United States of America

[vic]

I think they should do away with social security and replace it with TSP. If every one in the country had t TSP acount they would learn how to better manage their money. The economy would grow and we would all benifit from the process. The gov't wants social security so they can play with the money.

 

[mayday]

I think they should do away with social security and replace it with TSP. If every one in the country had t TSP acount they would learn how to better manage their money. The economy would grow and we would all benifit from the process. The gov't wants social security so they can play with the money.

Socialism wants to take care of you. Give me your money so you wo'nt spend it. We're smarter then you we can save it. Let me spend it I'll take care of you. Sounds more like communism. Yet it is the only retirement some people have and it's in the hands of theives who spend every dime of it. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. He who has the gold makes the rules.

 

[Show-me]

And I'll add that hunger and necessity are great motivators. Motivates me.

Socialism wants to take care of you. Give me your money so you wo'nt spend it. We're smarter then you we can save it. Let me spend it I'll take care of you. Sounds more like communism. Yet it is the only retirement some people have and it's in the hands of theives who spend every dime of it. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. He who has the gold makes the rules.

 

[Quips]

Funding For War, Social Security, Medicare: Pick Any Two of These Three

by Bill Sardi
by Bill Sardi


DIGG THIS

The day is coming when there will be no money to fight wars, unless there are severe cutbacks in Medicare and Social Security.

After I wrote an article for Lew Rockwell showing that the U.S. military budget is far greater than what the public is allowed to see (the government’s pie chart is shown herein, depicting only 16% of the nation’s annual budget involves the cost of war and defense), the Pentagon made an urgent request for an additional $40.6 billion to fulfill commitments in Iraq and elsewhere (an increase from $98.2 to $138.8 billion extra).

Military/defense spending accounts for more than 50% of the current U.S. budget, not 16% as the government says.

Recently the army made it sound like it couldn’t continue fighting the war in Iraq and meet other defense commitments (e.g. Korea) around the world without additional billions. In order to get this money, anticipate some saber rattling somewhere in the world (e.g. "shots fired at Korean DMZ") to shake more money from the tree. The army also says it needs an additional $8+ billion next year for equipment repairs.

However, a report in the Los Angeles Times points out that "a good portion of the new money the Army seeks is not directly tied to the war, but rather to new weapons it wants – particularly the $200-billion Future Combat System, a family of armored vehicles that is eventually to replace nearly every tank and transporter the Army has." [LA Times Sept. 25, 2006]

One chart shown herein depicts the U.S. Budget as the Federal government portrays it, and the other chart more like the way it really is (figures are in billions). The U.S. spends more than $1 trillion a year in past and present war/defense debts and obligations. Much of this is hidden in budgets of other Federal departments than the Pentagon or is simply "off budget spending."

How much more will US citizens permit to be spent for war? With Medicare headed for an impending bankruptcy relatively soon and Social Security under-funded in its future commitments, something will have to give. Cutbacks in Social Security or Medicare will likely be at the cost of putting more money in the Pentagon’s coffers. Does the public recognize their future is being marginalized by war mongering?

If there were a cutback of let’s say 30% of the war budget, there would be squawking from hawkish veterans and former generals that the U.S. can’t afford to cut back on its military obligations. But the country is obviously squeezed financially because of its overly-fat defense budget. It cannot hold up all three of its biggest financial outlays – war, social security and Medicare. The nation will not be able to compete against growing economies (e.g. China) if it continues in this manner.

As I pointed out in my previous LR column, some hawkish writers have even gone so far as to suggest that Social Security is "crowding out" defense spending, and even the Heritage Foundation that addresses budget issues very realistically, has openly stated that "entitlements" threaten defense spending. In other words, the government shouldn’t have to live up to its commitments to its citizens because of the need to fight more winless wars.

Unless some unexpected epidemic disease shortens many retirees’ lives before they can tap into Medicare and Social Security, there will certainly be a meltdown. Why, all that would be needed is a virulent form of the flu to sweep the globe to fix the budget problem, since adults are far more vulnerable to infectious diseases as they age. Or who knows, maybe a new type of unproven flu vaccine would backfire and cause unpredictable death among seniors.

If the graphs on this page were shown on the front pages of the nation’s newspapers, there would be certain rebellion. But these figures are kept hidden. There are certainly enough adept journalists who could point all this out to the nation’s voters before the next election. But they won’t. This shows collusion by the 4th Estate in misleading the people.

Keep reading LewRockwell.com for more of the truth.

October 9, 2006

Bill Sardi [send him mail] is a consumer advocate and health journalist, writing from San Dimas, California. He offers a free downloadable book, The Collapse of Conventional Medicine, at his website.

 

[VirginiaBob]

Just read the rest of his page. If you haven't figured it out already, he's a political hack.

Funding For War, Social Security, Medicare: Pick Any Two of These Three

by Bill Sardi
by Bill Sardi


DIGG THIS

The day is coming when there will be no money to fight wars, unless there are severe cutbacks in Medicare and Social Security.

After I wrote an article for Lew Rockwell showing that the U.S. military budget is far greater than what the public is allowed to see (the government’s pie chart is shown herein, depicting only 16% of the nation’s annual budget involves the cost of war and defense), the Pentagon made an urgent request for an additional $40.6 billion to fulfill commitments in Iraq and elsewhere (an increase from $98.2 to $138.8 billion extra).

Military/defense spending accounts for more than 50% of the current U.S. budget, not 16% as the government says.

Recently the army made it sound like it couldn’t continue fighting the war in Iraq and meet other defense commitments (e.g. Korea) around the world without additional billions. In order to get this money, anticipate some saber rattling somewhere in the world (e.g. "shots fired at Korean DMZ") to shake more money from the tree. The army also says it needs an additional $8+ billion next year for equipment repairs.

However, a report in the Los Angeles Times points out that "a good portion of the new money the Army seeks is not directly tied to the war, but rather to new weapons it wants – particularly the $200-billion Future Combat System, a family of armored vehicles that is eventually to replace nearly every tank and transporter the Army has." [LA Times Sept. 25, 2006]

One chart shown herein depicts the U.S. Budget as the Federal government portrays it, and the other chart more like the way it really is (figures are in billions). The U.S. spends more than $1 trillion a year in past and present war/defense debts and obligations. Much of this is hidden in budgets of other Federal departments than the Pentagon or is simply "off budget spending."

How much more will US citizens permit to be spent for war? With Medicare headed for an impending bankruptcy relatively soon and Social Security under-funded in its future commitments, something will have to give. Cutbacks in Social Security or Medicare will likely be at the cost of putting more money in the Pentagon’s coffers. Does the public recognize their future is being marginalized by war mongering?

If there were a cutback of let’s say 30% of the war budget, there would be squawking from hawkish veterans and former generals that the U.S. can’t afford to cut back on its military obligations. But the country is obviously squeezed financially because of its overly-fat defense budget. It cannot hold up all three of its biggest financial outlays – war, social security and Medicare. The nation will not be able to compete against growing economies (e.g. China) if it continues in this manner.

As I pointed out in my previous LR column, some hawkish writers have even gone so far as to suggest that Social Security is "crowding out" defense spending, and even the Heritage Foundation that addresses budget issues very realistically, has openly stated that "entitlements" threaten defense spending. In other words, the government shouldn’t have to live up to its commitments to its citizens because of the need to fight more winless wars.

Unless some unexpected epidemic disease shortens many retirees’ lives before they can tap into Medicare and Social Security, there will certainly be a meltdown. Why, all that would be needed is a virulent form of the flu to sweep the globe to fix the budget problem, since adults are far more vulnerable to infectious diseases as they age. Or who knows, maybe a new type of unproven flu vaccine would backfire and cause unpredictable death among seniors.

If the graphs on this page were shown on the front pages of the nation’s newspapers, there would be certain rebellion. But these figures are kept hidden. There are certainly enough adept journalists who could point all this out to the nation’s voters before the next election. But they won’t. This shows collusion by the 4th Estate in misleading the people.

Keep reading LewRockwell.com for more of the truth.

October 9, 2006

Bill Sardi [send him mail] is a consumer advocate and health journalist, writing from San Dimas, California. He offers a free downloadable book, The Collapse of Conventional Medicine, at his website.

 

[mayday]

John Kerry got it wrong. Its not the dumb serving in Iraq. Its mostly the economically disadvantaged the poor middle class. They are bearing the burden and brunt of war. While the financially endowed go to their choice of universities and avoid any obligation to a country that has given so much. The less fortunate serve 4 or 5 or 6 tours many come home in a box. How many people in politics have kids in the military?

 

[weatherweenie]

John Kerry got it wrong. Its not the dumb serving in Iraq. Its mostly the economically disadvantaged the poor middle class. They are bearing the burden and brunt of war. While the financially endowed go to their choice of universities and avoid any obligation to a country that has given so much. The less fortunate serve 4 or 5 or 6 tours many come home in a box. How many people in politics have kids in the military?

Amen!

There's a line in the movie Platoon that addresses the point of the poor/disadvantaged doing the fighting/dying. Sad, but true.

 

[mailmanusa]

There are many reasons why people enter the military. It doesnt make much difference why. Once they are in they have equal opportunity. The armed forces turn out intelligent, decent, respectable, honorable citizens. What else matters?

 

[vic]

I agree with you mailman. When we had the draft, the upper and the upper middle class could get deferments and stayed in college forever to avoid the draft. It was expected when you turned 18 that one would serve in the armed services and you were proud to serve. Yeah you made 66 dollars a month, but you had fun. You complained about everything, but it made you mature and stand on your own two feet. Kids today want to stay home forever, do not want to take responsibility for their actions and want to blame every one else for their shortcomings. I say bring back the draft.

 

[ChemEng]

Im not sure that I agree with reimplementing a Vietnam style draft again, but I think that a requirement that every civilian has at least 2 years of federal service in whatever capacity.

 

[Show-me]

Im not sure that I agree with reimplementing a Vietnam style draft again, but I think that a requirement that every civilian has at least 2 years of federal service in whatever capacity.

Big DITTO!

 

[Birchtree]

Ask me someday why I hate yellow back Jimmy Carter?

 

[SkyPilot]

This seems to be a fairly comprehensive recap of who serves and why...

http://www.prb.org/Template.cfm?Sec...Management/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=12460

Not what you thought?

 

[James48843]

This seems to be a fairly comprehensive recap of who serves and why...

http://www.prb.org/Template.cfm?Sec...Management/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=12460

Not what you thought?

Skypilot-

Thanks for that read. Very good.

As a recently retired Army NG officer (dual service couple) I was actually surpirzed to read how few service people married to service people actually make it all the way to retirement. That report contains a facinating amount of interesting information. thanks.

 

[grandma]

A quote book for Hillary
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49176

http://tinyurl.com/ybe2x8

Aren't the stores Gorgeous !!!!

 

[rokid]

Grandma,

You're from Arkansas. How did you like Hillary when Bill was governor?

I don't agree with all of her politics, i.e. Iraq. However, she does seem real smart and the people in NY (the city and out state) seem to love her - which wasn't the case when she originally ran for senator. Finally, it would be a real coup for women if she actually ran/won the presidency.

My wife doesn't like Hillary because she didn't divorce Bill after Monica. Bill was the bad guy. Wasn't Hillary was the victim?

Finally, a politician telling tall tales and abusing staff! Not exactly news. :cheesy:

However, after all of that, Grandma and all TSPers, Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!-----Rokid

 

[Birchtree]

Rokid,

You have no idea why Vince Foster killed himself, do you?

Some day I'll tell you - but right now I don't want to ruin your holiday.

Dennis

 

[rokid]

No, I remember the name. Did he kill himself. If so, why?

 

[Birchtree]

I can't it's too salacious.

 

[grandma]

Grandma,

You're from Arkansas. How did you like Hillary when Bill was governor?
However, after all of that, Grandma and all TSPers, Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!-----Rokid

Since you asked: the Clinton's, as a pair, are worse than individually, thru their history, probably!!!

Christmas was celebrated as it originated - joyfully!!

Shoot - I can't get my Holiday ZIP opened right to insert some Mighty Fun pictures a Mighty Fine Personage left me - so you'll just have to take my word for it:
HAPPY NEW YEAR back to you and to all the TSPers!!!
Grandma