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.
Sadly, our country is now saddled with so much debt that the population minimum required to finance the retirement benefits, for 78 million baby boomers, would probably be in the neighborhood of one billion people. America needs an additional 700 million people. It ain't a pretty picture.
Until the other day, I didn't realize how big a trillion is. Here's how big a trillion is: a trillion seconds is 300 years. That's a long, long, long time. It boggles my mind. As of this month--October 2006, our national debt is 8.5 trillion dollars.
For America, I don't think zero population growth is the answer. We're in a financial mess. We either need more immigrants, higher income tax rates, or mandating our entire federal and state governments closing up shop; and letting private industry take over. The latter option might be the best option.
Making Saudi Arabia the 51st state might be a good option. Making Canada the 52nd state might be a good option, too. Desperate times require desperate measures. We're approaching the desperate zone, but we're not quite there yet. Seventy-eight million baby boomers retiring will put us over the edge, and how.
not to shift directions, we do not need more people to pay retirement. social security was never ment to be a goverment retirement program. there would be enough money if it wasnt bled off for other social programs.
Social Security WAS meant to be a SUPPLEMENTAL retirement program. However, Social Security was NOT meant to be the major source of income for retired folks.
Somehow, I have the feeling you think welfare families are driving Mercedes Benz to pick up the checks.
At one point, social programs were lining the pockets of "some" welfare families. That's no longer the case. As a result of the conservative movement, most social programs have been cut to the bone. There's little fat left on the bone. In fact, New Orleans levees weren't even built.
I think you would agree that New Orleans levees would BLEED the ecomonic resources of our government. Bad social program!! Our elected officials were very wise not to fund this very, very, very wasteful social program. We can't feel sorry for the poor blacks in New Orleans. Thousands of Mercedes Benz were floating in the flood waters. Not one Kia was floating in those germ-infested waters. It was just block-after-block of Mercedes Benz.
Our country is broke. Let's dismantle Social Security and Medicare entirely. There you go!!!!
Z
Last edited by Zelia; 10-20-2006 at 10:10 PM..
Reason: typo error
Social Security WAS meant to be a SUPPLEMENTAL retirement program. However, Social Security was NOT meant to be the major source of income for retired folks.
Somehow, I have the feeling you think welfare families are driving Mercedes Benz to pick up the checks.
At one point, social programs were lining the pockets of "some" welfare families. That's no longer the case. As a result of the conservative movement, most social programs have been cut to the bone. There's little fat left on the bone. In fact, New Orleans levees weren't even built.
I think you would agree that New Orleans levees would BLEED the ecomonic resources of our government. Bad social program!! Our elected officials were very wise not to fund this very, very, very wasteful social program. We can't feel sorry for the poor blacks in New Orleans. Thousands of Mercedes Benz were floating in the flood waters. Not one Kia was floating in those germ-infested waters. It was just block-after-block of Mercedes Benz.
Our country is broke. Let's dismantle Social Security and Medicare entirely. There you go!!!!
Z
You paint a very grim picture of government spending on infrastructure. So are you of the opinion that the government shouldn't spend money on the levees in New Orleans, a major US city, seaport and petroleum refining center?
Perhaps you also would agree that the government shouldn't spend money on the interstates either. It's just a drain on money, but I'm sure those conservative Western states that depend on them for their very economic survival would disagree.
I struggle to understand your comment about the floating Benzes. Did you see some footage that the rest of us didn't see? I don't recall the flooded areas looking anything like a welfare tycoon's paradise.
if it wasnt for us rednecks blowing up the levees. look at all the work we created, new homes to be built, floating benzes to drive. all in time to for a mardi gra and some beads.my taxes should go to help build homes and businesses in an area 30ft below sealevel? ok as long as you help me when the volcano blows again. i can see now why we need 400 million people, and the mexicans work cheap so this is gonna work out alright.
not to shift directions, we do not need more people to pay retirement. social security was never ment to be a goverment retirement program. there would be enough money if it wasnt bled off for other social programs.
There would be enough money if the big corporations paid their fair share of taxes!!!! Trust me, it's not the social programs.
big business paying taxes? i own a small business and was taught something by afriend of a large company. no business pays any tax, its a business exspense that is past onto the end consumer. every time fuel or material costs go up its past along, taxes too. i have a set amount of profit i will make or i dont work, period.
if it wasnt for us rednecks blowing up the levees. look at all the work we created, new homes to be built, floating benzes to drive. all in time to for a mardi gra and some beads.my taxes should go to help build homes and businesses in an area 30ft below sealevel? ok as long as you help me when the volcano blows again. i can see now why we need 400 million people, and the mexicans work cheap so this is gonna work out alright.
Hi,
So I understand the direction of your argument correctly, you're of the opinion that tax dollars shouldn't be used to enable people to live in dangerous areas, correct?
I would respond with the same argument. Why does the government build infrastructure with our tax dollars to subsidize people living in S. California, the desert SW and the Great Basin? If there weren't huge taxpayer-funded interstates, water projects and agricultural subsidies, those places would be as bare as they were when Louis, Clark & Co. passed through.
Personally, I think it's a good thing that our tax dollars are used for infrastructure. It's a public good.
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.
Correction: 300 CENTURIES
