IRS releases schedule for when you will get your stimulus check

[GaryC 7]

So, you will not be voting for McCain and his 100 years war in Iraq then?

Yes I will.

changing you vote all of a sudden? thought you were opting out of this election.

You must have missed it. I don't like McCain and he is my third worst choice for prez. Right in front of Hillary and Obama. I will vote for him primarily because of the Supreme Court appointments and national defense. The consequentness of a dem president is just to high. I don't like it but I will take the lessor of 3 evils.

[Peikko 1,575]

How is that going to contribute to your aim to cut government spending?

The defense budget has either just reached or about to reach the trillion dollar mark - typically the goverment disguises some of it's defense spending but this article pretty much identifies how it all adds up - this is not some insignificant amount of money and I simply don't see how it's going to do anything but increase.

Link

That's defence alone. If you did somehow manage to decrease spending in all other areas that might just do it, but I honestly don't see how you could do it and nor do I see McCain advocating policies that would decrease goverment spending significantly. However, feel free to show me evidence of these plans, as it would make interesting reading.

Fixed!

Edited March 18, 2008 by Purple_Hibiscus

[Sister Fracas 5]

So, you will not be voting for McCain and his 100 years war in Iraq then?

Yes I will.

changing you vote all of a sudden? thought you were opting out of this election.

You must have missed it. I don't like McCain and he is my third worst choice for prez. Right in front of Hillary and Obama. I will vote for him primarily because of the Supreme Court appointments and national defense. The consequentness of a dem president is just to high. I don't like it but I will take the lessor of 3 evils.

OIC, I thought your strategy was to let the Dems make a clusterf*ck out of 4 years and then be assured a Rep victory in 2012. But maybe that was CarolsMarc or kaydee89343480568.....

[GaryC 7]

How is that going to contribute to your aim to cut government spending?

The defense budget has either just reached or about to reach the trillion dollar mark - typically the goverment disguises some of it's defense spending but this article pretty much identifies how it all adds up - this is not some insignificant amount of money and I simply don't see how it's going to do anything but increase.

Link

That's defence alone. If you did somehow manage to decrease spending in all other areas that might just do it, but I honestly don't see how you could do it and nor do I see McCain advocating policies that would decrease goverment spending significantly. However, feel free to show me evidence of these plans, as it would make interesting reading.

Fixed!

As I said, it is the lessor of two evils. Either of the dem candidates IMO will raise the entitlements more than McCain. As far as the defense budget goes I don't want to see it cut. I know you disagree with what I want and think the government needs but that is why we have elections.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Ok I have to say this.

Lesser and lessor are two completely different words.

[mawilson 2,133]

Ok I have to say this.

Lesser and lessor are two completely different words.

Thank you, LisaD.

[Peikko 1,575]

I don't think you read what I post then. I don't think the US should pull out of Iraq. However, I don't see how you can reconcile your desire for lower government spending with projected defense spending and no candidate is ever going to mandate the removal of safety nets for the poorest citizens (if entitlements are medicaid, social security benefits etc) so I don't see any reductions in spending there. However, again, feel free to show me how governement spending is going to reduce.

[GaryC 7]

I don't think you read what I post then. I don't think the US should pull out of Iraq. However, I don't see how you can reconcile your desire for lower government spending with projected defense spending and no candidate is ever going to mandate the removal of safety nets for the poorest citizens (if entitlements are medicaid, social security benefits etc) so I don't see any reductions in spending there. However, again, feel free to show me how governement spending is going to reduce.

The safety net has been grossly mismanaged. Whether I agree that they should have been created in the first place or not is moot but since we have it I want to see it streamlined and privatized to reduce the waste.

As you may have seen Luz is starting her first job in America next week. I was just explaining how SSN, taxes and private retirement funds work. Even she sees that if you add up the money paid into SSN vs my 401K, SSN is a huge rip off. If that same money that I have been paying into SSN had been invested in something like a private 401K I would be a millionaire rather than just getting a lousy $1200/month at age 62. Then when I told her that when I die that money is just gone (less survivor benefits) her reaction was one of amazement. The private sector is the way to go with all entitlements. They always are more efficient than the government. That is what I want to see with everything. Retirement, medical insurance, welfare, the whole lot.

ETA..

And I will give Bill Clinton one prop. His overhaul of welfare was the one bright spot in his 8 years. I only hope that the next president will do the same for all the other government give-aways.

Edited March 18, 2008 by GaryC

[Caladan 19]

I think we'll just save it.

[GaryC 7]

I think we'll just save it.

Depending on your situation paying down debt is a better way to use it. I know it is in my case.

[Peikko 1,575]

Don't have any debt either.

The SSN contributions were never meant to be a personal retirement solution - or at least I was never labouring under that assumption. I have always assumed that the contributions fund those who require it should their personal circumstances dictate that they have the need for it. Personally, I don't think that those who don't require it should ever get any back but that's just my point of view.

We could get into the cycle of privatisation versus public insitutions yet again, but it's pointless. Suffice to say, the motivation of the private sector is profit so when dealing with health it is in the interests of private companies to recruit the healthy and ditch the sick whenever possible, that's the only way it makes any economic sense. Public institutions can be wasteful, but there is no reason why they should be wasteful and the benefit is that they have no insentive to discriminate against someone based on how costly their illness is.

Edited March 18, 2008 by Purple_Hibiscus

[panamania79 2]

Mine will go back into the gouverments hands as I will use it towards a 'rebate' come AOS time.

Same here.