Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So you'd rather continue the wars and throw the poor and elderly under the bus. Sounds like a great way to ruin the lives of the maximum amount of people.
Well yes. It makes perfect sense. You get to kill twice as many people that way. Must be a Fundi.
If you don't save for retirement, then too bad. SS should not exist to bail you out.
As long as the government keeps acting like our mother, we as citizens will never learn to stand on our own two feet.
Just as Ron Paul says: You have to phase into something like that. In the meantime, end the financial burden of wars of choice, policing the world, and allow the younger folks to prepare for the transition, while STILL providing for those we have already committed to.
Let's face it, baby boomers are going to retire,
be on Social Security and Medicare, and short of having
some sort of plague to wipe them all out,
the federal government must honor those commitments.
The federal government will have to cut elsewhere.
The wall-street bankers stole 13 trillion from the american people...almost the amount of debt...Why were they bailed out??and why don't we hear about this travesty in the news???And why, oh why would anyone blame this debt on the most needy and least able to fight back...our elders, our disabled, and our veterans.
How about cutting or eliminating funding to the IMF, the UN, the oil industry, ACORN for starters; I hear ACORN is still getting huge amounts of tax money; and yes, I agree -- banks and other private companies got too many bailouts, most of which will likely never be paid back.
Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the poor, our veterans... they all serve a useful purpose for the politicians when they need to raise awareness of an impending "crisis". And, let's not forget all that they are able to push through "for the children".
Or we could eliminate Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid and let people take care of themselves. The total cost of all federal assistance programs accounts for nearly half of the federal budget.
Just another option.
Right, let's weigh the two, which are equally expensive: One the one hand, continued War-Mongering, flooding the world with arms and conflict, keeping gas prices high, Policing the World, massive foreign aid give-aways and rebuilding after the bombing, all taking place half a world away and returning NOTHING to the people who pay for it all, and all money spent totally LOST to our economy.
On the other hand, we could continue SS and Medicare, which the Baby Boomers have paid into their entire lives (means-test it, if necessary). This will be the only thing that those who worked their whole lives will have in retirement, since because of the games played by the power-brokers, their housing assets and retirement investments have been decimated. Thanks to greedy Big Business, pensions are gone unless you work for Big Government. So all that's left is the pittance returned seniors, after paying 15.3% of every dollar they ever earned to government for that particular program. With the average life expectance at around 77, that's a whole 10 years of benefits--since if you were born after 1960, you don't get SS benefits until age 67. It's a lousy return on your tax investment, but at least its something--compared to the NOTHING you get for most other taxes.
Plus, every penny paid to Seniors through SS and Medicare STAYS in America and continues circulating in the economy. Doctors and nurses are paid and then buy things, etc. The investment has a multiplier effect.
So there is our choice: continuing the World War Machine and LOSING 100% of that money from the economy, or investing it for a multiplier effect, while allowing seniors to at least SURVIVE after losing their life savings and home assets.
Or we could eliminate Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid and let people take care of themselves. The total cost of all federal assistance programs accounts for nearly half of the federal budget.
Just another option.
That might be true but what about all those on the three programs now, especially medicare and SS. You do realize how many years many had part of their earnings taken away from them to support these programs? Are you saying seniors should be left to fin for themselves even it the money they could have been investing went to those programs?
Phased out is not what is being suggested. THat I can go along with and the day will come when that will happen.
I do not think we need to stop all military support either or pull completely out of foreign, but we do need to reduce military spending. While we are doing that, how about cutting foreign aid, that is a policy that makes no sense. (I didn't say all foreign aid)
Nita
The human and economic costs of these wars will continue for decades, some costs not peaking until mid-century. Many of the wars’ costs are invisible to Americans, buried in a variety of budgets, and so have not been counted or assessed. For example, while most people think the Pentagon war appropriations are equivalent to the wars’ budgetary costs, the true numbers are twice that, and the full economic cost of the wars much larger yet.
Conservatively estimated, the war bills already paid and obligated to be paid are $3.2 trillion in constant dollars. A more reasonable estimate puts the number at nearly $4 trillion.
The President of the United States has told the American people and the rest of the world that even as the U.S. withdraws some troops from Afghanistan and continues to withdraw from Iraq, the wars will continue for some years. The debate over why each war was begun and whether either or both should have been fought continues.
It's odd that the same people who used to be saying that the leaders on the ground should be making troop decisions now want politicians to do it. Almost like they flip flop on everything.
The last time I checked, both 'wars' (they're really not) will be pretty much done inside of a year. Of course, how about holding people accountable for this decision is a better idea. The next time you hear someone talking politics ask them if they supported invading Iraq. If they say yes, then thank them for wasting a trillion dollars.
The human and economic costs of these wars will continue for decades, some costs not peaking until mid-century. Many of the wars’ costs are invisible to Americans, buried in a variety of budgets, and so have not been counted or assessed. For example, while most people think the Pentagon war appropriations are equivalent to the wars’ budgetary costs, the true numbers are twice that, and the full economic cost of the wars much larger yet.
Conservatively estimated, the war bills already paid and obligated to be paid are $3.2 trillion in constant dollars. A more reasonable estimate puts the number at nearly $4 trillion.
The President of the United States has told the American people and the rest of the world that even as the U.S. withdraws some troops from Afghanistan and continues to withdraw from Iraq, the wars will continue for some years. The debate over why each war was begun and whether either or both should have been fought continues.
Yep. We don't need to be nation building in three countries. End all foreign aid too. Why do we need to give money for some Egyptian kid to go to college?
And stop allowing food stamp recipients to go out for pizza. Stop bailing out all these companies and banks that screw over people. Let the banks and companies face the consequences of poor business decisions. It is time to get back to capitalism. If people can't pay their mortgage, then they shouldn't be in their house. Let the housing market finally bottom out and correct itself.
So you'd rather continue the wars and throw the poor and elderly under the bus. Sounds like a great way to ruin the lives of the maximum amount of people.
I would rather stop pointless wars in addition to stopping pointless social programs.
We have a social responsibility to help those in need, not a legal obligation. The government is not your mother, and should not take care of you as if it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NHartphotog
Right, let's weigh the two, which are equally expensive: One the one hand, continued War-Mongering, flooding the world with arms and conflict, keeping gas prices high, Policing the World, massive foreign aid give-aways and rebuilding after the bombing, all taking place half a world away and returning NOTHING to the people who pay for it all, and all money spent totally LOST to our economy.
On the other hand, we could continue SS and Medicare, which the Baby Boomers have paid into their entire lives (means-test it, if necessary). This will be the only thing that those who worked their whole lives will have in retirement, since because of the games played by the power-brokers, their housing assets and retirement investments have been decimated. Thanks to greedy Big Business, pensions are gone unless you work for Big Government. So all that's left is the pittance returned seniors, after paying 15.3% of every dollar they ever earned to government for that particular program. With the average life expectance at around 77, that's a whole 10 years of benefits--since if you were born after 1960, you don't get SS benefits until age 67. It's a lousy return on your tax investment, but at least its something--compared to the NOTHING you get for most other taxes.
Plus, every penny paid to Seniors through SS and Medicare STAYS in America and continues circulating in the economy. Doctors and nurses are paid and then buy things, etc. The investment has a multiplier effect.
So there is our choice: continuing the World War Machine and LOSING 100% of that money from the economy, or investing it for a multiplier effect, while allowing seniors to at least SURVIVE after losing their life savings and home assets.
Please, let us weigh the two. SS and Medicare have done nothing but suck money since their inception. Not only that, but they do the opposite of teaching personal responsibility. Without SS, a person would be forced to actually (gasp!) plan for their own retirement.
And continuing on the thread of the economy, production for wars is primarily what brought this country into economic prosperity in the 50's and 60's. Manufacturing for war efforts is a major driver of the US economy. If we stop wars, domestic unemployment rates would double. Just make sure you have all of the facts, ok?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
