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.
We also have a military that spends more than the next seven countries combined.
That number might be distorted. It is believed China and Russia conceal military spending. Meanwhile other countries like France provide healthcare for soldiers NOT from the military budget, while the US soldiers military and dental spending IS military spending.
But the point that our military budget is the world's biggest stands.
I wish Hillary didn't get applause from Democrats when Trump talked about making some countries pay more for is protecting them. We've had tens of thousands of soldiers in Germany since WWII, Japan, South Korea, etc....we need to scale back some or get more compensation...
Why would other countries pay for US imperialism?
Any of those countries could protect itself if it had to.
America is imperialist just like the British, Spanish, Germans, Japanese, and Italians were before us. Thirty years ago Russia was on the Elbe river in Germany and on the Austrian border. The bear has Putin at the helm. There are Russian soldiers in Eastern Ukraine. Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia are very happy to be in NATO.
MichiganMoon has a point. Europeans should be willing to kick in more.
America is imperialist just like the British, Spanish, Germans, Japanese, and Italians were before us. Thirty years ago Russia was on the Elbe river in Germany and on the Austrian border. The bear has Putin at the helm. There are Russian soldiers in Eastern Ukraine. Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia are very happy to be in NATO.
MichiganMoon has a point. Europeans should be willing to kick in more.
I don't like any imperialist countries, they are all the same scum.
I don't think so, actually the EU should get its own defense. There already is such a movement. Britain is not fond of that idea, but they are leaving the EU, anyway, so they no longer are an obstacle.
Russia is no problem as soon as Europeans try to get along with it and stay away from Russia's borders. They should no longer participate in the Russia bashing and demonizing.
When I was in my twenties I didn't think much about retirement. Many of you think that you will deal with it when the time comes.
When it comes to voting, you need to vote against someone even if there is a hint that they would be Social Security hostile like Ryan. In years past the unions helped us put retirement plans in place, but private sector unions are less than 10% of the work force down from 33%. Unions were so influential that the other 66% of businesses gave you pension plans and vacations to keep the unions out.
Now we have a consortium of multi billionaires who are working toward bankrupting public unions (Janus v. AFSCME) and are busy spreading their propaganda that the New Deal's days are numbered.
How bad do things need to get for you to reject the Fox news propaganda machine. It is owned by the Murdoch family. Billionaires again.
Stop letting the Fox News propaganda machine convince you that Social Security will run out of money and Medicare is unfordable.
I don't watch Fox News, so do you have evidence Fox is doing that, or are you just making it up as you go along?
Social Security has failed to meet any of its projections for the last 10 years.
For example, Table IV.A1.—Operations of the OASI Trust Fund, Calendar Years 2012-2026 the projected income from the FICA payroll tax for all three scenarios was:
Under the Intermediate Cost assumptions for 2018, the Trustees projected $751 Billion in revenues, and there's just no way that will happen.
1st Quarter revenues are only 1.8% higher than 2017 1st Quarter revenues. There's just no way revenues are going to increase 6% this year.
The simple fact is that the OASI Trust Fund will run out of money far earlier than the Social Security Administration claims.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tonyafd
So increase the funding to Social Security by removing the cap on earnings taxed. There are always alternatives to lying there and waiting for the inevitable. Corporations just got a 14% reduction in their taxes. The money is there for SS.
Read books. They teach you how to think for yourself, and not be indoctrinated by those who stand to gain by making a fool out of people.
Removing the cap is harmful to Millions of Americans.
Consider that $128,000 in White Plains, New Jersey is only equal to $51,000 in Cincinnati, Ohio.
Even though a person earning $51,000 in Cincinnati earns $77,000 less than a person in White Plains, their Life-Style and Standard of Living is exactly equal: the person in Cincinnati has the same size house, owns the same number of cars, has all the furnishings, clothing and amenities, and engages in all the same activities (dining out, entertainment, concerts, sporting events) the person in White Plains has.
$51,000 is hardly "rich" by any stretch of the imagination, and it's only $5,000 more than the median Ohio State income.
Likewise, $128,000 in White Plains is not "rich" and removing the cap on Social Security wages/salaries would have a negative significant impact on those families, to the extent that it would actually reduce and lower their Standard of Living.
Removing the cap on wages does not resolve Social Security's problems, since it only generates an additional $122 Billion annually.
Note that Social Security is currently paying out $70 Billion per month, and payouts will approach $125 Billion increase over the next 15 years.
Uh the wealth belongs to individuals, its not yours to divy up and run half baked schemes with.
We are not in your Libertarian utopia yet, so until then you will have to deal with it.
Why don't you libertarians move to someplace like Andorra or Luxembourg and take the place over. It would be amusing to see the pandemonium that would result from no laws and no taxes.
Here in Portugal social security is a joke. There are people who have worked all their lives, yet receive only 300-400 dollars/month when they retire. Waiting lists are long, so those who can afford to, go to private hospitals instead and pay cash for surgeries. The problem is that the social security system is not nearly enough of a redistribution system. Basically, it works like, if you were wealthy, you paid higher contributions, and you get more money later on. And vice versa. But in my view that is not the point of such a system. Otherwise people might as well put their money in a savings account, with similar results.
So, nothing to emulate.
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.
