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.
Here's another pie chart that gives a different perspective...
Yes. And?
If I had $1.00 and all of it was budgeted for use, how is doubling any portion of it a good thing? How is doubling a portion that is already more than adequately budgeted a good thing?
If I were in charge I would get rid of all but 6 of the absurdly expensive, insanely vulnerable aircraft carriers. Two Atlantic, three Pacific, and one spare to float between the two fleets as needed. We can use US territories as bases and refuel the planes in flight. It's alot harder to destroy an island, one missile can sink or severely disable any modern warship because they rely on speed and low radar visibility rather than brute armor.
I would also reduce the USMC to infantry and light artillery. No armor, no aviation (absorbed by the Navy), no support units (any needed support would come from Navy or Army units - Navy Seebees, etc). The USMC should fulfill a role more along the lines of the British Royal Marines, German Navy's Seebattalion, French Navy's Fusilers Marin, or the Royal Netherlands Marine Corps - amphibious operations, ship detachments, special purpose detachments (ie: guarding nuclear weapons, embassy security, etc) and the defense of naval bases and overseas areas. The should not be a military within a military.
Thing is, social security should not even be in the picture. That money belongs to the people that earned it. It was taken from them out of every paycheck they earned and held in safe keeping by the government for their retirement. It has one purpose and one purpose only. To be given back to those that contributed to it.
Thing is, social security should not even be in the picture. That money belongs to the people that earned it. It was taken from them out of every paycheck they earned and held in safe keeping by the government for their retirement. It has one purpose and one purpose only. To be given back to those that contributed to it.
I agree. While it is formally classed as an "entitlement," it is one based on wages put into the system for the purpose of being paid out later as a type of pension.
We know where it is funded (from our paychecks) so why put it in there under "government spending?"
I mean, put in the amount that it costs to administer the program, but don't count the amount in everyone's SS checks.
Also, some people get back more than they put in. Some get back far less.
That's the way SS goes. It's not like you put in X and you get to take out only X or your heirs get the rest of X if you die before you collect all of X.
If it worked that way, my grandma would not have been so broke after my grandfather died.
His SS paid in went to funding the program or paying someone who didn't put as much in the system, yet lived longer than expected. They do not cut that mess off if you outlive the amount you put in.
ETA: I would prefer that SS have a baseline amount that people get paid, based on the COL where they live. Others, who put in more, get paid more. If you die and have not collected the full amount you put in, your heirs inherit it AND all of the interest that the government made off your money while it sat there. Also, no penalties for double dipping. If you decide to start collecting once you reach the allowable age, you should get to collect the full amount you were entitled to, PLUS the ability to work to make more and better your circumstances, if you prefer. Why treat people's money like it's not their money once they retire? That's just asinine.
That is how it should work. If it did work that way, people would not be shouting about privatization of the program.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
I agree. While it is formally classed as an "entitlement," it is one based on wages put into the system for the purpose of being paid out later as a type of pension.
We know where it is funded (from our paychecks) so why put it in there under "government spending?"
I mean, put in the amount that it costs to administer the program, but don't count the amount in everyone's SS checks.
Also, some people get back more than they put in. Some get back far less.
That's the way SS goes. It's not like you put in X and you get to take out only X or your heirs get the rest of X if you die before you collect all of X.
If it worked that way, my grandma would not have been so broke after my grandfather died.
His SS paid in went to funding the program or paying someone who didn't put as much in the system, yet lived longer than expected. They do not cut that mess off if you outlive the amount you put in.
ETA: I would prefer that SS have a baseline amount that people get paid, based on the COL where they live. Others, who put in more, get paid more. If you die and have not collected the full amount you put in, your heirs inherit it AND all of the interest that the government made off your money while it sat there. Also, no penalties for double dipping. If you decide to start collecting once you reach the allowable age, you should get to collect the full amount you were entitled to, PLUS the ability to work to make more and better your circumstances, if you prefer. Why treat people's money like it's not their money once they retire? That's just asinine.
That is how it should work. If it did work that way, people would not be shouting about privatization of the program.
SS exists in most countries, funding is not nearly as hard as politicians like to make out. I believe we need to move to a unverisal income for all that encourages people working and provides a floor for everyone regardless of age , employment etc.
SS should continue to exist as part of a UBI. and I completely agree that people should be allowed to earn money while collecting SS and only pay tax on the earned monies. SS should not be taxed unless there is some local tax needs I don't understand
Trump is proposing to increase the US Military Budget. Not just increase it, but double it. In today's world this is just not supportable or necessary.
The US Military budget is currently about $573 B.
The US already outspends the next 7 countries with the largest budgets combined.
The US already outspends the next biggest spender (China) by 280%.
This is obviously in preparation for invading mexico
They do look like a bunch of tough hombres.
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.
