Welcome to PatsFans.com

Social Spending is 3 Times the Military Spending

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by QuiGon, Feb 23, 2007.

  1. QuiGon

    QuiGon Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Messages:
    6,123
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Check out these 2 pie charts in this link. Pretty fightening stuff to those of us that hope America still exists 100 years from now.

    Actually the past few years have convinced me the American dynasty is in its final throes. Thanks to the liberals amongst us, we can clearly see that 75-100 years from now, the United States will be bankrupt and pretty much a 3rd World country.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17083618/site/newsweek/
  2. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,098
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    That seems misleading. The supplementals incurred in Iraq and Afg, which amount to a half trillion alone, are not included in the fedral budget.

    You knew that though.

    Oh, and as for bankruptcy, I believe Clinton actually finished his terms with a surplus. What happened to all that money??
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2007
  3. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    Generally, a country with the unlimited power of taxation doesn't go bankrupt.
  4. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    37,502
    Likes Received:
    24
    Ratings:
    +29 / 0 / -5

    Massachusetts Wonderful New Governor Is Buying "Worms" With Taxpayer Money
  5. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    Good for him, at least he's being creative.
  6. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,088
    Likes Received:
    29
    Ratings:
    +37 / 2 / -3

    #24 Jersey

    It's not going to get any better. With an aging population and medical care keeping people alive longer, the social security and medicare costs are going to get impossible to live with. Higher taxes and/or lower benefits will be the only choice. Unfortunately we're headed in the direction of the former.

    One of my pet peeves is all the bullsh!t ads on TV for every pill imaginable. We all pay for all these ED and urine pills through medicare or insurance. This prescription drug thing (including me with insurance, not just medicare) is costing us a bloody fortune and it'll only get worse.
  7. Real World

    Real World Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,287
    Likes Received:
    23
    Ratings:
    +25 / 0 / -1

    You're avoiding the point of the article entirely. Furthermore, the Surplus was given back to the people, who it rightfulyl belonged to. What I hate about the "surplus" talk, is that people tend to think government was cut, well, it wasn't. Government grew as it did under previous administrations. Government is too big period. That one joker takes in more than the other is misleading when discussing government waste and inefficiency. What's terrible regarding the current situation, or the last 6 years, is that government has grown exponentially, which means the next joker will spend more than this drunken sailor by right. GW has taken in record revenues. Should the numbers improve to the point where he takes in $1 more than he spends, which is astronomical even by big government standards, it wouldn't mean didly. He still spent waaaaay too much.

    Our government is headed where Quigon says. We simply cannot support the spending we've attached ourselves too. Be it defense, or welfare, with such a growing mass of both elderly and red inkers, we're doomed.


    [​IMG]
  8. QuiGon

    QuiGon Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Messages:
    6,123
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Not to mention all the illegals flooding into our borders... They get all sort of government benefits (food stamps, welfare, free health care, education, in-state tuition) without the minor nuisance of actually having to pay taxes...
  9. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,088
    Likes Received:
    29
    Ratings:
    +37 / 2 / -3

    #24 Jersey

    Then they have kids who are born as citizens and vote for more benefits . . . why do you think the voting demographics are changing ?
  10. Real World

    Real World Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,287
    Likes Received:
    23
    Ratings:
    +25 / 0 / -1

    Exactly. Illegals constitute a high number of what I like to call "red inkers". By rule, they tend to cost more they they pay in. When you figure that they don't have insurance, don't pay taxes (under the table pay, or don't earn enough to pay tax), and add to governmental costs (more fire, police, education, etc). Furthermore, if you make them all legal, then they will immidiately qualify for more welfare services. We're doomed! :eek:
  11. QuiGon

    QuiGon Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Messages:
    6,123
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    And then, presto, there's our downfall of American democracy. The poor people have realized that they can just vote liberal, which is the same as voting themselves more money from the working class (and then the same liberals blame Republicans for the shrinking of the working class). Another problem is that government rewards the poor by providing them greater benefits with more children. We reward a behavior we should be doing everything we can to stifle.
  12. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,088
    Likes Received:
    29
    Ratings:
    +37 / 2 / -3

    #24 Jersey

    The bottom line is people shouldn't be able to vote for taxes for others. If we want to vote for an increased tax rate for eveyone, fine. Or if the top 20% want to vote for the top 20% to pay a higher tax rate, fine. But for the bottom 50% to vote for the top 20% to pay more . . . it's ridiculous.
  13. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,671
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    I'm all for that. If we use this method, the income tax will be wiped out in about three weeks! Brilliant!
  14. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,252
    Likes Received:
    21
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    Capitalism needs expanding markets to survive; without profit growth, investors will in theory not pay more for stocks. The illegals have significantly expanded many markets, and in that way do more good than harm for our economy. Of course, they also keep wages low, which hurts a large number of the working people.
  15. Real World

    Real World Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,287
    Likes Received:
    23
    Ratings:
    +25 / 0 / -1

    Yup, they've expanded markets like crime, incarceration, medical costs, education costs, etc...
  16. JLC

    JLC Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    156
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    I agree with you to a point - expansion is generally good, however, capitalism - really any economic system - also needs to exercise discipline in spending to survive. Which brings us to Washington D.C....:rolleyes:
  17. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,252
    Likes Received:
    21
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    Many people have jobs and are getting rich because of those things.

    I don't think it can exercise discipline. Capitalism is like a runaway train, and Marx predicted it would eventually lead to a wreck, but so far that hasn't happened, and even if Marx is correct, I think it will still take a few hundred more years. I think 100 years from today, we'll have Social Security and other benefits, and a couple dozen trillion dollars in debt that won't faze anyone. Isn't it amazing that we're apparently not suffering for our current $8.75 trillion debt?
  18. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,229
    Likes Received:
    14
    Ratings:
    +15 / 0 / -3

    Some of the aspects that are triggering the runaway spending are the socail spending programs applauded by leftist (socialist, communist or progressives take your pick). iF we had avoided thee Marxist programs we would have no financial problems at this point, probably no national debt.

    At least you are loyal hanging there with ol Karl :singing: :D
  19. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,252
    Likes Received:
    21
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    We would still have debt because it benefits the capitalists. They might not spend the money on social programs, but they would find a way to spend it. We'd also have lots of homeless old people dying in the streets.

    As far as Karl goes, his vision of workers controlling the economy was an even bigger failure than our vision of unregulated businesspeople controlling the economy. Before we introduced regulations, many companies allowed kids to work 70 hour weeks, had labor conditions that led to numerous deaths, and used the National Guard to kill strikers. Thank goodness that we took some of the best of socialism (social security, Medicare, government regulation, workers rights), and incorporated it into our system.
  20. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    37,502
    Likes Received:
    24
    Ratings:
    +29 / 0 / -5

    The End Is Near
    Welcome Everything Is Free
    Free Sex
    Come To Our Country And Behead Us
    We Love You
    Down With Jesus
    Praise Allah
    Get Bush--Get Bush
    The CIA Is Watching You Through Your Dishwasher
    F-ck The Church
    Build A Mosque
    Kill The Christians
    Kill All The White People
    F-ck America
    Get Bush--Get Bush

    :bricks:
  21. Real World

    Real World Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,287
    Likes Received:
    23
    Ratings:
    +25 / 0 / -1

    I don't think the concepts of some of those programs are entirely wrong. Having a program that ensures at least a basic stipend is advantageous to a nation in the long run. My problem with these programs, as is the case with anything government run, is that they are grossly mismanaged, and far too large for their own good.
  22. MrBigglesWorth

    MrBigglesWorth Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2006
    Messages:
    8,338
    Likes Received:
    16
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -0

    A growing retirement population, a population that is living longer due to advances in technology have caused a strain on the social security and medicare systems. Further hindering matters is a smaller working class to pay in benefits to sustain current SSI payments.

    One option that I recently read that may help to alleviate matters is:

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17201546/site/newsweek/

  23. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,088
    Likes Received:
    29
    Ratings:
    +37 / 2 / -3

    #24 Jersey

    I don't wsee what the great idea is here. Middle class and lower workers already get tax benefits from Traditional IRAs that the upper middle class and higher don't get. And the upper middle class and higher aren't even eligible for Roth IRAs. These automatic IRAs are barely different from the options now.

    Partial privatization of social security is the only good solution, so people pay no more in the future than they pay now. But they get way more growth and actual money to pass on to future generations. How to pay for the loss of revenues for current social security obligations ? That's an issue. Maybe even raise the cap on earings that pay ss tax (I NEVER like tax increases but I might support this one). But we have to unburdone ourselves from this ridiculous lockbox concept even if it takes two generations.
  24. MrBigglesWorth

    MrBigglesWorth Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2006
    Messages:
    8,338
    Likes Received:
    16
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -0

    The main issue is the retiring population is growing big time, people are living longer, families are having less kids as compared to previous generations.

    There doesn't simply seem to be enough income, enough revenue flow to support the current SSI system and it doesn't appear to be getting better. The answer for most of us is to put away additional money now in 401k's to supplement the small SSI check we will get. We can't count on the government to provide for us. Unfortunately as many have stated there is a huge burden on social services because many individuals don't have the necessary skills nor motivation to provide for themself. The unfortunate thing is we have become a culture that blames other for their own failures. Look at NCLB where they want to blame the teachers for not getting their students to adequate learning levels, when the students and families should be blamed for not attending every day or putting in a full effort. We need to realize that not everyone wants or is meant to go to college. There are people content with working a trade or are not motivated to study advanced math.
  25. QuiGon

    QuiGon Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Messages:
    6,123
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Social Security is the biggest pyramid scheme in all of human history. And, like any pyramid scheme, it works out great for those on the front end but not so great for those when the scheme collapses.
  26. MrBigglesWorth

    MrBigglesWorth Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2006
    Messages:
    8,338
    Likes Received:
    16
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -0

    the pyramid is getting bigger. where do you see it going? bankrupt?
  27. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,252
    Likes Received:
    21
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    The pyramid scheme extends way beyond Social Security. It's actually global. Let's face we have $8.75 trillion in debt, but if anyone demands we pay it back, the global economy will collapse like a house of cards. The fact is, everyone is party to the pyramid scheme, and I don't think it's ever going to stop. That said, I'm not convinced that it needs to stop. If we're doing okay with $8.75 trillion in debt, what harm will another $8 trillion do over the next couple of decades? I'm not necessarily advocating that, but I think this is one of those mysteries of the economy.
  28. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    19,528
    Likes Received:
    41
    Ratings:
    +43 / 0 / -2

    Okay, a few things:

    First of all, Harry, I like your all caps tirades. It's funny... I know you know how silly you look to thinking people, so it's kind of like an in joke, except for you really mean it, from what I can tell... anyway, don't ever change.

    To the titular lament: I suggest you examine social vs. military spending elsewhere in the world for the sake of comparison. Or are you saying that, although any other nation in the world should have a military that takes only a few percentage points of the budget, in America (and only in America,) it should overwhelm all other government programs?

    To expand on that: We have the strongest and best-funded military in the world. Yet we finish toward the bottom of the pack in the industrialized world in indicators such as infant mortality, literacy, and test scores.

    So, where do you think we have a true "funding gap," the military side or the domestic side?

    I know the right-wing mantra: All social spending is effed up. All military spending is patriotic. But think for one bloody minute. We are, in fact, facing the usual raft of problems that do not respond well to shooting at them (such as the demographic time bomb we've been discussing, as regards social security.) It's also worth noting that while we're invading people, strong-arming allies to invade people, calling our allies names when they won't invade people, and generally snubbing much of the third world, our greatest potential competitor, China, shows no real interest in military adventurism, preferring to cut business deals.

    Think, people. The farking Communists have more business sense than our neo-cons.

    What does that tell you?

    Pick another fight, Mr. President (or Mr. Vice President, whoever is calling those shots.) The Chinese are laughing all the way to the bank.

    PFnV
  29. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,088
    Likes Received:
    29
    Ratings:
    +37 / 2 / -3

    #24 Jersey

    You're preaching to the choir, it's unsustainable.

    People may not like it but means testing is inevitable. I'll use my parents as an example. They're in their 70s. Typical family from that era, my mom was a housewife, my dad was an engineer. Paid a little more than the average engineer as he has a PhD in Mechanical Engineering but was still your run of the mill middle class income. They lived in England and Cleveland most of their working years, no massive real estate income.

    I was down there last week. With their stock market investments, they have over $2M in their mutual funds. They have to take out about $36K a year from their IRA due to their age which they push back into mutual funds. They have their house payment, that's about it. Medicare pays most of their medical expenses including over $100K last year as my mom has (had, for now, I guess) ovarian cancer.

    They don't need social security. However they get almost $2K a month. To be sustainable, social security has to go back to being a safety net not a retirement plan. There's a lot of people like my parents with a lot of money who simply don't need it. Due to my investments, and inheriting half of said $2M when my parents pass away, I am headed towards far more than the $2M for retirement . . . and guess what ? I'll be getting multiples of thousands a month from social security too. It's nuts.

    SS should be a safety net. It should be way smaller. And people should be shown how to invest themselves and be able to grow their own money. Of course, the lockbox types don't want that - they want people to be dependent on their government. The dependence of the people equals power.

    Max out your 401K. Add a Roth IRA if you can. Take advantage of Health Savings Accounts to lower your taxes. Invest what you can and laugh your ass off at the silly governement program and it's lockbox.

    But social secutity will either have to lower payments, either across the board or by means testing, raise taxes or invest the money better. Because it's unsustainable right now - but it can't go away because not enough people are saving for themselves.
  30. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,088
    Likes Received:
    29
    Ratings:
    +37 / 2 / -3

    #24 Jersey

    One of the non social security problems is the medical spending.

    The pills are nuts. Just watch TV, there's a pill for everything even if they are BS. All these ED and urinary flow pills - medicare is paying for them all and they aren't necessary. Pills should not be allowed to be advertised, it results in doctor shopping - instead of people being told what they need, they're tempted by every ad they see and can go from doctor to doctor until they get the prescription they want - after all, medicare is paying, not them.

Share This Page