How do they evaluate that, they lose fewer wars?
Obama's only published birth certificate a fake!
- vladimir
- Feminist Watch List
- Reactions: 4
- Posts: 34235
- Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2004 7:43 am
- Location: mod edit
Last edited by vladimir on Thu Mar 14, 2019 5:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
ירי ילדים והפצצת אזרחים דורש אומץ, כמו גם הטרדה מינית של עובדי ההוראה.
-
- I have some social problems
- Reactions: 0
- Posts: 518
- Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 10:49 am
The idea behind a strong military is so you can have less wars because countries just don't want to fight. Most people even in the military don't want war.
"A day without learning is a day lost!"
- vladimir
- Feminist Watch List
- Reactions: 4
- Posts: 34235
- Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2004 7:43 am
- Location: mod edit
Which explains the fact the US has started/entered into more wars than any country in history, right? I mean, seriously?Johnsell50 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2019 8:22 pmThe idea behind a strong military is so you can have less wars because countries just don't want to fight. Most people even in the military don't want war.
Most people, even in the military, don't want war?
Bwahahaha
Actions speak louder than words.
ירי ילדים והפצצת אזרחים דורש אומץ, כמו גם הטרדה מינית של עובדי ההוראה.
- Lucky Lucan
- K440 Knight Captain
- Reactions: 761
- Posts: 22525
- Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2011 12:24 pm
- Location: The Pearl of the Orient
I think a strong military is important. However spending over 60% of the budget on it when your country's defense forces are already by a long shot the strongest in the world seems unnecessary for a country not at war.
What are you worried about? China's one second-hand refitted Russian carrier or Russia's coal-burner flagship?
What are you worried about? China's one second-hand refitted Russian carrier or Russia's coal-burner flagship?
Romantic Cambodia is dead and gone. It's with McKinley in the grave.
-
- I have some social problems
- Reactions: 0
- Posts: 518
- Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 10:49 am
Many of those wars were to come to the aid of others, and at their behest.vladimir wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2019 8:59 pmWhich explains the fact the US has started/entered into more wars than any country in history, right? I mean, seriously?Johnsell50 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2019 8:22 pmThe idea behind a strong military is so you can have less wars because countries just don't want to fight. Most people even in the military don't want war.
Most people, even in the military, don't want war?
Bwahahaha
Actions speak louder than words.
"A day without learning is a day lost!"
-
- 440 newbie - handle with care
- Reactions: 0
- Posts: 14
- Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 5:41 am
Misleading information there.Lucky Lucan wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2019 9:24 pmI think a strong military is important. However spending over 60% of the budget on it when your country's defense forces are already by a long shot the strongest in the world seems unnecessary for a country not at war.
While still unnecessarily high, that 57% for military spending shown is only taken as a percentage of US "discretionary spending" which is less than one third of all US government spending. The other 70% of US spending is on the entitlement programs of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid (together called "mandatory spending") plus the interest payments on the national debt.
So US military spending is 0.3 x 0.57 = 17% of total US government spending. Much of that is on salaries and soldier health care plus military service education funding programs like the GI bill (which is overwhelmingly how minorities in the US fund their outrageously expensive university costs) and research and development, which helped either invent or further develop trivial things like, you know, the internet, nuclear power, medical x-rays, lasers, rockets, jet engines, etc.
- Sonic1
- I need professional help
- Reactions: 89
- Posts: 1034
- Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2014 5:46 am
- Location: On the edge of the Milky Way...
Johnsel if Trump cut your social security in half because it is an evil socialist program, would you support that? I think I remember you saying that your main source of income was $1500 monthly SSI. Or is that some good sociaisim because it directly benefits you ?
Freedom is not a state. It is an act. It is not some enchanted garden perched high on a distant plateau.. Freedom is a continuous action we all must take, and each generation must do its part to create an even more fair, more just society.-John Lewis
- Lucky Lucan
- K440 Knight Captain
- Reactions: 761
- Posts: 22525
- Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2011 12:24 pm
- Location: The Pearl of the Orient
Thanks for clearing that up, I wasn't sure what the difference was. However the mandatory budget seems to also cover (at least some) military retirement and veteran's benefits, so a bit more could be added to that total.el Dangeroso wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:05 pmMisleading information there.Lucky Lucan wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2019 9:24 pmI think a strong military is important. However spending over 60% of the budget on it when your country's defense forces are already by a long shot the strongest in the world seems unnecessary for a country not at war.
While still unnecessarily high, that 57% for military spending shown is only taken as a percentage of US "discretionary spending" which is less than one third of all US government spending. The other 70% of US spending is on the entitlement programs of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid (together called "mandatory spending") plus the interest payments on the national debt.
So US military spending is 0.3 x 0.57 = 17% of total US government spending. Much of that is on salaries and soldier health care plus military service education funding programs like the GI bill (which is overwhelmingly how minorities in the US fund their outrageously expensive university costs) and research and development, which helped either invent or further develop trivial things like, you know, the internet, nuclear power, medical x-rays, lasers, rockets, jet engines, etc.
Romantic Cambodia is dead and gone. It's with McKinley in the grave.
-
- 440 newbie - handle with care
- Reactions: 0
- Posts: 14
- Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 5:41 am
^More uneducated rambling.Sonic1 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:53 pmJohnsel if Trump cut your social security in half because it is an evil socialist program, would you support that? I think I remember you saying that your main source of income was $1500 monthly SSI. Or is that some good sociaisim because it directly benefits you ?
Most US workers pay into the Social Security program through payroll taxes their entire lives. Each individual pays 6.2% of their annual salary plus each employer pays another 6.2% of each workers salary into the Social Security fund. It was not intended to be a socialist welfare program for all, but a forced retirement savings program.
It was lame-brained socialist Democrats who turned that original program intent into the mess SS has become, by allowing people who barely contributed into the SS/Medicare system by working very little over their lifetimes to draw out a much higher amount than was ever put in that system by them or on their behalf.
So if Trump (or any president) took away half of retirees SS income, for many citizens that would be outright theft of money that is rightfully theirs. But some others were never entitled to so much money in retirement anyway.
Last edited by el Dangeroso on Thu Mar 14, 2019 4:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
Trump said he wouldn’t cut Medicaid, Social Security, and Medicare. His 2020 budget cuts all 3.el Dangeroso wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2019 11:06 pm^More uneducated rambling.Sonic1 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:53 pmJohnsel if Trump cut your social security in half because it is an evil socialist program, would you support that? I think I remember you saying that your main source of income was $1500 monthly SSI. Or is that some good sociaisim because it directly benefits you ?
Most US workers pay into the Social Security program through payroll taxes their entire lives. Each individual pays 6.2% of their annual salary plus each employer pays another 6.2% of each workers salary into the Social Security fund. It was not intended to be a socialist welfare program for all, but a forced retirement savings program.
It was lame-brained socialist Democarts who turned that original program intent into the mess SS has become, by allowing people who barely contributed into the SS/Medicare system by working very little over their lifetimes to draw out a much higher amount than was ever put in that system by them or on their behalf.
So if Trump (or any president) took away half of retirees SS income, for many citizens that would be outright theft of money that is rightfully theirs. But some others were never entitled to so much money in retirement anyway.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... udget-cuts
-
- 440 newbie - handle with care
- Reactions: 0
- Posts: 14
- Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 5:41 am
Do some research before you post information based on a politically-biased headline. And posting a link to vox.com is almost equivalent to posting a link to the National Enquirer tabloid as a source of information.Cricket99 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2019 11:23 pmTrump said he wouldn’t cut Medicaid, Social Security, and Medicare. His 2020 budget cuts all 3.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... udget-cuts
Trump is undoing much of what Obamacare did, which was increase government obligations to US healthcare programs without paying for any of it. That was one of Trump's main campaign promises.
https://www.politifact.com/new-york/sta ... medicare-/In a literal sense, Trump’s budget did propose about $2 trillion in savings from Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid over 10 years.
The majority of those savings — about $1.4 trillion — would come from Medicaid, according to projections from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Part of that would be a rollback of the Medicaid expansion under Obamacare, which allowed states to offer Medicaid coverage to a larger share of low-income people. Trump’s budget would cut federal funding for the expansion, forcing states to either drop it or foot the bill themselves.
About $530 billion in savings would come from Medicare and $25 billion would come from Social Security. Collectively, that totals almost $2 trillion.
What experts say
Beyond the raw numbers, though, these figures are misleading, experts told us.
"Those numbers only count the ‘takes’ and not where the money is going," said Marc Goldwein, senior vice president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a non-profit budget analysis group.
About $1.2 trillion of the savings from Medicaid and Obamacare would be redirected to block grants for states, Goldwein said. The federal government currently matches state Medicaid costs without a cap. Trump’s budget would use a formula to give each state a fixed amount for Medicaid each year. If costs go above that amount, states would have to cut services or bear the cost.
The president’s budget would also repeal federal subsidies for Obamacare. The Congressional Budget Office estimated last year that replacing those subsidies with block grants would reduce the federal deficit by at least $133 billion over a decade.
The net savings between all of Trump’s budget proposals affecting Medicaid and Obamacare was projected to be about $765 billion, experts said.
"It’s impossible to apportion how much of that is Medicaid because we don’t know how states will spend their new grant," Goldwein said. "But I think it’s somewhat misleading to suggest Medicaid is being cut by $1.4 trillion when a large chunk of that money is really being reprioritized rather than eliminated."
The proposed Medicare savings would have meant little to no change for beneficiaries, according to Paul Van de Water, a senior fellow at the left-leaning Center on Budget Policy and Priorities, a Washington, D.C., think tank.
- Lucky Lucan
- K440 Knight Captain
- Reactions: 761
- Posts: 22525
- Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2011 12:24 pm
- Location: The Pearl of the Orient
I have similar feelings about the SS systems in Europe too. There are people who spend their whole lives scrounging, and have an amazing sense of entitlement. I'm not sure how it works in the US. People who have never worked in their lives and are third generation addicts getting benefits/ housing etc and also draining public health resources. For example some dirty thieving junkie from my dirty old town can get free treatment for Hepatitis C. It's in the public's interest to contain such diseases, but the taxpayer has to fork out around $25,000 a year just for meds for one of these useless cunts, who will probably die within a few years anyway.el Dangeroso wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2019 11:06 pmIt was lame-brained socialist Democarts who turned that original program intent into the mess SS has become, by allowing people who barely contributed into the SS/Medicare system by working very little over their lifetimes to draw out a much higher amount than was ever put in that system by them or on their behalf.
What can you do though? If you squeeze these dependents too much they tend to go wild and burn the place down.
Romantic Cambodia is dead and gone. It's with McKinley in the grave.
- Sonic1
- I need professional help
- Reactions: 89
- Posts: 1034
- Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2014 5:46 am
- Location: On the edge of the Milky Way...
Paying farmers not to grow crops is probably a purer form of socialisim than Social Security. It's still socialisim. Everybody puts into a pot. People die. Who ever lives the longest......
Freedom is not a state. It is an act. It is not some enchanted garden perched high on a distant plateau.. Freedom is a continuous action we all must take, and each generation must do its part to create an even more fair, more just society.-John Lewis
-
- I have some social problems
- Reactions: 0
- Posts: 518
- Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 10:49 am
Social Security started as only a government run form of pension plan. It was instituted so people would have money to live on when they are old and has been in place for decades. It has been stolen from over the years to fund other things but it is not a welfare program for those who paid into it all our lives. It is a right, not a privilege, and it is not a gift. Giving medicaid to people who never worked is a gift.
"A day without learning is a day lost!"
-
- Similar Topics
- Replies
- Views
- Last post
-
-
How to get cambodian birth certificate?
by googal » Mon Nov 16, 2020 11:02 am » in Questions and Answers - 15 Replies
- 6240 Views
-
Last post by Da Lin
Sun Nov 22, 2020 11:58 pm
-
-
-
How to hide your name from being published in Cambodia news
by chloroformaa » Mon Mar 18, 2024 11:33 pm » in Questions and Answers - 13 Replies
- 3614 Views
-
Last post by Mike Farce
Fri Apr 12, 2024 10:32 pm
-
-
-
Covid-19 positive woman gives birth to baby
by Bong Burgundy » Fri Mar 19, 2021 9:46 pm » in Cambodia News - 2 Replies
- 2087 Views
-
Last post by Guest
Sat Mar 20, 2021 12:43 am
-
-
-
Do Cambodian women steam their hoohas after giving birth?
by Slate » Sun Jun 21, 2020 12:46 pm » in Questions and Answers - 43 Replies
- 10811 Views
-
Last post by Guest999
Sat Sep 26, 2020 7:53 am
-
-
- 15 Replies
- 3737 Views
-
Last post by Chuangt2u
Thu Sep 10, 2020 8:11 pm