Why I am supporting Obama

[Moliere]

1. Forego my Social Security benefits. I do not plan on having anything from them when I retire. I don't mind paying the taxes so that little old widows without children wind up in group homes because they can't afford to live. Folks with money should forego theirs too. Social Security needs a means test anyway you look at it. Austerity should hit everyone. I would be willing to do this until age 60, so 23 years from now.

2. Increase medicaid taxes by 5% so that children under 18 can have basic medical care. No able-bodied adult should get free medical care from the government, myself included. I will pay my medicaid taxes, happily, if it means that children are looked after. Families need to plan to care for their elderly on their own, and not depend on the federal government to do it. It sucks, I know, but something's got to give.

3. Raise income taxes by 5%. I can give a little more, provided the increased revenue goes into repurchasing 30 year T-bills to reduce the National Debt.

4. Raise the federal gasoline tax by $.25 a gallon for the express purpose of eliminating the national debt. We gripe and complain about it, but for what it does, gasoline is CHEAP. The need for efficiency is the mother of efficiency inventions.

5. Pay a $25 tax with each new television purchase to support the Public Broadcasting system. I'll also gladly pay 25 cents a month on my cable bill to support the Ad-Council. I have lived in other countries, and we've got it so good, but we don't pay enough in taxes to cover all the good we've got. Social Security needs to die for all but the most poor. Medicare, especially Plan B, needs the axe too. If your mom gets sick, then you pay for it out of pocket. Just because there are $60k hip replacements doesn't mean that you get one just because Medicare will cover it. That's borrowed money that young people will have to pay back for you someday.

So, I ask you all, what are you willing to give up? What sacred cows in the federal budget need trimming. And don't give me the "I'm not paying anything else until spending is under control" bullshit. Between servicing the debt, defense, Social Security, and Medicare, the money's spent yall. So, which cow gets made into sacred ground beef?

I like how wuap places health care above food in terms of need.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

Thanks for taking the time to write that up, wuap. For now, I'll just say that I wish the Obama Administration had devoted half the time it spent pushing through Obamacare to advocating for the Simpson Bowles plan.

The Paul Ryan Budget takes some of the Simpson Bowles plan into account -- e.g. he would end the mortgage interest deduction for high bracket taxpayers. Also health benefits would also be taxed. He also advocates mean testing SS and medicare. What Ryan and, I assume, Obama understands is that the wealthy (1%) don't pay anywhere near that top rate and Ryan's plan calls for closing the loopholes. The mortgage interest deduction on a $1 million home is insane and it makes no sense, get rid of it. But Obama is cynical enough to create a wedge issue out of this to get reelected. The increased revenue from higher rates won't begin to cut into the deficit. I would respect him more if he called for increasing rates and getting rid of loopholes that his contributors use to pay much less than that rate he's talking about.

The problem with the Ryan budget is that he actually increases military spending. The defense budget can't be a sacred cow.

Finally, I think the holy grail of deficit reduction is reducing Medicare expenditures. Defense, social security and all other expenditures except for Medicare have their fixes. But Medicare's expenditures depend partly on health care costs and they've been totally out of control. The current system isn't working and Obamacare doesn't fix it. So it's either single payer system or we take away the tax advantages to employer-provided health care and require the minimum deductible to be $5,000. John Stossel, the resident libertarian on Fox News, had an interesting point about Lasik and plastic surgery procedures. Why have the costs of Lasik declined rapidly the past couple decades and why are boob jobs more affordable than ever? At the same time an MRI costs thousands of dollars and if anything has gotten more expensive as the technology has gotten older? Is it an accident that the costs of Lasik and boob jobs have gone down because insurance doesn't cover them?

[Goatnapper'96]

The Paul Ryan Budget takes some of the Simpson Bowles plan into account -- e.g. he would end the mortgage interest deduction for high bracket taxpayers. Also health benefits would also be taxed. He also advocates mean testing SS and medicare. What Ryan and, I assume, Obama understands is that the wealthy (1%) don't pay anywhere near that top rate and Ryan's plan calls for closing the loopholes. The mortgage interest deduction on a $1 million home is insane and it makes no sense, get rid of it. But Obama is cynical enough to create a wedge issue out of this to get reelected. The increased revenue from higher rates won't begin to cut into the deficit. I would respect him more if he called for increasing rates and getting rid of loopholes that his contributors use to pay much less than that rate he's talking about.

The problem with the Ryan budget is that he actually increases military spending. The defense budget can't be a sacred cow.

Finally, I think the holy grail of deficit reduction is reducing Medicare expenditures. Defense, social security and all other expenditures except for Medicare have their fixes. But Medicare's expenditures depend partly on health care costs and they've been totally out of control. The current system isn't working and Obamacare doesn't fix it. So it's either single payer system or we take away the tax advantages to employer-provided health care and require the minimum deductible to be $5,000. John Stossel, the resident libertarian on Fox News, had an interesting point about Lasik and plastic surgery procedures. Why have the costs of Lasik declined rapidly the past couple decades and why are boob jobs more affordable than ever? At the same time an MRI costs thousands of dollars and if anything has gotten more expensive as the technology has gotten older? Is it an accident that the costs of Lasik and boob jobs have gone down because insurance doesn't cover them?

MizzouCoug got an early start on the rest of us? All women have a right to free big knockers! So saith the Shepherd...so saith the sheep!

[RobinFinderson]

Was your tax rate "fair?"

Probably not. If there were some way to put a monetary value on the benefits I receive from my American citizenship, I think they would be more valuable than my tax burden.

[Tim]

You can always donate more to pay down the public debt if you don't think you pay enough.

EDITED. Such an unhelpful and unoriginal comment.

[Uncle Ted]

1. Forego my Social Security benefits. I do not plan on having anything from them when I retire. I don't mind paying the taxes so that little old widows without children wind up in group homes because they can't afford to live. Folks with money should forego theirs too. Social Security needs a means test anyway you look at it. Austerity should hit everyone. I would be willing to do this until age 60, so 23 years from now.

I am fully vested in social security so the government should pay me what they owe me under how the plan was originally set up. I would be willing to forego my social security benefits if I didn't have to pay into the system anymore, however. If that option was given to all americans 45 and older then social security would most likely fold overnight. Right now something like 3 people pay in for every one person receiving benefits. I heard in the no so distance future that number will change to 2. When the program was started it was 16 people paying in to the system for every person receiving benefits.

The first thing that should be done with SS is the retire age should be raised.

2. Increase medicaid taxes by 5% so that children under 18 can have basic medical care. No able-bodied adult should get free medical care from the government, myself included. I will pay my medicaid taxes, happily, if it means that children are looked after. Families need to plan to care for their elderly on their own, and not depend on the federal government to do it. It sucks, I know, but something's got to give.

Agreed. I would also add that everyone should pay something for health care (ie. a deduction) and it should be high enough for people to care to ask how much things are going to cost and demand that the prices for health procedures to be posted at every hospital, doctor's office, etc. If people understand and care about how much things cost they would shop around and drive down the price. Consider Lasik surgery, for example. Because most insurance plans (and medicare) don't pay for LASIK it has driven down the cost because people shop around for this procedure. When someone else is paying then I'll take at least one of everything. When it is my own money then I'll ask first how much it is going to cost.

3. Raise income taxes by 5%. I can give a little more, provided the increased revenue goes into repurchasing 30 year T-bills to reduce the National Debt.

How about reducing spending by 25%? Look to Ron Paul for some ideas on how to cut the budget.

4. Raise the federal gasoline tax by $.25 a gallon for the express purpose of eliminating the national debt. We gripe and complain about it, but for what it does, gasoline is CHEAP. The need for efficiency is the mother of efficiency inventions.

Raising taxes on petroleum would also raise the prices on the retail goods since the cost of shipping these goods has gone up.

5. Pay a $25 tax with each new television purchase to support the Public Broadcasting system. I'll also gladly pay 25 cents a month on my cable bill to support the Ad-Council. I have lived in other countries, and we've got it so good, but we don't pay enough in taxes to cover all the good we've got. Social Security needs to die for all but the most poor. Medicare, especially Plan B, needs the axe too. If your mom gets sick, then you pay for it out of pocket. Just because there are $60k hip replacements doesn't mean that you get one just because Medicare will cover it. That's borrowed money that young people will have to pay back for you someday.

How about we just get rid of some of the "good" that we don't use and stop wastefully spending money on it? Why is the government giving certain companies loans and picking winners like Solyndra, for example? If a company has a good idea and product(s) then they will have no problem raising the money they need.

So, I ask you all, what are you willing to give up? What sacred cows in the federal budget need trimming. And don't give me the "I'm not paying anything else until spending is under control" bullshit. Between servicing the debt, defense, Social Security, and Medicare, the money's spent yall. So, which cow gets made into sacred ground beef?

I am willing to get rid of all the military bases we have all over the world outside of the United States and a good number of our aircraft carriers. Why do we have more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world put together?

[wuapinmon]

I'm using animal feces rhetoric too much in this thread. I have a migraine aura at the moment, and it's coloring (forgive the pun) my language at the moment. I appreciate the thoughtful responses to my posts, but I'd like to point out that I'm in favor of SCRAPPING Social Security for anyone born after 1959. I also want to completely SCRAP Medicare--all of it.

I think health dollars should be spent on the young, not the old.

I like food stamps for those who are employed or seeking employment. I struggle with how to cut people off. It's not little kids' fault that their parents have them out of wedlock, or that they're born into less-than-ideal situations. I do believe that an educative system that rewards healthy choices with more purchasing power could be a great thing (and also penalizes poor choices).

I really really really really dislike that getting knocked up at 15 is almost rewarded, but I don't know how to slay that entitled dragon.

I think we need to get out of Afghanistan and probably cut back our deployments in Europe (Germany, Sicily, Spain). For example, and admittedly, I don't know the resources on the ground, but do we really need Rota and Sigonella?

I'm willing to contemplate a national sales tax. I'm always willing to consider the estate tax.

I'd get rid of Veterans Benefits unless they were related to injuries or conditions sustained in the service. However, if they are related to service, 100% coverage always, even transportation reimbursement to and from the hospital.

Unemployment would be a LOT harder to get, and the requirements for finding work would be higher. There would need to be some kicker about employers paying a penalty to lay someone off.

With all of those cuts, and an increase in taxes, my plan balances the budget more or less.

But, it's political suicide, so none of it will ever happen. We just need to grow the economy to increase tax revenue, while cutting a few things. But, people want to cut from the poor. Other want to cut from the rich. I want to cut everyone and raise their taxes to a sustainable level.

I'm willing to make very real sacrifices with the modest amount I earn.

[Uncle Ted]

EDITED. Such an unhelpful and unoriginal comment.

Why? Did I include the wrong link to make a donation for you?

[Omaha 680]

Unemployment would be a LOT harder to get, and the requirements for finding work would be higher. There would need to be some kicker about employers paying a penalty to lay someone off.

This is nitpicking a relatively small part of your plan, but a penalty for layoffs is not a good idea. It is easier to get divorced then fire someone in most countries in Europe and that is a big contributor to their chronically high unemployment levels.

With all of those cuts, and an increase in taxes, my plan balances the budget more or less.

I appreciate that you are making serious suggestions, but your approach still doesn't balance the budget. Let's generously assume that scrapping social security for all but those who qualify based on need would eliminate 75% of payments. That's $600 billion in annual savings. So taking into account the $135 billion extremely rough revenue increase estimate I made above, you're looking at a deficit of $1.3 Trillion - $600 billion - $135 billion = $565 billion.

Medicare and medicaid currently shell out just north of $800 billion a year. So you need to decrease it to $235 billion. Is $800 billion - medicare + increased coverage of poor and children really less than $235 billion?

You have more of a cushion if you slash the defense department by 50%, which would get you an extra $350 billion to play with, but I still don't think you get there.

And all this is assuming these tax increases and budget cuts occur in a vaccuum and won't affect revenue projections at all.

[wuapinmon]

This is nitpicking a relatively small part of your plan, but a penalty for layoffs is not a good idea. It is easier to get divorced then fire someone in most countries in Europe and that is a big contributor to their chronically high unemployment levels.



I appreciate that you are making serious suggestions, but your approach still doesn't balance the budget. Let's generously assume that scrapping social security for all but those who qualify based on need would eliminate 75% of payments. That's $600 billion in annual savings. So taking into account the $135 billion extremely rough revenue increase estimate I made above, you're looking at a deficit of $1.3 Trillion - $600 billion - $135 billion = $565 billion.

Medicare and medicaid currently shell out just north of $800 billion a year. So you need to decrease it to $235 billion. Is $800 billion - medicare + increased coverage of poor and children really less than $235 billion?

You have more of a cushion if you slash the defense department by 50%, which would get you an extra $350 billion to play with, but I still don't think you get there.

And all this is assuming these tax increases and budget cuts occur in a vaccuum and won't affect revenue projections at all.

So, is the only way out of it to inflate away the debt?

[Northwestcoug]

IMHO, the economy works best when there is divided government. So I would be fine if Obama got elected as long as I was assured a house and senate that was republican.

Absolutely. We know what kind of government we'd have if Obama had a democratic congress to play with. Conversely, we have a good idea of what to expect if Romney were to win with a Republican one.

In my view from 10,000 feet, I gravitate toward the political party who's extreme elements I find least repugnant. I disagree with most of Obamacare. But it cost a lot of political capital and comprimise just to barely get it passed. I can only imagine what it would look like if he had easier democratic majorities to work with.

I would love to think that Romney would be able to really tackle our economic woes if he had Republican majorities to work with. They do pay lip service to it. But I hold out little hope that he will be able to do much good. I was in Massachusetts when he was governor, and I think he was a mediocre governor at best. However, the extreme on the right does talk more fiscal sense than the extreme on the left. So I will hold my nose and vote for Romney.

[Moliere]

I like food stamps for those who are employed or seeking employment. I struggle with how to cut people off. It's not little kids' fault that their parents have them out of wedlock, or that they're born into less-than-ideal situations. I do believe that an educative system that rewards healthy choices with more purchasing power could be a great thing (and also penalizes poor choices).

Don't take this the wrong way, but your wishes would not solve the problem.

The problem, IMO, is that Americans have a list of "rights" or "needs" and they lack the education or wherewithal, as a majority, to supply those needs on their own without government involvement.

Let's take Social Security for example. Many people in American think that retirement at age 65 is a right. Politicians would be calling it inhumane to take away that right and they'd paint the picture of an 85 year old grandma going to work at Walmart as evidence. What they wouldn't point out is that grandma likely lived on a middle class salary for 50 years prior, but because she had no basic concept of finance she didn't put enough money away for retirement. The average Joe American has no idea how much he/she needs to put away each month for retirement so we end up with people that reach retirement age (currently 65) and they don't have the means to retire. So we pass laws and taxes to provide for those that need it such as SS, and then SS then becomes the baseline for everyone.

It reminds me of the scene in Wall-E when everyone is on that ship and they show how even grandma can come along since they have a floating chair for her. Then, not much farther in the movie, even the able bodied people are riding around on the floating chairs, and they are all getting fat and ignoring each other as they float around watch crappy tv, drinking sodas, and eating junk food. Wall-E was not a movie about pollution and saving the planet (well it was on the surface) but it was more a movie about the social excess that exists and how it turns into the norm and even the "need" of society. When the people come off the ship at the end they are fat and their bones have shrunk, which would be akin to taken people off of SS. It would be a moment ripe for political rhetoric, which Obama would grab and hold onto for his dear political life.

The problem is that the balance between helping by providing basic necessities and enabling addictive behavior is very thin. We want to provide health care, but at what point are people supposed to take responsibility for their own behavior and choices. The progressives say "almost never" and the conservatives say "almost always", but once you give someone health care from the government, it's politically impossible to take away. Ted Kennedy knew this and it was the reason he liked to compromise. If you get enough compromises you get close enough to the type of system that he wanted without the ability to retract.

Americans have decided that they will provide benefits in excess of what they can afford. Regardless of what you say, we can't afford what we have currently promised. Even if we raised taxes 20% on everyone, we still couldn't afford it because we don't live in a closed system. We live in an open world where people and money come and go.

My one wish for the federal government is to balance the f***ing budget! I believe that we would find the sweet spot of providing government services and not taxing too much if we were required to balance the budget. If someone wants to pass Obamacare, then it has to be paid for in year 1, year 2, year 3 and so on. If the price tag is too steep compared to the need, Americans won't allow it to pass because they won't want to pay for it. As it stand right now, Obamacare is not funded, but the majority doesn't care because we won't feel the true cost for a long time since it'll be paid for 35-40% through debt financing.

Sadly, Obama hasn't even tried to balance the budget, which is why he will never get my vote (since Romney is the candidate this year and Obama can't run again in 2016).

[beefytee]

I too think the government works best when it is divided, but I have been disappointed with this latest incarnation of it. I think was is missing right now is a strong leader as president.

Clinton faced the same issue with raising the debt ceiling that Obama did and he simply put his foot down at the start. Obama got pushed around in the whole ordeal.

[Omaha 680]

So, is the only way out of it to inflate away the debt?

I don't think it's that far gone. Moliere expressed a lot of my thoughta well so I'll just say anything that encourages more dependence on government shouldn't be considered. We can't come close to paying for the programs we have, yet Obama promotes the pie in the sky idea that if we simply raise taxes enough on the right people, the good times will roll again. It's a fantasy as anyone who looks at the numbera for more than 5 minutes can plainly see.

Less dependence on government, more market based solutions in health care, education, social security, etc. We can still grow our way out of this if we make the right structural changes. It will be painful on an individual level but the pain is coming regardless. We can either take the medicine and come out stronger leaner, and more dynamic on the other side or we can keep on the road to Greece.

[Viking]

What is that reason? We just finished our taxes, and ended up paying about 20% on less than $100k, which is significantly more than than Mitt pays on his investment income. Why is it that public school teachers should pay a higher tax rate than Mitt Romney?

You're asking the wrong question.

Mitt's a retiree, effectively. He earns dividend income. Why should retiree's pay any tax at all.