How do you think losing the AAA rating will effect you on a personal level?

[ilovemk76]

The problem is that the cuts that get the most support aren't sustainable either. Cutting the safety net - whether in the form of social programs or retirement for rank-and-file military - in a consumer-driven economy serves only to further hamper economic growth. Unless there are jobs to replace those social payments - and I think right now we can all agree there aren't - that's taking money directly out of our own economy because those are all dollars that will be spent.

In the current environment where tax increases are taboo, projects like multi-million dollar fighter jets and shoring up profitable corporations at public expense are considered more important than protecting pensions, and no one is willing to really think out of the box (this country could save a fortune by radically rethinking the "war on drugs" and therefore reducing our world-leading prison population, but how much support is there for that?) there's no good option left on the table.

What is hurting our economy is the staggering budget deficit and the debt that we have to service. If we don't get that under control now it will lead t a collapse in our country and then all those getting a hand out or sucking at the tit of the government will find the gravy train is now a junk yard.

We are now at a point that we have to take money out of the economy to get back on track (cuts and taxes) or the economy will do it for us and the economy will not be nice to most of us.


SS was never meant to be a living wage and it was never expected that one would draw more than a couple of years. We now have people who started to draw at 62 and are still drawing 30 years later.

As a society we have to go back to the extended families of just a short time ago. We can make a go of it if we did that. To expect to be able to have your own place, with only a single reisdent, and have the government pay is just ridiculous. You can do that IF you can pay it from your own salary.

Right now DH and I have a home to ourselves. We have already discussed and agreed that in a few years we will offer my aunt and uncle to come live with us. My uncle is 70 and is still working. They cannot afford to retire but eventually they will have to retire as he can only make that hour drive for so long. It would be far cheaper for them to live with us and pay their share then for us to have our own place and them to have theirs.

 

[punkin]

What is hurting our economy is the staggering budget deficit and the debt that we have to service. No. There are many things hurting our economy and this is a very tiny portion of the problem. We can well afford the service on out debt. It's miniscule compared to the rest of our expenditures. Take a look at the graphs posted in this thread.If we don't get that under control now it will lead t a collapse in our country and then all those getting a hand out or sucking at the tit of the government will find the gravy train is now a junk yard.

We are now at a point that we have to take money out of the economy to get back on track (cuts and taxes) or the economy will do it for us and the economy will not be nice to most of us.


SS was never meant to be a living wage and it was never expected that one would draw more than a couple of years. We now have people who started to draw at 62 and are still drawing 30 years later. Agreed. SS has to be revamped in some way. It is unsustainable the way it is now. However, I still remember the horror stories in the 1970s of old people surviving on cat food. I'm not sure I want to do that either.

As a society we have to go back to the extended families of just a short time ago. I would do that in my own family, but I don't think with all the disfunctionall families out there, it's a good policy idea. We can make a go of it if we did that. To expect to be able to have your own place, with only a single reisdent, and have the government pay is just ridiculous. You can do that IF you can pay it from your own salary.

Right now DH and I have a home to ourselves. We have already discussed and agreed that in a few years we will offer my aunt and uncle to come live with us. My uncle is 70 and is still working. They cannot afford to retire but eventually they will have to retire as he can only make that hour drive for so long. It would be far cheaper for them to live with us and pay their share then for us to have our own place and them to have theirs.

That's really nice what you're doing for your Aunt and Uncle. It is the right thing to do.

 

[ilovemk76]

That's really nice what you're doing for your Aunt and Uncle. It is the right thing to do.

Thanks. I really only brought it up to make a point. I have an extremely disfunctional family but even in families like that there are people who get along. I am also a believer that family is not defined by blood.

The debt and our budget is costing us. We borrow 40 cents of every dollar we spend. 9% is not the largest part of our budget but if we did not have it we would be in better shape. We cannot spend our way out of this so we need to start living within our means.

 

[cnetbuild]

This was a fun thread to read. First, I think we need to be critical viewers of the news because the 24-hour cycle sensationalizes relatively unimportant things, and the ‘fourth arm of the government’ has their agenda that manipulate the masses.

To me, the most important economic problem is jobs. As long as I keep my job, I’m safe. But if I become part of the unemployed, underemployed, or those that gave up, I am going to be economically devastated. Without jobs the middle class turns into the lower class. As the lower class grows, tax income decreases and violence increases. With more jobs (ie NOT underemployed jobs) people have more to spend, more people look for houses, more taxes, etc. Therefore I believe that if we fix the job situation many problems with our economy will click back into place.

Everyone complains that Washington is to fault for the debt. For the most part I believe that to be true. However.. most of us received incentive checks from the government, took the tax cuts, got rebates for cars and appliances, drive on a nicely paved highway paid with federal dollars, and have kids attending a school that received federal relief money. That wasn’t free money. And we need to pay it back.

For starts: Taxes need to go up on the rich, but not on their businesses. The middle class needs a relatively small increase. There is a reported 50% of Americans who don’t pay taxes – those in the 40-50% bracket need to start paying something (I don’t care if it is only $10/year – they need to pay something). Social Security retirement age needs to be staged back to 70 until we can afford to lower it. We need a government work program for those on unemployment so they can earn a little more by working on community projects and earn their unemployment check. The promise to cut ear marks needs to be honored. These savings need to go directly to the national debt.

Our nation needs to become energy independent. Energy independence would keep dollars here, lower the cost of energy, help to make manufacturing competitive, and eliminate our need to be involved in so many world affairs. There is reportedly enough natural gas in the shale of Pennsylvania and New York to fuel every car and house for hundreds of years. The oil fields under the US are reported to be the larger then Saudi Arabia. But government regulations block us from obtaining most of it.

We could arm chair quarterback this all day. And its been fun doing so. For now, I need to turn my attention to more important things: planning my next Disney Vacation!

 

[C.Ann]

I'm always very frugal, so I guess I'm not too worried.. Of course I'm still always looking for additional ways to save money; make things stretch/last longer; etc. - but that's more about "who" I am as opposed to the economy...

Living well below ones means is never a bad idea..

 

[sukhakuli]

Yeah, the founding fathers also said Life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness and as a black person, you can see how that turned out. but I digress.....

I'm not trying to use that as a weapon to beat up on the founding fathers. But it's time to move on, that was 200 some odd years ago and basically the Founding fathers were politicians just like the ones we've got today. The founding fathers would never have imagine 300 million people even living here so going back to some era in the past is not going to happen.

I have nothing but the greatest respect and admiration for the military but they are a wasteful agency just like every one else. They are no more deserving of a pension than my dh who supplies oil to this country or a school teacher who teaches our youth. They volunteered, yes I'm grateful of the job they do but they did volunteer. So imo it's exactly the same.

They go on the same chopping block like every one else. just my opinion.

I think the major difference here is that the troops are serving in combat. When they join the military, they are promised certain benefits, and it seems really low that after they have fought in a decade long war, that we are going to take those benefits away.

And this isn't a case of me-itis. My dh is a physician (specialist) and when he gets out of the military and starts making what the other specialists in his field make, we won't have trouble with retirement. But I feel for the enlisted guys who put their lives on the line over and over because they really believe in defending America, and now some of the American public wants to give them a hard kick in the rear. I'd rather pay higher taxes so they can keep their benefits.

 

[OceanAnnie]

I think the major difference here is that the troops are serving in combat. When they join the military, they are promised certain benefits, and it seems really low that after they have fought in a decade long war, that we are going to take those benefits away.

And this isn't a case of me-itis. My dh is a physician (specialist) and when he gets out of the military and starts making what the other specialists in his field make, we won't have trouble with retirement. But I feel for the enlisted guys who put their lives on the line over and over because they really believe in defending America, and now some of the American public wants to give them a hard kick in the rear. I'd rather pay higher taxes so they can keep their benefits.

I agree. I think the military should be the last place cuts should occur.

 

[dvcgirl]

I think the major difference here is that the troops are serving in combat. When they join the military, they are promised certain benefits, and it seems really low that after they have fought in a decade long war, that we are going to take those benefits away.

And this isn't a case of me-itis. My dh is a physician (specialist) and when he gets out of the military and starts making what the other specialists in his field make, we won't have trouble with retirement. But I feel for the enlisted guys who put their lives on the line over and over because they really believe in defending America, and now some of the American public wants to give them a hard kick in the rear. I'd rather pay higher taxes so they can keep their benefits.

I don't necessarily think that that military pensions for those who are within 5-10 years of retirement need to be touched at all. Those military veterans should be "grandfathered" in as those who are close to receiving SS benefits will be.

What should and likely will be affected are military pay and pensions for those who are in five years or less, and of course for any new recruits.

And again, as others have said, the military spending isn't just the forces, but the equipment, and there's a lot of spending going on there.

The US Postal Service is asking, really *begging* Congress to allow them to lay off 120,000 workers and restructure their benefits package. Again, these are government employees, the same as with our military forces.

 

[OceanAnnie]

I don't necessarily think that that military pensions for those who are within 5-10 years of retirement need to be touched at all. Those military veterans should be "grandfathered" in as those who are close to receiving SS benefits will be.

What should and likely will be affected are military pay and pensions for those who are in five years or less, and of course for any new recruits.

And again, as others have said, the military spending isn't just the forces, but the equipment, and there's a lot of spending going on there.

The US Postal Service is asking, really *begging* Congress to allow them to lay off 120,000 workers and restructure their benefits package. Again, these are government employees, the same as with our military forces.

Yes. I read a blip where they are asking to opt out of the mandated health care too.

 

[lovemygoofy]

I would just like to say that I am not happy with the possible changes in the military retirement.

My husband is at 15 years in the army. If these changes take place and are not grandfathered in, everything I read said that we will take a 30/70 hit on this. I pisses me off greatly. We do not have an option of getting out at this point as we have signed a contract to stay the minimum of 20 years but it's ultimately the army's needs.

The changes in the retirement include taking 16% of basic pay and putting it into a 401k. That is a big chunk to take out for an E4 with a few kids. Alot of families aren't going to be able to pay rent even with the housing allotment. There will also be less motivation to stay the full 20 years and it costs alot more to constantly be training new soldiers over and over without having great senior leadership.

Now we already contribute to a couple of retirement accounts but the thought that my husband has served almost 50 months in combat in the last 10 years and the army is going to screw him this way makes my heart break for him. Talk about a big betrayal.

This isn't just because of what is best for us this is simply what is right sometimes. My husband isn't a corporate employee. He doesn't just get to call in to work when he wants to sleep late or take a 'mental' day. He gets to work any and all holidays and yeah he doesn't get to leave war when he is tired of being shot at.

Yes it is voluntarily but we signed these last contracts with implied benefits to include a retirement. I don't even have a problem pushing the FULL retirement benefits out to say 50 but to cut them when we are this far into the game simply is not fair.

 

[natenapril]

I would just like to say that I am not happy with the possible changes in the military retirement.

My husband is at 15 years in the army. If these changes take place and are not grandfathered in, everything I read said that we will take a 30/70 hit on this. I pisses me off greatly. We do not have an option of getting out at this point as we have signed a contract to stay the minimum of 20 years but it's ultimately the army's needs.

The changes in the retirement include taking 16% of basic pay and putting it into a 401k. That is a big chunk to take out for an E4 with a few kids. Alot of families aren't going to be able to pay rent even with the housing allotment. There will also be less motivation to stay the full 20 years and it costs alot more to constantly be training new soldiers over and over without having great senior leadership.

Now we already contribute to a couple of retirement accounts but the thought that my husband has served almost 50 months in combat in the last 10 years and the army is going to screw him this way makes my heart break for him. Talk about a big betrayal.

This isn't just because of what is best for us this is simply what is right sometimes. My husband isn't a corporate employee. He doesn't just get to call in to work when he wants to sleep late or take a 'mental' day. He gets to work any and all holidays and yeah he doesn't get to leave war when he is tired of being shot at.

Yes it is voluntarily but we signed these last contracts with implied benefits to include a retirement. I don't even have a problem pushing the FULL retirement benefits out to say 50 but to cut them when we are this far into the game simply is not fair.

Well said. My DH is at almost 15 years too. With 3 kids the 16 percent cut will hurt bad even though he is senior enlisted.We will drastically need to cut back saving and future plans to buy a house. A pay cut is a pay cut. Here's hoping for a grandfathering.

 

[fakereadhed]

I'm sorry, but comparing postal workers to combat soldiers doesn't cut it for me. The military is doing a more vital, much more dangerous, and apparently much more thankless job. Really disgusted that we would even think of treating our military this way. With all the cuts that could be made it is shameful to even consider that one! And no, I don't even know anyone personally in the military, so it's not that it's a cut for me personally. It's just not right.

 

[Muushka]

I agree. I think the military should be the last place cuts should occur.

Annie! You and I disagree!! Say it isn't so!

Actually, I am not really sure which aspect of the cuts in military you mean.

If you mean cuts to pensions that have been promised, then yes, I agree. They should not be cut.
Eliza, I disagree with you.
I believe a person in the military should receive their pension over any other profession, no matter how important their job is.

With the condition our debt is in, military cuts are going to have to take place. Close bases, cut spending, cut waste, get out of at least 3 of the 5 places that we are at war with. Libya for example. Where is Code Pink when you need them??

 

[OceanAnnie]

Annie! You and I disagree!! Say it isn't so!

Actually, I am not really sure which aspect of the cuts in military you mean.

If you mean cuts to pensions that have been promised, then yes, I agree. They should not be cut.
Eliza, I disagree with you.
I believe a person in the military should receive their pension over any other profession, no matter how important their job is.

With the condition our debt is in, military cuts are going to have to take place. Close bases, cut spending, cut waste, get out of at least 3 of the 5 places that we are at war with. Libya for example. Where is Code Pink when you need them??

Muushka, we still agree.

We do have areas in the military that need cuts. Cut waste, absolutely! I know there are contractors that are redundant. No need to pay an exorbitant amount for a job to be done, redone, and redone again.

There are so many places all across government that should be cut. Where is that scalpel that was referred to a few years back? We need a hatchet now!

 

[Muushka]

Muushka, we still agree.

We do have areas in the military that need cuts. Cut waste, absolutely! I know there are contractors that are redundant. No need to pay an exorbitant amount for a job to be done, redone, and redone again.

There are so many places all across government that should be cut. Where is that scalpel that was referred to a few years back? We need a hatchet now!

Phhhheeeewwwww. I was scared for a few minutes.

Hatchet away!

 

[ilovemk76]

I would just like to say that I am not happy with the possible changes in the military retirement.

My husband is at 15 years in the army. If these changes take place and are not grandfathered in, everything I read said that we will take a 30/70 hit on this. I pisses me off greatly. We do not have an option of getting out at this point as we have signed a contract to stay the minimum of 20 years but it's ultimately the army's needs.

The changes in the retirement include taking 16% of basic pay and putting it into a 401k. That is a big chunk to take out for an E4 with a few kids. Alot of families aren't going to be able to pay rent even with the housing allotment. There will also be less motivation to stay the full 20 years and it costs alot more to constantly be training new soldiers over and over without having great senior leadership.

Now we already contribute to a couple of retirement accounts but the thought that my husband has served almost 50 months in combat in the last 10 years and the army is going to screw him this way makes my heart break for him. Talk about a big betrayal.

This isn't just because of what is best for us this is simply what is right sometimes. My husband isn't a corporate employee. He doesn't just get to call in to work when he wants to sleep late or take a 'mental' day. He gets to work any and all holidays and yeah he doesn't get to leave war when he is tired of being shot at.

Yes it is voluntarily but we signed these last contracts with implied benefits to include a retirement. I don't even have a problem pushing the FULL retirement benefits out to say 50 but to cut them when we are this far into the game simply is not fair.

What is the 30/70 hit?


How can anybody think that doing a job for 20 years should allow one to get 30-40 years of retirement? They need to push the number of years to 35 (an 18 year old would be 53) minimum and then not pay until you turn 65.

 

[eliza61]

Muushka, we still agree.

We do have areas in the military that need cuts. Cut waste, absolutely! I know there are contractors that are redundant. No need to pay an exorbitant amount for a job to be done, redone, and redone again.

There are so many places all across government that should be cut. Where is that scalpel that was referred to a few years back? We need a hatchet now!

Hey, I'm the gal that doesnt think ANYBODYs pension should be cut (and always taken flames for it) but I do find it a bit hypocritical that when some one here says their pension is being cut the standard answer here (on the dis) is "suck it up, my pension was cut years ago" or "suck it up, why should I have to pay for your retirement".

Well see the problem with that attitude is that sooner or later it comes around to some thing we value or some thing that now effects you. Now that it's about to hit the military, NOW every one is up in arms. and not everyone who is in the military has been in active combat, some a pencil pushers just like the guy down at the dmv.

A 78 year old firefighter that can't afford to eat because her pension has been cut is just as hungry as a 78 year old retired vet who can't eat.

 

[Muushka]

Hey, I'm the gal that doesnt think ANYBODYs pension should be cut (and always taken flames for it) but I do find it a bit hypocritical that when some one here says their pension is being cut the standard answer here (on the dis) is "suck it up, my pension was cut years ago" or "suck it up, why should I have to pay for your retirement".

Well see the problem with that attitude is that sooner or later it comes around to some thing we value or some thing that now effects you. Now that it's about to hit the military, NOW every one is up in arms. and not everyone who is in the military has been in active combat, some a pencil pushers just like the guy down at the dmv.

A 78 year old firefighter that can't afford to eat because her pension has been cut is just as hungry as a 78 year old retired vet who can't eat.

The truth of the matter is that we are not where we were even 3 years ago. Finances are much tighter.

And I don't think I am being hypocritical to say that I think that the military that was promised a pension when they agreed to join is a commitment that should be kept. The same for fire fighters. I am more concerned with pensions that come out of the tax payer dollar. And also, if someone has retired, counting on these funds, should not have them taken them away.

Future pensions really do need to be adjusted. For all tax payer supported pensions. Just my opinion.

E, you and I will never agree, sadly.

 

[eliza61]

The truth of the matter is that we are not where we were even 3 years ago. Finances are much tighter.

And I don't think I am being hypocritical to say that I think that the military that was promised a pension when they agreed to join is a commitment that should be kept. The same for fire fighters. I am more concerned with pensions that come out of the tax payer dollar. And also, if someone has retired, counting on these funds, should not have them taken them away.
Future pensions really do need to be adjusted. For all tax payer supported pensions. Just my opinion.

E, you and I will never agree, sadly.

But I think that should hold true for every one. I think if you make a promise to a teacher and she retires on that promise, I think it should be kept.

But lets look at all the scenerios. for example my dad and brothers. Older brother went into the Navy at 18 does his 20 years, is now collecting a military pension. Then he gets a job with the post office, next year he'll have done his 20 years with the P.O and collect another full pension. So by the time he's 60 he'll be bringing in close to 80K. Now he's been collecting his navy pension already for almost 20 years and will continue for another 20 years.

My dad was the same way. went into the army at 18, did his 20 years. became a NYC policemen. because he saw action in Korea and Vietnam he got almost 10 years credit on his policemen time (I think this has changed though). So by the time he died at 85 he had been collecting an army pension, a policemen pension plus social security for at least 35 years. I remember him saying that he had been collecting pension longer than most people worked.


Hey that's not sad? I don't want all my friends to think how I do. How absolutely boring is that!!

Think of the things we do agree on.

We both love our country.
We both want our country to be the best it can be.
We both want our kinsmen to be happy and prosperous.
We both think the tax codes need to be revamped
We're both frugal
We both love the lodge.
We both think the world needs more people like Ranger Stan.

 

[Muushka]

But I think that should hold true for every one. I think if you make a promise to a teacher and she retires on that promise, I think it should be kept.

Like I said, different times, different game plan. If a teacher is 10 years into a teaching career and finds out that their pension will no longer be funded by the state/county or whoever pays it, it will give them time to start putting more into it, just like most people have to.

But lets look at all the scenerios. for example my dad and brothers. Older brother went into the Navy at 18 does his 20 years, is now collecting a military pension. Then he gets a job with the post office, next year he'll have done his 20 years with the P.O and collect another full pension. So by the time he's 60 he'll be bringing in close to 80K. Now he's been collecting his navy pension already for almost 20 years and will continue for another 20 years.

We call that double-dipping in these parts and fingers crossed it will be discontinued.

My dad was the same way. went into the army at 18, did his 20 years. became a NYC policemen. because he saw action in Korea and Vietnam he got almost 10 years credit on his policemen time (I think this has changed though). So by the time he died at 85 he had been collecting an army pension, a policemen pension plus social security for at least 35 years. I remember him saying that he had been collecting pension longer than most people worked.

See above


Hey that's not sad? I don't want all my friends to think how I do. How absolutely boring is that!!

It is just frustrating.

Think of the things we do agree on.

We both love our country.
We both want our country to be the best it can be.
We both want our kinsmen to be happy and prosperous.
We both think the tax codes need to be revamped
We're both frugal
We both love the lodge.
We both think the world needs more people like Ranger Stan.

Yes, there is a little that we can agree about.