Warfare Kings Working to Keep Fear Alive

[Bonestorm]

I don't think that's a terribly good statistic to use in an argument against privatization.

Try telling any senior today that their benefit is going to be cut to 78%.

So, what you're essentially saying is, we're good for another generation, and then the next one after that is going to have to think of something....

What I'm saying is that we have 27 years of modest tinkering to fix Social Security to the extent it needs any fixing without blowing the program up and that ridiculous comments about SS "not being there" are stupid.

Moreover, 78% of scheduled benefits is actually quite a good deal compared to the benefits today's retirees receive based on the way in which benefits are calculated.

 

[apple0154]

That sums it up in a nutshell.

Check a pie chart of gov't spending. SS is going to keep growing in that pie, as life expectancies continue to increase throughout the century. Eventually, it will crowd out many programs that most of us would see as unthinkable to cut today. Theoretically, it will never stop expanding within the pie.

It's a monster, really. Or maybe that's too fear-mongering. But it's insane to think it's sustainable as a gov't program. It was flawed from the start.

Rather than raise the age or cut benefits put it on a sliding scale. The higher the income from other sources the less one receives in benefits. After all, the original intent was to ensure everyone had a minimum standard of living.

 

[apple0154]

Yes, let's look at the folks who invested in Enron or Lehman. There is a reason that with personal accounts you CANNOT investment in individual stocks. Not sure why you refuse to accept that and continue to use it as an argument against personal accounts.

So what would a personal account be composed of and who would decide?

 

[cawacko]

So what would a personal account be composed of and who would decide?

The government would provide the options. To my understanding (which could very well be wrong) it would include bonds, maybe cd's, and large funds (to avoid the risk of a single stock tanking).

Again the idea is not to allow someone to gamble away their S.S. money on a single stock trying to hit a home run. It's about providing individuals (who so desire) a chance to get a low risk enhanced return.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

The government would provide the options. To my understanding (which could very well be wrong) it would include bonds, maybe cd's, and large funds (to avoid the risk of a single stock tanking).

Again the idea is not to allow someone to gamble away their S.S. money on a single stock trying to hit a home run. It's about providing individuals (who so desire) a chance to get a low risk enhanced return.

Would it be based on the advice of the "learned investment professionals" Who arranged our last disaster? That's an option we can all do without.


This is the worst idea i ever heard of.

 

[cawacko]

Would it be based on the advice of the "learned investment professionals" Who arranged our last disaster? That's an option we can all do without.


This is the worst idea i ever heard of.

No it would be determined by our government. Can't say that elicits much confidence but they would control it.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Summing up, you think military spending needs to be cut, but just not right now. OK, when do you want to do it?

I would also note that the Defense Secretary disagrees with your assessment and has recommended Pentagon budget cuts right now. I don't think he goes far enough, but Congress won't even pass the modest cuts Gates is proposing.

The only legitimate reason for not cutting defense spending right now is the economy. And that's not a very good reason. The money otherwise wasted on the bloated Pentagon budget could be allocated to useful things.




Safe from whom? The Chinese? The Canadians? And why is spending as a percentage of GDP the relevant metric?

thats great...the DS disagrees with me...i guess everytime you state an opinion i can invalid it with an appeal to authority...yeah...i'm sure you will like fer sure totally buy that

like i said, when the two actions are done or extremely wound down, then we can reduce the budget....obama is expanding the war on terror and i don't believe that is a time to bitch about the budget...if we can make wasteful spending cuts now...i'm all for it...as i am always against cutting wasteful spending....not merely blindly whining about the military budget...which during times of war does in fact increase

safe...its funny you dispute that when we have rogue elements openly at war with us...i think its safe to assume if we currently greatly reduce our military spending, china will take a huge advantage....i'm not comfortable with that, our military has shaped world events, not always for the good, but i would argue that overall, it has been for the good

and again....as a percent of the GDP...our military spending is not that high and other countries are far higher

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

What "points"? "Uh, I think it should be cut, but I'm not sure"...great argument.

We can slash the military budget. Outdated systems, continued protection for areas of the world (like Europe) that simply don't need it, bloated bureaucracy. As for the 2 wars, end 'em.

There. Solved.

Don't you ever get that "you must spread rep around" message from Damo? Or do you neg rep everyone?

once again, you failed to discuss any my points...even nigel embarrassed you by discussing issues and getting a discussion in response, you on the other hand can't debate, can only insult and then as i predicted in my rep to you....WHINE about your neg rep which you repeately claim doesn't bother you....lmao

i fail to see what the spread rep has to do with yoiu getting a neg rep from me....then again, yoiu're just a piss poor whiner

i don' agree with you on europe...our military budget there has overall kept it stable....

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Too bad for lil' Yurtsie that he calls exposing his lies "stalking".

He claimed to be a lawyer, claimed his firm "is OK with" his 24/7 posting on the interwebs, accused others of exposing his place of employment in an effort to "have him fired", now he claims to be "the boss", and has admitted to Toppy that he has no law degree.

If he is "the boss", his income must be as small as his brain, since he spends all day and night posting lies on the interwebs.

Hard to keep the lies straight when you lie all the time, Yurtsie?

Especially when you're stupid to boot. You can't even remember how many people you've accused of being 'legion' and called 'hack' and 'troll', can you?

Yurtsie!

:eek3:

wow...that is seriously deranged stalking....i know you are obsessed with me. but man....you seem to know every detail of my life and posts....

get a life yoiu fucking loser....you have no clue who i work for or whether i am the boss...you're too stupid to realize one can work in a firm, get promoted to partner and become his own boss....

i guess ignorant mommy boy that you are can't think about that, instead you can only obsess over what you think my life is like, you can't be me....give it up and become your own person

and too funny how your post is full of lies, yet you accuse me of lying

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

An economic meltdown is going to harm our defensive abilities way more than than a few cuts in spending.

Has policing the globe actually kept us safe or just created enemies?

naive in the extreme

1. our military spending has never caused an economic meltdown

2. did we or did we not have enemies prior to WW2? what happened there?

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

While I agree there is a lot that can be cut from defense... in no way is it "the very first place you have to start"... that is simply mindless drivel from the left.

You can START anywhere there is waste. Education, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Defense etc...

Your argument can be turned just as easily to Education.... 'if you're not willing to go there then you're just blowing smoke and can't be taken seriously'

this is what i'm saying about waste...i'm not sure what you mean by "a lot" on defense spending though

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

LOL yeah, Yurt really doesn't know what he's talking about. It's not something you can just not pay. You either have to reduce total debt in the long run or you can default, which would be much more disastrous.

now i get it...i had no idea what mott was blathering about

i never said to simply not pay the interest....mott is just a simpleton who read that into my statement and you fell for it

getting rid of that interest of course means cutting our debt, i have said that all along....but i know mott can only "win" a point by falsely portraying what someone else said

 

[Bonestorm]

thats great...the DS disagrees with me...i guess everytime you state an opinion i can invalid it with an appeal to authority...yeah...i'm sure you will like fer sure totally buy that

Yeah, relying on the judgment of Secretary of Defense is such a stupid thing to do when talking about the propriety of the defense budget.

like i said, when the two actions are done or extremely wound down, then we can reduce the budget....obama is expanding the war on terror and i don't believe that is a time to bitch about the budget...if we can make wasteful spending cuts now...i'm all for it...as i am always against cutting wasteful spending....not merely blindly whining about the military budget...which during times of war does in fact increase

Annual defense appropriations are different from war funding. You can increase war funding or keep it constant while reducing annual appropriations. Saying that we have to

safe...its funny you dispute that when we have rogue elements openly at war with us...i think its safe to assume if we currently greatly reduce our military spending, china will take a huge advantage....i'm not comfortable with that, our military has shaped world events, not always for the good, but i would argue that overall, it has been for the good

Your response implies that the spending we are doing is designed to deal with threat from "rogue elements" as opposed to buying shitloads of equipment for use against traditional forces. It isn't. And what will China do to "take advantage?" What options do they have?

And where we currently outspend the entire rest of the world combined on defense (and we're not even including defense spending outside of the Pentagon) there is little threat to our ability to "shape world events."

and again....as a percent of the GDP...our military spending is not that high and other countries are far higher

Again, why is this a relevant metric?

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

QUOTE=NigelTufnel;712591]Yeah, relying on the judgment of Secretary of Defense is such a stupid thing to do when talking about the propriety of the defense budget.

yeah, i'm real sure you agreed with the DS's under bush....lmao....next

Annual defense appropriations are different from war funding. You can increase war funding or keep it constant while reducing annual appropriations. Saying that we have to

? your sentence cut off

Your response implies that the spending we are doing is designed to deal with threat from "rogue elements" as opposed to buying shitloads of equipment for use against traditional forces. It isn't. And what will China do to "take advantage?" What options do they have?

do you have any idea how much china has expanded its military spending in recent years? read up on it....we could easily lose our military edge to china...you're being naive

And where we currently outspend the entire rest of the world combined on defense (and we're not even including defense spending outside of the Pentagon) there is little threat to our ability to "shape world events."

we spend more because we have more to spend and our economy and influence in the world is far greater....thats like whining we spend more on education that most countries....no shit sherlock....we have more to spend

gdp...gdp....

Again, why is this a relevant metric?

seriously, you seriously don't know....

 

[Sammy Jankis]

No it would be determined by our government. Can't say that elicits much confidence but they would control it.

That's pure fascism. Textbook fascism. It's disgusting and a terrible idea.

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

do you have any idea how much china has expanded its military spending in recent years? read up on it....we could easily lose our military edge to china...you're being naive

Yeah, that's a pretty unlikely scenario, especially in the next 25 years.

Besides, cutting military spending doesn't just mean fewer troops, or less money for R&D (most of which comes from private companies in the first place). You can start with waste. Current policy is that when a unit goes over budget, they get to spend like fucking madmen until the next year. I watched my own unit spend over 2,000,000 on building decorations. And I can assure you my unit was nothing special.

 

[Bonestorm]

yeah, i'm real sure you agreed with the DS's under bush....lmao....next

Gates was a DS under Bush.

? your sentence cut off

Something happened. We can increase war funding while decrease annual defense department appropriations.

do you have any idea how much china has expanded its military spending in recent years? read up on it....we could easily lose our military edge to china...you're being naive

We are nowhere near losing any edge to China. In what capacity?

we spend more because we have more to spend and our economy and influence in the world is far greater....thats like whining we spend more on education that most countries....no shit sherlock....we have more to spend

gdp...gdp....

The argument is about whether we can cut spending, not whether we have a large enough economy to support spending levels. Just because I can afford to buy a new car every year doesn't mean it isn't wasteful to do so.

seriously, you seriously don't know....

No, I don't. Why does percentage of GDP matter when the argument is whether the amount we are spending includes considerable waste compared to the threats we face?

 

[cawacko]

What's up with Ezra Klein? Is he some liberal? Darla posted his article and seemed to be immediately defensive that he is a moderate and not a liberal. I'm not familiar with him so I googled him and he works (or worked) for the Washington Post, American Prospect, and the Keith Olbermann and Rachel Madow shows. Saw him being called a liberal as well. I could really care less about the guy but was just curious.

 

[Zurt]

:eek3:

wow...that is seriously deranged stalking....i know you are obsessed with me. but man....you seem to know every detail of my life and posts....

get a life yoiu fucking loser....you have no clue who i work for or whether i am the boss...you're too stupid to realize one can work in a firm, get promoted to partner and become his own boss....

i guess ignorant mommy boy that you are can't think about that, instead you can only obsess over what you think my life is like, you can't be me....give it up and become your own person

and too funny how your post is full of lies, yet you accuse me of lying

What lies, Yurtsie?

Are you denying that you told Toppy you don't have a law degree?

Are you claiming to be a partner in a law firm without a JD?

Do partners in law firms spend most of their time posting lies on messageboards?

Do partners in law firms live in rented apartments?

You are so much fun to laugh at, Yurtsie.

Some real attorneys are laughing at you, right now.

Besides plagiarizing and lying, what other talents do you have?

 

[Minister of Truth]

Do trolls in their mother's basement fail to make funny on JPP?

Does Ricky Bobby's Wonderbread Car have added value now that the company has been bought out?

Do trolls outside of the Shire sometimes talk too much, causing them to become statues in the morning sunlight?

Do celebrities caught with coke in Vegas outshine celebrities caught with coke in LA?