the "facts" or talking points just because they're forwarded in the headlines. Its called posturing.

Tax savings for the 1% aren't going to be immediately recirculated in the economy because the 1% simply don't need that money day-to-day; tax savings for the 99%, on the other hand, are likely going to be spent and help the economy.

The 1% ARE the economy.... and what happens is that when they stop spending YOU don't have a job. They'll be fine - you will suck. "You" doesn't mean you personally but an overall you. I agree that I won't miss a beat if I'm taxed higher -- and I've personally stated that I don't mind a tax increase at all. But you aren't reading well or listening well. What has been said time and time again is that people are FINE with tax increases on the top earners - BUT!!! BIG BUTT!!! It SHOULD come with some controls or reductions in RUN AWAY SPENDING.

I agree there's a lot of government waste but most of what people are talking about here (Solyndra, Obama phones, Medicare disability payments) is down in the budgetary noise. If you want to reduce the deficit, increase taxes, reduce military spending and invest in this country (decent education, infrastructure and, yes, alternative energy), so we can increase GDP and, as a result, the taxable base.

SO here's the deal. If you make $500 a week -- you'll spend $500 a week - if I give you $600 a week you'll spend that and if I gave you $700 a week you'd spend that. You'd keep spending as long as the money keeps pouring in. You wouldn't stop and take a look at your "budget" until someone came and said -- HEY! You're spending too much and now you're only going to get $600 a week. How you'd cut your spending is a problem for you. After all.... you NEED that new car.... and you NEED that big azz TV... What people are TRYING to say is that until you get REAL and start to really look at and revise these programs and reel them in to do their intended use -- we have a problem with that! But NOBODY is going to take a real look at this unless there's some feet to the fire and that will take some CUTTING.

I don't know ANYONE that wants to see these programs cut out - or cut so that people get harmed... But what needs to be done is that they need to be constrained enough that someone cuts the crap out! AND if you don't think there's a HUGE amount of crap --- then there's no point on which we can agree.