OT: Veteran's Day (OT in this case = On Topic)

"Everybody", yes. '07 level, and enough to get elected, not so much...

Reply to
dpb
Loading thread data ...

The trust fund fiasco has operated the way it does since inception by FDR. The law as written then mandated that the fund(s) buy government securities with all excess contributions. There is no plundering or looting of the funds under the law, but the law results in the same.

The cash the government receives for the trust fund IOUs goes into the general fund and is used for all sorts of things - non of which are related to the fund(s). Since three fourhts of the federal budget is spent on social programs, most of the money is spent there.

Also, the trust fund moneies hid an equivalent amount of deficit spending since the cash taken by the government is counted as income for the current year, but the IOUs are not counted as expenses in the current year. You can very easily verify this by googleing "national debt" and you will discover that the debt has increased every year since

1960, demonstrating that the surpluses of the late 1990's were an illusion - unless the definition of deficit, surplus and debt has changed.

Speaking of doing research, the excess SS funds in BJ Clintons time wasn't $20B/year, but started at $46B and ended at $152B/year for a total of $687B - and this was just the SS fund. It has increased from the $152B in 2000 to $186B in 2007. There are another 150 or so other trust funds that although smaller, operate in the same manner. And as far as blaming any party or President, this was all set in motion by FDR and like any government program has grown out of control. Neither Clinton or Bush changed any of the parameters. The last change was a bipartisan effort led by Tip O'Neal and Bob Dole which raised the SS tax rates and indexed withholding, thereby increasing the debt at a faster rate.

BTW, I think it's all right to spend $ on death star and any other defense items to safeguard this country as that and commerce are the only things the constitution allows. I don't think government retirement and health programs fall under either defense or commerce.

So, in summary, when the fiscal ship is taking on water, plugging the biggest holes first would give the best chance of staying afloat, and the war is small potatoes in that regard.

Reply to
Doug Winterburn

Judging by the folks in our old neighborhood that didn't know what our "I Voted" stickers were, I don't think it would work

mac

Please remove splinters before emailing

Reply to
mac davis

Thank you...

Our son has been in for almost 7 years and is up for promotion to E-7... mostly because of his motivation, learning skills and education..

As to the draft... I served with a lot of professional folks that were drafted and made very good officer material.. as opposed to us drafted as cannon fodder..

mac

Please remove splinters before emailing

Reply to
mac davis

Not only is the medical arm understaffed, if it wasn't for the reservists we would have mostly foreign nationals as doctors.. They do as well as they can and are eligible for citizenship after their term of service, but it's a different medical core than we had when there was a draft..

Might save the cost of unemployment, welfare, education grants, etc... All of the programs, such as the Peace Corp, Red Cross, etc. are in place right now..

The same place grants and student loans come from.. no change..

mac

Please remove splinters before emailing

Reply to
mac davis

What does "completely voluntarily" mean? In 1972 I volunteered for the National Guard and spent 6 years in it. Would the fact that the USA had an active draft and my draft number was 19 disqualify me from voting?

I think candidates should at least be required to pass a test on the Constitution, particularly individual rights, and the distribution of state vs. federal powers, and that the results of the tests should be included in their campaign literature.

It'd work, if you could make it legal. But that would require a constitutional amendment that will never happen. As it is, we should consider ourselves lucky that along with free health care, welfare, etc. that the powers that be don't give illegal aliens the vote too.

Reply to
Just Wondering

I don't have a lot of time at the moment to respond but this little point jumped way out off the monitor screen.

3/4 of the budget is on social programs? Where did you get that little "fact"? A very quick search yielded, consistently, over several sites, that about ~40% of the budget is on "social" programs. Depending on where you look, defense is ~25% and debt service is about ~10%. 75(social)+25(defense)+10(debt) = more than 100%. Gee, leaves not a whole lot for federal agencies and such, huh? Or, is ALL of government one big "social" program in your eyes?

Then there's this chart that presents a somewhat different perspective, taking into account past military expenses rather than hiding them. Admittedly, from the name, a seemingly biased site, but the numbers seem right (e.g. $700B for military expenditures, including Irq and Afg. is the figure noted on many other publications)

formatting link
-snip of stuff for which I have no time to rebut at the moment

Perhaps you oughta go and have a sit down discussion with the current occupant at that little place on PA Ave. re: the Constitution.

Tis a shame you seem to favor enriching defense contractors to produce geewizbang gadgets that have no relevance in today's (or even tomorrow's) conflicts, but can't seem to help much in overcoming rag tag bands of third world country resistance. You know, the wars we're fighting RIGHT NOW? $700 &$*^%$ BILLION dollars a year) (or $1.3 TRILLION spent so far on Irq & Afg.) and FIVE years later: we are still fighting, the regional situations are worsening, OBL is still uncaptured. Good heavens! If we'd fought WWII with the same verve, we'd still be at it.

Glad you think $1.3 Trillion is small potatoes. And, of course, it's planned to be a fifty year (min) conflict.

Renata

Reply to
Renata

Renata wrote: ...

I don't have time to look at all, but it would depend greatly on how the breakdowns are calculated imo. Under some definitions that aren't too greatly stretched, I could see it, particularly if future obligations of the growth of entitlements implies is included.

As one simple example that I do happen to know something about -- where is the Dept of Ag budget counted? While folks like to complain about direct subsidies (and there are some areas that need reform, certainly), over 60% is for things like food stamps, school food programs, etc., and only 14% is actually direct ag-producer programs such as drought production loss.

Are those social services programs accounted for in your 40% numbers as simply one question. The budget is so large and convoluted, it's like the IRS code -- essentially unfathomable.

--

Reply to
dpb

You're going to have about 10 million people in your service program, all of whom are going to have to be paid, fed, housed, etc while they're doing whatever. This is about 7 times the size of the US active duty military, so one can expect the pay alone to be about 7 times as great.

About 1 million teenagers are unemployed and seeking employment--most of them are not seeking or collecting unemployment benefits, your program would increase costs by paying them government money that they are not now receiving. I'm not really clear on how it would cause the other 6 million to either become employed, stop seeking employment, or stop collecting whatever benefits they were collecting.

Further, few teenagers are collecting any significant amount of Welfare other than the ones who have children--what are you going to do with their kids while they are off serving?

Except that you're at least doubling the number of recipients each year and removing the requirement that the funds be repaid.

But basically it sounds like you're just proposing another "tax and spend" or "borrow and spend" boondoggle based on no evidence that it's actually going to cut costs in the long term.

Reply to
J. Clarke

If there is a draft then government service is not "completely voluntary" and thus you are talking about a system different from the one proposed.

Too simple. They should be required to recite the US Code and the Code of Federal Regulations verbatim from memory and to carry on their persons at all times the complete texts of both printed in 12 point type on 12 pound paper. After all, if they don' really know the current laws then how do they know that the ones they are proposing will change anything? Of course that would leave us without a legislature since nobody is going to live long enough to memorize the whole thing and if they could they wouldn't be able to lift it.

Reply to
J. Clarke

For 2007:

Social Security %21 Medicare %14 Unemployment & Welfare %13 Medicaid et all %10

Education %3

Debt interest %9

Defense %17

Other* %13

  • includes general government, science & technology, community & regional development, agriculture, foreign affairs, environment & natural resources, Justice, Veterans Benefits, Transportation, etc.

The first 4 or possibly 5 qualify as social programs and add up to about %60 of the budget. So I was wrong as were you. As well, since 4/9 of the debt (or 4% of the budget) is because of the trust funds (my original point), over 60% of the budget is composed of social program spending and interest on those programs debt.

I also hope that one of those "gee whiz" missile defense systems isn't required to save your home town or any other city in the world, but if it is, I'll be glad we have it.

Reply to
Doug Winterburn

Who pays them now? Is the peace Corp paying their folks.. or the Red Cross Volunteers? What's the going rate for the folks that "adopt a freeway"? We're talking community service, not VIP jobs..

mac

Please remove splinters before emailing

Reply to
mac davis

Education isn't welfare.

No one's arguing defense ain't necessary. But we got waaaay too much "pork" in our defense budget.

Renata

Reply to
Renata

Likely got it in the social services budget as well. Pork abounds--if you can find a system to do away with it other than appointing a king please present it--it's inherent in any democratic system that people are going to want projects that benefit them.

Reply to
J. Clarke

It's a states responsibility.

...and no where else in that +60% ? Our kids and grandkids aren't going to distinguish between what you and I may argue is good or bad debt when the tab comes due and their paychecks vanish. My whole point about the trust fund situation is that it will be by far the largest component of the debt when that time comes. The solution to that problem isn't increasing SS tax rates and caps as that will only increase the debt further and faster as long as the trust fund money is "invested" in government debt.

Reply to
Doug Winterburn

Per example...the recent WRDA (Water Resources) bill. Went from ~$5B request from Army Corps of Engineers for improvements on inland waterways to do things such as enlarge outdated locks to accommodate current-day barges, maintenance, etc.; a useful and needed set of work that has been need for 20 years. Went to $10, then $12B in House, about $15B in Senate (or vice versa, I forget which was the larger otomh, but that's immaterial). Went to conference and came out at something around $22B. Ended up being first (and so far, only) bill the Dem's have been able to override a veto...

I'm an ag producer so cost-effective barge facilities to ship grain from our midwest terminals to Gulf ports is a key item in our economic competitiveness for exports, but still...this is madness.

--

Reply to
dpb

...

It's even more inherent in a monarchy or dictatorial system where the "ins" have absolute control. There is at least a modicum of control in a democratic/representative government, albeit diluted as the size of the population grows...

Reply to
dpb

"Provide for the common defense" is one of the designated purposes.

OTOH, if we forego the military, we'll have NO pork, since Muslims don't eat it. FWIW.

Reply to
George

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.