LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

[PensFanInDC]

I think it would be nigh impossible unless you didnt mind crossing into ridiculous.

Hahaha. Love that movie!

[KennyTheKangaroo]

I wonder how hard it would be to go "made in china" free.

I'd imagine way harder than you think. It may have been in that same article, but I read that some people have looked into it and you'd have a hard time finding some items (and you'd be throwing out A LOT of stuff you've bought).

for those that are interested, theres a "made in america" store near buffalo that is pretty self explanitory. kenny the kangaroo read about it in the wall street journal. they have a real tough time finding t shirts to sell because practically every single one is made elsewhere.

[Digitalgypsy66]

I wonder how hard it would be to go "made in china" free.

I'd imagine way harder than you think. It may have been in that same article, but I read that some people have looked into it and you'd have a hard time finding some items (and you'd be throwing out A LOT of stuff you've bought).

I haven't read this book, but a family tried to do this with mixed results: http://www.amazon.com/Year-Without-Made ... in+the+usa

I often think, whilst looking at cheap holiday decorations or the like, what the Chinese adolescents that manufactured said product think about the U.S.

[mac5155]

Fiancee's biweekly paycheck was $31 less, and mine looks to be about $60 less (bimonthly). almost $200 a month that I need to somehow compensate for while saving for a wedding isn't going to be easy.

[PensFanInDC]

We were in the red so we cut cable and a few other things to just about break even. Now we are in the red again. Good thing im not rich so my taxes wont go up.

[tifosi77]

Fiancee's biweekly paycheck was $31 less, and mine looks to be about $60 less (bimonthly). almost $200 a month that I need to somehow compensate for while saving for a wedding isn't going to be easy.

If that's a reflection of the FICA tax, then that's what your paychecks should have been all along.

I'm sorry, I'm just having a hard time understanding how people ever thought the FICA holiday was a good idea in the first place. As long as FICA is in place, there is no connection between Social Security and the deficit; the program is prohibited by law from spending more than is required to pay out in benefits, any surpluses going into the SS Trust Fund in the form of Treasury bonds. It's structurally impossible for SS to contribute to the deficit...... provided the FICA tax is in place. If it's not in place at its full rate, then any shortfalls must be made up out of the Treasury's general fund, and THAT means it can be contributory to the deficit.

In fact, I assert that the requirement to by T-bills with any surpluses is one of the big structural deficiencies inherent in SS. It creates a 'Rob Peter to pay Paul' kind of scenario where the general fund gets an artificial short-term boost, but that money must still be paid back to the SS Trust Fund. (This was the chicanery of the Clinton budget 'surpluses' of the 90s, the Clinton admin simply stopped recognizing the IOU to the Trust Fund as debt that must eventually be repaid and instead recognized it as revenue to the general fund.) I think it makes more sense to simply put any FICA surpluses in escrow and let them accrue until needed. I'm not an accountant (as may be plainly obvious), but that seems a much better option than allowing the general fund to mooch off the program and put future benefits at risk because of an inability to satisfy the bond issue.

[Factorial]

[columbia]

That is part of the reason the reform entitlements/boost the DOD "budget hawks" are such scam artists.

[mac5155]

Fiancee's biweekly paycheck was $31 less, and mine looks to be about $60 less (bimonthly). almost $200 a month that I need to somehow compensate for while saving for a wedding isn't going to be easy.

If that's a reflection of the FICA tax, then that's what your paychecks should have been all along.

I'm sorry, I'm just having a hard time understanding how people ever thought the FICA holiday was a good idea in the first place. As long as FICA is in place, there is no connection between Social Security and the deficit; the program is prohibited by law from spending more than is required to pay out in benefits, any surpluses going into the SS Trust Fund in the form of Treasury bonds. It's structurally impossible for SS to contribute to the deficit...... provided the FICA tax is in place. If it's not in place at its full rate, then any shortfalls must be made up out of the Treasury's general fund, and THAT means it can be contributory to the deficit.

In fact, I assert that the requirement to by T-bills with any surpluses is one of the big structural deficiencies inherent in SS. It creates a 'Rob Peter to pay Paul' kind of scenario where the general fund gets an artificial short-term boost, but that money must still be paid back to the SS Trust Fund. (This was the chicanery of the Clinton budget 'surpluses' of the 90s, the Clinton admin simply stopped recognizing the IOU to the Trust Fund as debt that must eventually be repaid and instead recognized it as revenue to the general fund.) I think it makes more sense to simply put any FICA surpluses in escrow and let them accrue until needed. I'm not an accountant (as may be plainly obvious), but that seems a much better option than allowing the general fund to mooch off the program and put future benefits at risk because of an inability to satisfy the bond issue.

Frankly, I'd rather put that 6.2% into my 401k, have my employer match it, and let me be my own savings account.

[shafnutz05]

[Gaucho]

[thepittman]

[Gaucho]

Whatever happend to quality journalism?

[shafnutz05]

Eh, I think compared to most media outlets in the world today, The Economist ranks near the top in terms of quality.

[ExPatriatePen]

Eh, I think compared to most media outlets in the world today, The Economist ranks near the top in terms of quality.

ABSOLUTELY

[DelPen]

The only way to cut taxes to those who don't pay any income taxes is to reduce another deduction, in this case it was FICA.

And is anyone else sickened that these clowns in Congress are going to keep the same "leaders" in place? All of them should be tossed from any podium and no longer be given a forum to speak since they have been completely ineffectual at their jobs.

[Gaucho]

Eh, I think compared to most media outlets in the world today, The Economist ranks near the top in terms of quality.

That cover is a dud, though.

[BigMcK]

Whatever happend to quality journalism?

Piers Morgan wonders about that as well.

[Gaucho]

Whatever happend to quality journalism?

Piers Morgan wonders about that as well.

Small wonder when you have to deal with smug arseholes like Larry Pratt.

[MRandall25]

Lol Piers Morgan... He threatened to deport himself because of gun laws.

Don't let the door blah blah blah. Don't think anyone would care.

[BigMcK]

Whatever happend to quality journalism?

Piers Morgan wonders about that as well.

Small wonder when you have to deal with smug arseholes like Larry Pratt.

Lesson learned? He should stick to dealing with Hollywood lightweights instead of a person that wasn't impressed by his resume of dealing with Hollywood lightweights.

[Geezer]

Fiancee's biweekly paycheck was $31 less, and mine looks to be about $60 less (bimonthly). almost $200 a month that I need to somehow compensate for while saving for a wedding isn't going to be easy.

If that's a reflection of the FICA tax, then that's what your paychecks should have been all along.

I'm sorry, I'm just having a hard time understanding how people ever thought the FICA holiday was a good idea in the first place. As long as FICA is in place, there is no connection between Social Security and the deficit; the program is prohibited by law from spending more than is required to pay out in benefits, any surpluses going into the SS Trust Fund in the form of Treasury bonds. It's structurally impossible for SS to contribute to the deficit...... provided the FICA tax is in place. If it's not in place at its full rate, then any shortfalls must be made up out of the Treasury's general fund, and THAT means it can be contributory to the deficit.

In fact, I assert that the requirement to by T-bills with any surpluses is one of the big structural deficiencies inherent in SS. It creates a 'Rob Peter to pay Paul' kind of scenario where the general fund gets an artificial short-term boost, but that money must still be paid back to the SS Trust Fund. (This was the chicanery of the Clinton budget 'surpluses' of the 90s, the Clinton admin simply stopped recognizing the IOU to the Trust Fund as debt that must eventually be repaid and instead recognized it as revenue to the general fund.) I think it makes more sense to simply put any FICA surpluses in escrow and let them accrue until needed. I'm not an accountant (as may be plainly obvious), but that seems a much better option than allowing the general fund to mooch off the program and put future benefits at risk because of an inability to satisfy the bond issue.

Frankly, I'd rather put that 6.2% into my 401k, have my employer match it, and let me be my own savings account.

Well who wouldn't? If I revealed what I've paid (+employers match) since 1965 I'd be living large under that scenario. But social security is also a transfer payment. The lower end of income workers get a bigger payoff than middle class folks. I'm actually okay with that since the main goal of social security was to keep elderly people out of abject poverty after working all their lives. The only thing I obect to is the hypocritical opposition to raising the eligibility age by the Democrat imbeciles led by Pelosi,Reid and spendaholic Barry who'd rather bankrupt the country to buy free lunch votes.
This is a painless easy fix. The Dems would rather bone the populace to win elections.And the lemmings lap it up.

[Tico Rick]

You know, John Boehner looks a lot like Gaucho.

[Gaucho]

That is odd, I was just reading a tweet about Boehner...

[Gaucho]

Plus I am wearing lederhosen...