Honest Political Question

[Que]

Many of you have provided me with understanding concerning some issues that I've not quite been able to grasp. I really like the idea of cutting services on the federal level, but when would/could that take place? I'm not depending on social security and if I do get it, my plan is to use the money to reinvest for my grandchildren. So, what if the government said, "Social Security for those 40 and below will not exist"? Bottom line, I want to see a change and like it was already stated, we need to stop spending money like "drunken sailors."

[Que]

Originally Posted by BloodEclipse

Watch this. YouTube - Barack Obama on Taxes

Okay??????

[EvilElmo]

Originally Posted by Indy_Guy_77

Solution: quit spending money like a drunken sailor.

-J-

I have nothing constructive to add but this might provide a chuckle:



Image courtesy of I Hate the Media.

[SSGSAD]

Originally Posted by smoking357

Absolutely. Real military expenditures are a trillion, per year.

Defense Spending Is Much Greater than You Think | The Beacon

Cut the military by 80%. Close bases, left and right. Bring the troops home from over 100 foreign bases. Let's stop the Liberal practice of a big military and meddling in the world's affairs.

It may be, but when you add up ALL the "welfare", just since 1968, it TOTALS, MORE than we, (U.S.) has spent on ALL wars, since the Revolutionary... You can check this out...

[Que]

Originally Posted by SSGSAD

It may be, but when you add up ALL the "welfare", just since 1968, it TOTALS, MORE than we, (U.S.) has spent on ALL wars, since the Revolutionary... You can check this out...

Welfare, more specifically, funding that goes to people who CANNOT work, is the area that concerns me the most. My father was a vet who was denied benefits because of reasons I don't care to mention right now. Anyway, he served and was disabled, then went on to work a job, then suffered a stroke. He could not work at all after that. Would we totally cut off people in this situation; provide assistance for a certain period of time or leave them to their own resolve?

[lashicoN]

Originally Posted by zphique

Welfare, more specifically, funding that goes to people who CANNOT work, is the area that concerns me the most. My father was a vet who was denied benefits because of reasons I don't care to mention right now. Anyway, he served and was disabled, then went on to work a job, then suffered a stroke. He could not work at all after that. Would we totally cut off people in this situation; provide assistance for a certain period of time or leave them to their own resolve?

It may sound cold, but I think people who can't work would have to move in with family. If they have no family...who knows. This country would be a lot better off if we had to depend on our family, not our government. Kids wouldn't rebel as much, there wouldn't be all these family feuds, because you HAVE to depend on your family, or you die. Build a home, make a good living, raise a good family, save your extra earnings for when you have to retire, then live off of that or move in with your kids. If we didn't have to pay for all of these things, like social security, we would have more money to save to begin with.

[jedi]

Originally Posted by zphique

Welfare, more specifically, funding that goes to people who CANNOT work, is the area that concerns me the most. My father was a vet who was denied benefits because of reasons I don't care to mention right now. Anyway, he served and was disabled, then went on to work a job, then suffered a stroke. He could not work at all after that. Would we totally cut off people in this situation; provide assistance for a certain period of time or leave them to their own resolve?

The cold hard turth is YES.
Not sure if you are familiar with Dave Ramsey's method to getting out of debt. There are 7 steps to it and in the pre-text of doing it he advises that you need only 3 things to ensure you can get out of debt.

1) Food
2) Shelther
3) Pay your basic utilities (gas, lights, water)
4) all else to pay your debt

Everything else is a luxury that you right now can not afford so it must be cut. Cable is a luxry cut it, cellphone is a luxury cut it, fast food (ie yes it's a food but it's a luxury cut it), magazine subscription cut, day out at the range (spending for ammo) cut it, etc., etc...

Now translate this into gov (it's not a one for one translation) but what would that be?

1) not applicable since the gov does not "eat"
2) shelther = defense
3) pay your basic items (some government services (USPS, FAA, etc..)
4) all else to pay of the debt

When doing the ramsey program on a personal level it can be quite harsh to face reality and at times tough to have to cut the cable, cellphone, sell teh 2nd car, sell off stuff you have, etc.. but the end goal is to be debt free.

It's the same with government. If we really want t get out of debt its going to take time and sacrafice and that means everything that is non-essintial for government to go. (see above the only thing gov needs to run is defense and some limited agencies). The rest back to the states and/or local government and/or charities.

Yes it's a hard pill to swallow and for many it's one that they won't/can't do. It means that the elders will need to be taken care of my the kids or charaties since no more gov help. It means that we will have less services and mroe taxes to pay off everything that we spent on and "needed" but did not want to pay for, it means that two generations will need to re-learn that while this is the land of oppurtunity it is an "oppurtunity" to do whatever you want so long as you work for it.

But as recent yahoo news showed 49% of america pays no taxes (ie gets something for nothing) as such we have lost that mindset of hard work = reward. Now it's why work = uncle sam will suppose.

[BloodEclipse]

Originally Posted by tuoder

Then when it's over, we need to pass a balanced budget amendment.

Kind of like the Paygo law they passsed in Feb? How is that working for you?

Obama signs debt limit-paygo bill into law

Fri, Feb 12 2010
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama signed a law on Friday lifting the U.S. government's borrowing authority to $14.3 trillion and installing a pay-as-you-go rule to curb spending, the White House said.
The U.S. House of Representatives passed the debt limit bill last week, giving it final congressional approval and sending it to the White House for Obama's signature.
The U.S. Treasury was expected within weeks to exceed the current $12.4 trillion government debt limit set in December. Failure to raise the limit would roil financial markets.
The bill also contained 'pay-as-you-go' legislation that requires new spending to be offset with cuts elsewhere.
Democrats, who control the U.S. Congress, crafted the "paygo" language to deflect voter anger over soaring spending and to show they are serious about fiscal responsibility. They say paygo rules helped the country turn budget deficits into surpluses in the 1990s.
Obama has proposed a record $1.56 trillion deficit for fiscal 2010 as he tries to boost growth and jobs, equivalent to 10.6 percent of gross domestic product, but projects this funding gap to have halved as a share of the economy by 2013.

[BloodEclipse]

Originally Posted by zphique

Okay??????

This administration is more concerned with "Fairness" than they are with bringing in revenue. When taxes are used in a punitive manner they help cripple our economy.

[Que]

Originally Posted by lashicoN

It may sound cold, but I think people who can't work would have to move in with family. If they have no family...who knows. This country would be a lot better off if we had to depend on our family, not our government. Kids wouldn't rebel as much, there wouldn't be all these family feuds, because you HAVE to depend on your family, or you die. Build a home, make a good living, raise a good family, save your extra earnings for when you have to retire, then live off of that or move in with your kids. If we didn't have to pay for all of these things, like social security, we would have more money to save to begin with.

I agree that we have gotten too far from the days when children felt an obligation to care for their aging parents and the parents didn't feel guilty about being supported by their children. We have too many retirement homes that are filled with people who have children with 1-2 EXTRA bedrooms in their homes. Many of the people in retirement homes are visited more often by area church members than their own children.