Not sure what I did for you RHJ, but you're welcome. Not retired either, probably 15-20 years away. Now hears an idea. Instead of demanding that taxes be rasied on the "rich", why don't we demand our taxes be reduced to their rates? Basic economics tells us that when prices are raised, taxes in this case, people will look for alternatives, i.e. tax shelters. These people are not doing anything illegal in trying to protect their money from a government that believes citizens income is their's first.
There are not enough rich people to cover the governments spending problem. Once they get this increase accomplished they are coming after the middle class. The unfunded liabilities of SS and Medicare dwarf the national debt without some sort of reform this will not continue. Something tells me China and Japan will grow weary of buying our debt at ridiculouslly low interest rates.
Did not say that. Your statement. I support putting the SS program on a solid financial foundation. Instead of putting forth emotional rants, lets hear your proposal.
As far as tax policy I propose broadening the tax base and reducing rates across the board. An individual should not have close to 40% of their income confiscated by the federal government.
It is going broke, more money being paid out than coming into the system. Why don't you read the trust fund report. This is not a FOX report. These securities are special issue securities, they are not public issues. These securities are being redeemed by a government that has no money, but rather a few trillion dollars of debt. If public securities were used for investment purposes it would require the goverment to pay principal and interest when securites reach maturity and reinvested.
Most would rather put their money into a private account so that the funds are available at retirement and not before. Problem with 401 plans is people will not leave the funds invested. They prefer to borrow against it, use it to pay off debt when changing employers, and buy their wants instead of taking care of their needs.
President Obama would rather keep the status quo so the system will go bankrupt and so the government can turn the program into a welfare plan. We have almost as many people not paying taxes compared to those paying taxes. Without more private sector jobs these programs will go bankrupt. The government does not create wealth. They only confiscate other's wealth.
This is not trust fund. This is an accounting mechanism so Congress can keep track of what they owe us. If this were a trust fund the money would not be available to Congress to include in the federal budget each year. This fund is full of IOU's to be paid to the recepients of the fund. These securities are to be paid by a government that is broke!! The government will have to go further into debt to pay these benefits.
Bernie Madoff is in prison for have run such a scheme. In order to save this program is going to take some thinking outside of the box. If we can come up with a plan to take this away from Washington bureaucrats we should be all for it.
I'm not against the program, however I don't want these people continuing to manage a program they have managed to bankrupt.
There is no social security trust fund. I'm amazed at the people who want to keep up the same foolish policies that will destroy social security and medicare. This president is doing more to destroy the program than any other president. The 2% reduction of funds going into a system that is going broke is insanity. That is his goal lets dismantle the program and put in a socialist plan. Every working man/woman would be better served if they let them put the funds into a 401 type plan than handing it over to the government bureaucrats.
Any company managing a pension plan they way our government has managed SS would be facing criminal charges. Both parties share the blame for this mismanagement. It is amazing that if the politicians had managed this program correctly the trust fund would have a few trillion dollar surplus.
As far as welfare, the net has been cast far and wide to the point where we are providing benefits to those who would rather vote for a paycheck than work for a paycheck.
You obviously did not start those businesses. It is not uncommon for a business owner to continue receiving a salary for little or no work. I've been in accounting and finance for years and have had clients who owned/started the business continue to get paid after leaving the company. I'm amazed at how people are bashing companies like Bain, a private equity firm, and if you look at some of the state pension plans they are investing money with similar companies. We can not continue the assault on the private sector. No private sector jobs, there will be no public sector jobs either. This economic malaze started 20 years ago when we embarked on loose monetary policy and continued deficit spending on the fiscal side of the ledger. Unfortunately there is not a politician in the country willing to tackle the tough issues.
It seems to me we need 2 high schools. Why do we want to have a school with 2500-3000 kids. Why not two schools serving roughly half the number of students? Provide more opportunites both academically and through extra-curricular activities. Transformation was a much discussed topic a few months ago, and this is another piece of the puzzle. More academic opportunities. If we want this area to grow economically shouldn't we provide more than one option for a public high school? Lets raise the expectations for our youth by providing the resources they need to compete. I'm glad to hear the district is talking with Linn State. Technical education is a piece of the puzzle many in academia do not support. Not every kid is four year college material, but they all need skills to survive economically.
Local legislators talk about making life better for the rank and file state employee. Gov Nixon touted the savings that will be accomplished with the new pension plan, MSEP 2011. This legislation allows legislators to qualify for full benefits with only 6 years of service, 3 biennial sessions and they will be eligible for this pension at age 62. Statewide elected officials, governor, can qualify for a pension after 4 years of service.
General employees must work 10 years to qualify for their pension and must be at least 67 years of age. The highest in the nation along with Illinois.
Has anyone heard of Senator Kehoe, or Representatives Barnes and Bernskoetter trying to rectify this situation? Why don't they allow general employees to vest with 6 years of service, or require legilsators and elected officials to vest with 10 years of service?
Do these individuals have the courage to step up and do what is right? Time will tell. My guess is "NO". Politics as usual.
After reviewing the suspensions on the MAHSHL web page, the league needs to deal with the issue of rough and dangerous play by all teams. Why was Jeff City singled out? Not sure but they probably have their reasons. Unfortunately this age group tends to have these type of issues around the country and it gives a great game a black eye. Unfortunately hockey is not a main stream sport in this part of the US.
Many times organizations don't come down as hard on a player as they should because of the smaller number of players on a team and suspending multiple players for extended time periods has a negative impact on the remainder of the team. In addition families pay significant sums of money for their children to participate and I've witnessed parents objecting to additional penalties beyond what the rule book calls for because of the financial committment. I'm not making excuses for the behavior, but this is the reality.
If hockey is to move into the main stream of high school sports in this community the club needs to eliminate this type of conduct. This behavior would not be tolerated by school sports and it should not be tolerated by a club sport either, irregardless of how much it costs to particpate, the number of players on a team, or the skill level of the player involved.
An unfortunate situation for the hockey program in this community. Why didn't the coaches step up and remove the player(s) causing the most of the problems? USA hockey has rules that deal with these situations. Unfortunately if the player(s) don't get the message the coaching staff should impose additional penalties on these player(s). Don't play them, lengthen their suspension beyond what the rule book specifies, do what you need to do to get the point across.
Did the hockey board prohibit the coaches from imposing stiffer penalties because the guilty players' parents objected to additional penalties imposed by the team? Where were the leaders on the team? Specifically the player(s). Did any of them go to the coaching staff and let them know they would be in support of them removing them problem(s) from the team?
Hockey is a wonderful game, please don't let this unfortunate situation inhibit the efforts of a good organization in this community.
Last login: Wednesday, April 3, 2013
© 2013 News Tribune Publishing.