Debt Ceiling Deadline - August 2nd

As far as entitlement spending. I say instead of raising the retirement age or cutting benifits we do this. If a person has a net worth or more than a million dollars then that person doesn't get social security because they don't need it. If I have a million in the bank at 65 then I won't need 1500$ from ssi. That is one way that we could save ssi. Many would say that they paid into ssi so they should get it. Make a compromise. Allow the first 12,000$ per year of a retired persons retirement money to be tax free. That may not be the right way but something to compromise for the loss of ssi to people who wouldn't get theirs.

 

As far as Medicare , if you're worth more than a million dollars then you don't get Medicare. You buy your own medical INS. That would decrease the number of people on Medicare. Some type of compromise could be made here also. Maybe allow those people to deduct their co- pays made yearly. This too may not be the correct compromise either. The goal is to get the people who have a million dollars and don't really need the government to allow their share to go to others who do need it. The more people you can get off of Medicare the more benifits that won't have to be taken away from those that do need it.

The only way to save ssi and Medicare is to reduce waste and reduce the number of people using the entitlement. By removing the millionare's from the system we could use the savings to ensure the survival of the programs. This may not sit well with some republicans but some sort of compromise must be found in order for these programs not to bankrupt America.

 

All of those are on the money. Except you might need to move means testing to income rather than wealth.

And we ought to bring all troops home, and dismiss most of them into the civilian sector and let the market find jobs for them. We ain't fighting Russia or China or India, or anybody, any time soon, and we need to get out of the nation buildind/police action game.

 

We have cut our troop level down to 10 divisions now. I don't think we should cut any deeper. What we must do is base these troops at home. If we had the transports we could ship entire divisions to any place on the globe in two weeks. If the navy needs a more destroyers to guard these transports then build them. It's cheaper to build thirty more destroyers then to keep hundreds of thousands of troops in other countries. If south Korea wants an army divison, navy squadron, air wing and advisors to train their troops on how to use American weapons then we should total the amount spent and send them a bill. Why spend fifty billion a year to base troops there on our dime when we could ship them there in two weeks. They won't be going anywhere. They will still be there in two weeks when we get there. While the troops are in route the navy aircraft carriers and airforce bombers could be softening up the target until the troopers get there.

 

I would've thought a USNA grad would have a better grasp on America's place in the world. I guess it never crossed my mind that a service academy graduate, no matter how left of center, would advocate a policy where the US crawls into a shell like a turtle.

 

Because South Korea can become North Korea in less than two weeks.

Think about what it is you're saying. You're making an assumption that the US will maintain air and naval dominance, and any deployment by US forces will be unopposed. That's a big (and ignorant) damn assumption. Has it ever occured to you that the reason S. Korea is not part of N. Korea is because of the small US presence there?

Come on, man. It ain't about how much money it costs to maintain a military presence worldwide. Because I guaran-damn-tee a war with N. Korea would cost a hell of a lot more than the cost of maintaining a presence there.

 

I wouldn't say that using American military bases to house our troops instead of spending the extra money to keep them forward deployed as turtling. It cost way more to keep them overseas than to keep them here. We could still go anywhere we need to in relatively short notice

 

It's not our duty to make sure everyone in the world is defended.

I don't ant N. Korea to invade south Korea but S. Korea has to take responsibility for defending themselves.

It's a different world today. We have issues and expenditures that are better spent at home. So many of these socialist western democracies have the luxury of a government social support network because they know they have the United States taking care of their defense and don't spend the money on their own defense.

**** em all. Time to take care of number one for a change.

 

So...are you for nation building? Expanding democracy worldwide? Well the shenangians in Washington, the last month or so has shown us all what a sterling model that is, hasn't it.

We need a military to defend and protect the US, not Japan, France, Germany, or even England. Certainly not that crowd in the mideast. And if those in power could get it right, we would not need to protect their oil, either.

You cannot have it all, that is why we are in the fiscal mess we are in today.

I have a great view of America's place in the world....financially bordering on a third world country, over-committed and under resourced, and still, though no longer affordable, doing other nation's jobs for them, at no cost. It is not 1946 anymore.

This is the 21st century. The world has changed drastically in the last 20 - 30 years. We need to focus our energy on maintaining some semblance of our place in the world pecking order, not trying to push "democracy" (you see where that has us today) to countries that neither want nor understand the concept.

Appreciate the cheap shot at the "Naval Academy Grad" At least I learned the skill of critical thinking there. I have vowed to cease trading insults on this forum, but clearly certain schools, and I will not name them, do not spend much time on that subject, at all. A shame.

 

Are you concerned about the domino effect?

Do you have family there?

Or maybe you have Hyundai stock?

Please share, the direct impact on you, AEN, if SK became NK in less than two weeks? How would you be affected?