Government Benefit Recipients Outnumber Full-Time Workers

buster2010
Maybe we can fix it by giving companies that send jobs overseas more tax breaks. Obama tried to give breaks to companies to bring jobs back to the states but the GOP blocked that one. So how does the GOP propose to fix this? Seeing how they didn't like Obama's idea.

Your point is well made. Both sides seem to be getting what they want out of their agendas to the detriment of you and I. The GOP gets foreign labor (worst idea ever for Americans) and the Dems get to make more foreigners US beneficiaries.

There is a very simple solution to this: Tax (bad/ugly word) businesses on their use of labor (note that I said use ... not cost). Different rates for whom they select to perform their labor requirements. Problem practically solved both here and abroad.

well the numbers seem fair....after all the government need supporter what better way than to have them on the payroll so to speak.....

xuenchen
Then everything takes care of itself.

This should be a bi-partisan standard the government is held to. If everything 'fails' to take care of itself, their ability to tax personal income should be diminished accordingly. Why isn't that to be found anywhere in law?

I think more than half of what the government mucks up is mucked up by intent. It just takes more money out of our wallets.

buster2010
Maybe we can fix it by giving companies that send jobs overseas more tax breaks. Obama tried to give breaks to companies to bring jobs back to the states but the GOP blocked that one. So how does the GOP propose to fix this? Seeing how they didn't like Obama's idea.

Why don't you tell the whole story or would it make Harry, Reid look like the A%% he is?

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, had warned Democrats before the vote that his party would want to amend the bill -- possibly with hot-button issues like repealing the health care reform law or extending the Bush-era tax cuts for all income levels.

I think all the Dem's wished they'd voted to repeal that worthless POS now!

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, responded that those amendments were not germane to the bill and he would not allow votes on them.

Who was that again? Ah yes, Harry, Reid.
edition.cnn.com...

America, why dont you cut your military spending?

SearchLightsInc
America, why dont you cut your military spending?

What would that accomplish?

Social programs are the majority of the budget.

*edit: Must correct myself since there hasn't been a budget enacted in years.
- Social programs get more money than the defense / military.

reply to post by xuenchen


The more debt we have means, the dollar is worth less. And soon it is going to start becoming worth less at a very alarming rate if we don't stop this run away train. The cost of living is going to go up exponentially and more and more people are going to need help buying necessities, thus adding to the plan.

SearchLightsInc
America, why dont you cut your military spending?

That's an interesting question, with an even more interesting answer.

This world is held together by a linchpin. and that linchpin is america. We live in a world where the vast majority of populations in other countries don't value freedom. They value equal outcomes. From south american socialism, to european socialism, to chinese communism, to russian 'freedom', the majority of these populations are dependent on their government for sustenance.

America is getting close to the numbers of people dependent on government that these other countries have, that ensures the re-election of thieves and crooks. I won't get into the shell game of why they're this way, but I think most will agree, if they look at it objectively, that they are this way. (bear with me, this all ties together)

So, while almost $700B of our budget goes to defense, somehow europe (used because they spend a lot more than other, similar, countries on defense) gets away with less than half of that. The big four (UK, Germany, France, Italy) spend less than $200B combined on their defense. This allows them to spend much more of their money on social welfare.

How do they do this? Simple, the US is providing defense for them. This is evidenced by the placement of US bases and defense systems throughout europe. 50+ US bases in germany? Germany is about the size of montana, why do we have so many bases there? Nearly 100 US installations in italy? that seems excessive.

So obviously, we are providing a big shot in the defense arm for most of these countries.

So let's pull them all out, all of these countries can fend for themselves, right!?!? Well, no. They don't have the money and their people are already way overtaxed. So they would have to do a combination of two things; first they'd need to raise taxes, at least a little. That sucks, but ok, let's say they do it. Now they have to cut about 20% of their social programs. NHS in britain? yep, see ya later. That german education system that gets everyone a bachelors degree? yep, that's gone, as well as half their spending on health care.

Of course, their citizens would have none of this. afterall, as far as they know, nothing has changed except the US bases are closing. Why should that cost them any money? I mean outside of the giant economic stimulus that those dollars have on their economy. Yeah, I didn't factor that in. Thought I'd keep it simple.

This linchpin factor is also the reason I laugh when I see foreigners applauding obama's socialist policies. If america stops becoming a consumer who#e, their economies are done. Their socialism is over. They depend on the US consuming their goods at a fast pace. In 2009, Germany was on a path to collapse because americans stopped consuming at such a rapid pace.

If america falters, I pity those in other countries, you'll be left to the wolves.

The size of those 4 countries is only 466k sq miles. The CONUS alone is 6 times larger, we have more to defend.

3litechasr
The size of those 4 countries is only 466k sq miles. The CONUS alone is 6 times larger, we have more to defend.

Care to explain the need for the current 40k US troops in europe, if not for the defense of our allies?

There are only 40k members of the entire coast guard. Just a fun fact.

Somebody let me know when you find the part in the Constitution that allows the servant Govt. to provide my hard earned private property to those individuals sitting at home unwilling to find a job.

I traveled from one end of this country to the other for a particular job and nailed it. So don't tell me there are no jobs out there.

By the way I'll be working on the statue of Liberty tomorrow - drop by and say hi.

reply to post by Dfairlite


Who is the threat to europeans? The middle eastern "terrorists"? Please, dont make me laugh...

No one really needs usa's military anymore than the stockholders of the companies.

Not that I agree with welfare statism. Its a result of european and american companies offshoring and automating more and more, and the workers either having to develop new skill sets to get some other decent job OR go on unemployment and seek dead end jobs that require foodstamps.

EarthCitizen07
reply to post by Dfairlite

 

Who is the threat to europeans? The middle eastern "terrorists"? Please, dont make me laugh...

Is it necessary to have a defined enemy to maintain a strong defense? Or do you want to wait until they make themselves clear to you?

The point of my post was not to say that there is a threat to europe they cannot combat. Rather, that their current defense is inadequate without our subsidizing it.