New Social Security bill

[Jones]

Screw the olds.

The President’s FY 2019 Budget - It Literally Leaves Seniors in the Cold - NCPSSM

He's coming after your money Van!

 

[LarryBird]

You know what, for the conservatives who say that liberals want to spend at an irresponsible level on social welfare programs, and green infrastructure, and etc etc. That there's not enough money to pay for it, and that we'd need massive tax increases, and the national debt would balloon out of control.

Here's a fiscally responsible idea: we cut military spending by 75%. This will not include the hidden black budget or cia/paramilitary budgets. That money actually gets done. The military itself is bloated. The depots and other governmental agencies who supply and support it are disgusting wastes of money. I've seen it firsthand. Try and catch somebody working on a military supply/logistics location, I dare you. There might be like 14 people actively working, while the other 3500 play basketball or horseshoes or softball or insert random thing that is not working here.

So if we take $640B down to $160B per year on the Military for a mandated 10 years. We adjust for inflation each year on these established numbers for the duration. That would give us an $480B per year to work with and make us no less safe than we are right now. Zero change in your safety.

We'd have roughly $5T to use on improvement and modernization of the United States, and the daily lives and well-being of it's citizens. That'll get a lot done. Nobody will yet, have caught up to us militarily as we stand today, in that 10 year span of 75% reduction of military spending period.

We can review it at the end of 10 years and see if we want to go back to spending almost half of the gdp on military or if we want to continue spending our money on our country and making it great again, liberal style.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

You know what, for the conservatives who say that liberals want to spend at an irresponsible level on social welfare programs, and green infrastructure, and etc etc. That there's not enough money to pay for it, and that we'd need massive tax increases, and the national debt would balloon out of control.

Here's a fiscally responsible idea: we cut military spending by 75%. This will not include the hidden black budget or cia/paramilitary budgets. That money actually gets done. The military itself is bloated. The depots and other governmental agencies who supply and support it are disgusting wastes of money. I've seen it firsthand. Try and catch somebody working on a military supply/logistics location, I dare you. There might be like 14 people actively working, while the other 3500 play basketball or horseshoes or softball or insert random thing that is not working here.

So if we take $640B down to $160B per year on the Military for a mandated 10 years. We adjust for inflation each year on these established numbers for the duration. That would give us an $480B per year to work with and make us no less safe than we are right now. Zero change in your safety.

We'd have roughly $5T to use on improvement and modernization of the United States, and the daily lives and well-being of it's citizens. That'll get a lot done. Nobody will yet, have caught up to us militarily as we stand today, in that 10 year span of 75% reduction of military spending period.

We can review it at the end of 10 years and see if we want to go back to spending almost half of the gdp on military or if we want to continue spending our money on our country and making it great again, liberal style.

Mkay.
How bout we compromise and cut both military and entitlement programs.
I'm down how bout you?

 

[LarryBird]

Mkay.
How bout we compromise and cut both military and entitlement programs.
I'm down how bout you?

Can't quite get there.

 

[newfie]

You know what, for the conservatives who say that liberals want to spend at an irresponsible level on social welfare programs, and green infrastructure, and etc etc. That there's not enough money to pay for it, and that we'd need massive tax increases, and the national debt would balloon out of control.

Here's a fiscally responsible idea: we cut military spending by 75%. This will not include the hidden black budget or cia/paramilitary budgets. That money actually gets done. The military itself is bloated. The depots and other governmental agencies who supply and support it are disgusting wastes of money. I've seen it firsthand. Try and catch somebody working on a military supply/logistics location, I dare you. There might be like 14 people actively working, while the other 3500 play basketball or horseshoes or softball or insert random thing that is not working here.

So if we take $640B down to $160B per year on the Military for a mandated 10 years. We adjust for inflation each year on these established numbers for the duration. That would give us an $480B per year to work with and make us no less safe than we are right now. Zero change in your safety.

We'd have roughly $5T to use on improvement and modernization of the United States, and the daily lives and well-being of it's citizens. That'll get a lot done. Nobody will yet, have caught up to us militarily as we stand today, in that 10 year span of 75% reduction of military spending period.

We can review it at the end of 10 years and see if we want to go back to spending almost half of the gdp on military or if we want to continue spending our money on our country and making it great again, liberal style.

or we could build a wall and use the money we save from fighting open border illegal immigration to balance the budget and supplement social welfare programs.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

Can't quite get there.

Try Cialis.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

or we could build a wall and use the money we save from fighting open border illegal immigration to balance the budget and supplement social welfare programs.

Won't stop them from crossing at legal points of entry, which is where the majority do it anyways.

 

[bacha29]

You know what, for the conservatives who say that liberals want to spend at an irresponsible level on social welfare programs, and green infrastructure, and etc etc. That there's not enough money to pay for it, and that we'd need massive tax increases, and the national debt would balloon out of control.

Here's a fiscally responsible idea: we cut military spending by 75%. This will not include the hidden black budget or cia/paramilitary budgets. That money actually gets done. The military itself is bloated. The depots and other governmental agencies who supply and support it are disgusting wastes of money. I've seen it firsthand. Try and catch somebody working on a military supply/logistics location, I dare you. There might be like 14 people actively working, while the other 3500 play basketball or horseshoes or softball or insert random thing that is not working here.

So if we take $640B down to $160B per year on the Military for a mandated 10 years. We adjust for inflation each year on these established numbers for the duration. That would give us an $480B per year to work with and make us no less safe than we are right now. Zero change in your safety.

We'd have roughly $5T to use on improvement and modernization of the United States, and the daily lives and well-being of it's citizens. That'll get a lot done. Nobody will yet, have caught up to us militarily as we stand today, in that 10 year span of 75% reduction of military spending period.

We can review it at the end of 10 years and see if we want to go back to spending almost half of the gdp on military or if we want to continue spending our money on our country and making it great again, liberal style.

I think it comes down to what a navy admiral said a couple of years ago. " In the future the Pentagon will be a pension administrator that kills a terrorist every now and then" Given that today a fairly small percentage of military personnel actually do the fighting and dying the pension and healthcare is a major reason why people enlist and that's where the costs are.
In keeping with that thought the retirement crisis is getting so bad that several states including mine are considering setting up a state managed pension plan that will require business's operating in the state who offer no retirement plan to pay into in behalf of their employees. Make sense given that states are getting crushed by applications for low income assistance benefits from people who worked all their lives making somebody else rich while they themselves came away with nothing when they could no longer do so.

 

[LarryBird]

The reason why the military budget hasn't been drastically cut is because it's basically always been regarded as political suicide in post ww2 America. The loss of jobs would be tremendous. The states hit the hardest by this would be devastated - some of these areas it's the only employer around, good old uncle sam.

But right now, we stand at a crossroads in time, where with a carefully construed plan, it could be the greatest decision in modern political history, to dismantle(partially) the military industrial complex, and spend that money on a green new deal.

We could become a world leader on green technology, lead a change worldwide, improve our infrastructure, cut long-term energy costs, and create jobs in addition to a ton of other benefits to society and the planet and it's future inhabitants.

The existing military facilities that were cut in the new $160B per year budget, would be converted into green technology facilities and the employees retained/retrained at government expense. The government would take a lead in these fields and partner with contractors to fund green projects and implement them nationwide. Helping subsidize green businesses in their infancy like a type of government incubator to help foster green technology growth until it realizes implementation.

This could be looked at as an investment in our nation's future and continued technological dominance. This is the world's next horizon. This is the problem facing the new generation of politicians. Islamic terrorism and the Russian nuisance will be secondary to the climate change issue as things become more dire. We can lead or lag behind.

Private investment alone cannot get this done. Without some govt sponsored backing, it's too risky to go balls out. Government intervention is needed, with both legislation and capital investment. We should have done this a long time ago, but it's not too late to dive in head first and catch up to where we should already be. We're not a nation of climate deniers, we're the moral compass of the world, and we should act accordingly.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

The reason why the military budget hasn't been drastically cut is because it's basically always been regarded as political suicide in post ww2 America. The loss of jobs would be tremendous. The states hit the hardest by this would be devastated - some of these areas it's the only employer around, good old uncle sam.

But right now, we stand at a crossroads in time, where with a carefully construed plan, it could be the greatest decision in modern political history, to dismantle(partially) the military industrial complex, and spend that money on a green new deal.

We could become a world leader on green technology, lead a change worldwide, improve our infrastructure, cut long-term energy costs, and create jobs in addition to a ton of other benefits to society and the planet and it's future inhabitants.

The existing military facilities that were cut in the new $160B per year budget, would be converted into green technology facilities and the employees retained/retrained at government expense. The government would take a lead in these fields and partner with contractors to fund green projects and implement them nationwide. Helping subsidize green businesses in their infancy like a type of government incubator to help foster green technology growth until it realizes implementation.

This could be looked at as an investment in our nation's future and continued technological dominance. This is the world's next horizon. This is the problem facing the new generation of politicians. Islamic terrorism and the Russian nuisance will be secondary to the climate change issue as things become more dire. We can lead or lag behind.

Private investment alone cannot get this done. Without some govt sponsored backing, it's too risky to go balls out. Government intervention is needed, with both legislation and capital investment. We should have done this a long time ago, but it's not too late to dive in head first and catch up to where we should already be. We're not a nation of climate deniers, we're the moral compass of the world, and we should act accordingly.

meh, better off spending it on space, this planet is played out

 

[LarryBird]

or we could build a wall and use the money we save from fighting open border illegal immigration to balance the budget and supplement social welfare programs.

You'll be the guy complaining when a head of lettuce cost $8 and a pint of berries is $20. Since the migrant workers agriculture relies upon to get your fresh produce to you, with minimal loss of product on the vine, keeping the costs at an affordable level for all consumers, many of whom are illegal, will not be able to enter the country.

Or perhaps you sick s will stand at the border with rifles and mirrored sunglasses and pick the biggest strongest mexicans, tag them with below the skin rfid transmitters, and round them up when they finished up the harvest. Boot their asses out quick like. Tax their earnings while you're at it.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

You'll be the guy complaining when a head of lettuce cost $8 and a pint of berries is $20. Since the migrant workers agriculture relies upon to get your fresh produce to you, with minimal loss of product on the vine, keeping the costs at an affordable level for all consumers, many of whom are illegal, will not be able to enter the country.

Or perhaps you sick s will stand at the border with rifles and mirrored sunglasses and pick the biggest strongest mexicans, tag them with below the skin rfid transmitters, and round them up when they finished up the harvest. Boot their asses out quick like. Tax their earnings while you're at it.

The same people who say a $15 minimum wage won't cause prices to go up, saying that the price of produce will skyrocket if cheap labor is kept out. Seriously bro, that's a really terrible argument.

 

[LarryBird]

Because we know white people and black people alike, are not picking crops. Not for less than $20 per hour. And still probably not for that. Americans do not roll like that.

Illegal mexicans do.

Farmers are not paying $20 per hour for farm hands, and here's a dirty secret, they're not paying $5 per hour to the people picking your fruit and produce. If they were, you'd consider salad a luxury item, and fruit would be for the rich and famous alone.

Be careful what you wish for, WallTards.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

Illegal mexicans

I'm an illegal american.

 

[LarryBird]

The same people who say a $15 minimum wage won't cause prices to go up, saying that the price of produce will skyrocket if cheap labor is kept out. Seriously bro, that's a really terrible argument.

No, I agree a $15 per hour min wage would cause prices to rise. Without legislation and government involvement. Otherwise there's no way that business doesn't pass the cost along to the consumer. A $15 per hour min wage has the power to greatly devalue wages for all workers. It could totally stagnate the economy if done wrong.

But with the right implementation, and business acting in a forced good-faith arrangement with government, it could work fine. Losing a little bit of profit to pay workers a living wage, instead of having government, by way of the taxpayers, subsidize your workforce isn't too much to ask. If it puts you out of business, then your business plan wasn't very sound, and you were operating on margins that were gonna bankrupt you anyway. Better you got a head start on a new venture.

 

[1989]

I'm an illegal american.

You can’t get a TWIC card then.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

You can’t get a TWIC card then.

When I was young I drove on the shoulder of the interstate once to get to an exit ramp when traffic was backed up .

I didn't get caught, but I broke the law, and skipped everyone who followed the rules and waited in line. I am now an illegal. It's a tough life.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

No, I agree a $15 per hour min wage would cause prices to rise. Without legislation and government involvement. Otherwise there's no way that business doesn't pass the cost along to the consumer. A $15 per hour min wage has the power to greatly devalue wages for all workers. It could totally stagnate the economy if done wrong.

But with the right implementation, and business acting in a forced good-faith arrangement with government, it could work fine. Losing a little bit of profit to pay workers a living wage, instead of having government, by way of the taxpayers, subsidize your workforce isn't too much to ask. If it puts you out of business, then your business plan wasn't very sound, and you were operating on margins that were gonna bankrupt you anyway. Better you got a head start on a new venture.

What a load of garbage.

 

[LarryBird]

A $15 per hour min wage should be something everyone can get behind. It helps people make a living without reliance on government assistance programs. It could help raise wages across the board - if you're receiving a paycheck and not writing one, that should be enough for you to support it. Especially if you're in a union that collectively bargains - UPS drivers may feel like they're due an adjustment in wage next contract, feel more like $48 per hour guys now, who knows?

 

[1989]

When I was young I drove on the shoulder of the interstate once to get to an exit ramp when traffic was backed up .

I didn't get caught, but I broke the law, and skipped everyone who followed the rules and waited in line. I am now an illegal. It's a tough life.

Pay the fine, every time you use the shoulder. I have 2 trailers that I refuse to get tabs for. If I get pulled over (on a public road) I’ll pay the price.