Golden One said:

---

You're absolutely right. There are just too many people with their hands out to gather up some free money from the government. The military and its veterans are certainly guilty of this, as are the majority of illegal immigrants, and all too man of our citizens. Our leaders in Washington need to have the balls to start closing the free money spigot, including the entitlement spigot. But that won't happen until their free spending habits create a major crisis in the country's financial position.

---

dajo9 said:

---

Golden One said:

---

You're absolutely right. There are just too many people with their hands out to gather up some free money from the government. The military and its veterans are certainly guilty of this, as are the majority of illegal immigrants, and all too man of our citizens. Our leaders in Washington need to have the balls to start closing the free money spigot, including the entitlement spigot. But that won't happen until their free spending habits create a major crisis in the country's financial position.

---

Instead of saying entitlements why don't you come out and name the programs that you want to cut / eliminate?

---

joe amos yaks said:

---

Redundancy.

---

Golden One said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Golden One said:

---

You're absolutely right. There are just too many people with their hands out to gather up some free money from the government. The military and its veterans are certainly guilty of this, as are the majority of illegal immigrants, and all too man of our citizens. Our leaders in Washington need to have the balls to start closing the free money spigot, including the entitlement spigot. But that won't happen until their free spending habits create a major crisis in the country's financial position.

---

Instead of saying entitlements why don't you come out and name the programs that you want to cut / eliminate?

---

I'd start by eliminating Medicaid; then I'd increase the eligibility age for Social Security and Medicare to 70. I"d then eliminate all aid to illegal immigrants (no free healthcare, no free tuition, no free legal aid, etc.). I'd establish a work requirement to receive any kind of government support, unless one is physically unable to work. I'd declare English the official language of the U.S. and stop the use of any other language in government- issued documents. Those would be a good start, but none of it will happen, because the political leadership of both major parties doesn't have the guts to make it happen. Instead, it's inevitable that when the financial crisis occurs, taxes will increase, especially on higher income levels, and even more of the federal revenue will come from a smaller number of higher income people. That's the American way.

---

sp4149 said:

---

Golden One said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Golden One said:

---

You're absolutely right. There are just too many people with their hands out to gather up some free money from the government. The military and its veterans are certainly guilty of this, as are the majority of illegal immigrants, and all too man of our citizens. Our leaders in Washington need to have the balls to start closing the free money spigot, including the entitlement spigot. But that won't happen until their free spending habits create a major crisis in the country's financial position.

---

Instead of saying entitlements why don't you come out and name the programs that you want to cut / eliminate?

---

I'd start by eliminating Medicaid; then I'd increase the eligibility age for Social Security and Medicare to 70. I"d then eliminate all aid to illegal immigrants (no free healthcare, no free tuition, no free legal aid, etc.). I'd establish a work requirement to receive any kind of government support, unless one is physically unable to work. I'd declare English the official language of the U.S. and stop the use of any other language in government- issued documents. Those would be a good start, but none of it will happen, because the political leadership of both major parties doesn't have the guts to make it happen. Instead, it's inevitable that when the financial crisis occurs, taxes will increase, especially on higher income levels, and even more of the federal revenue will come from a smaller number of higher income people. That's the American way.

---

Chasing pennies is wonderfully symbolic, but it doesn't add up to much. The amount of money that DOD lost (as reported by Fox News) is equal to one third of the total national debt. And most of that was in the last 16 years; AKA at spending levels that the military considers inadequate. Increasing the DOD budget just means that they will lose more money as the national debt grows at one Trillion dollars a year (or likely even more). San Diego has been fortunate to have COP Congressman who made billions as government contractors, that just means that the party in charge has no incentive to rein in waste when it is making them rich.

---

Golden One said:

---

sp4149 said:

---

Golden One said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Golden One said:

---

You're absolutely right. There are just too many people with their hands out to gather up some free money from the government. The military and its veterans are certainly guilty of this, as are the majority of illegal immigrants, and all too man of our citizens. Our leaders in Washington need to have the balls to start closing the free money spigot, including the entitlement spigot. But that won't happen until their free spending habits create a major crisis in the country's financial position.

---

Instead of saying entitlements why don't you come out and name the programs that you want to cut / eliminate?

---

I'd start by eliminating Medicaid; then I'd increase the eligibility age for Social Security and Medicare to 70. I"d then eliminate all aid to illegal immigrants (no free healthcare, no free tuition, no free legal aid, etc.). I'd establish a work requirement to receive any kind of government support, unless one is physically unable to work. I'd declare English the official language of the U.S. and stop the use of any other language in government- issued documents. Those would be a good start, but none of it will happen, because the political leadership of both major parties doesn't have the guts to make it happen. Instead, it's inevitable that when the financial crisis occurs, taxes will increase, especially on higher income levels, and even more of the federal revenue will come from a smaller number of higher income people. That's the American way.

---

Chasing pennies is wonderfully symbolic, but it doesn't add up to much. The amount of money that DOD lost (as reported by Fox News) is equal to one third of the total national debt. And most of that was in the last 16 years; AKA at spending levels that the military considers inadequate. Increasing the DOD budget just means that they will lose more money as the national debt grows at one Trillion dollars a year (or likely even more). San Diego has been fortunate to have GOP Congressman who made billions as government contractors, that just means that the party in charge has no incentive to rein in waste when it is making them rich.

---

Although I don't know what GOP congressmen are, I do agree with you that much greater spending discipline needs to be exercised in the Defense Department. However, I was asked what entitlements I would cut, and my post made a number of proposals, which collectively are not "pennies". Implementing all of the options I proposed would put a major dent in the deficit.

---

sp4149 said:

---

Golden One said:

---

sp4149 said:

---

Golden One said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Golden One said:

---

You're absolutely right. There are just too many people with their hands out to gather up some free money from the government. The military and its veterans are certainly guilty of this, as are the majority of illegal immigrants, and all too man of our citizens. Our leaders in Washington need to have the balls to start closing the free money spigot, including the entitlement spigot. But that won't happen until their free spending habits create a major crisis in the country's financial position.

---

Instead of saying entitlements why don't you come out and name the programs that you want to cut / eliminate?

---

I'd start by eliminating Medicaid; then I'd increase the eligibility age for Social Security and Medicare to 70. I"d then eliminate all aid to illegal immigrants (no free healthcare, no free tuition, no free legal aid, etc.). I'd establish a work requirement to receive any kind of government support, unless one is physically unable to work. I'd declare English the official language of the U.S. and stop the use of any other language in government- issued documents. Those would be a good start, but none of it will happen, because the political leadership of both major parties doesn't have the guts to make it happen. Instead, it's inevitable that when the financial crisis occurs, taxes will increase, especially on higher income levels, and even more of the federal revenue will come from a smaller number of higher income people. That's the American way.

---

Chasing pennies is wonderfully symbolic, but it doesn't add up to much. The amount of money that DOD lost (as reported by Fox News) is equal to one third of the total national debt. And most of that was in the last 16 years; AKA at spending levels that the military considers inadequate. Increasing the DOD budget just means that they will lose more money as the national debt grows at one Trillion dollars a year (or likely even more). San Diego has been fortunate to have GOP Congressman who made billions as government contractors, that just means that the party in charge has no incentive to rein in waste when it is making them rich.

---

Although I don't know what GOP congressmen are, I do agree with you that much greater spending discipline needs to be exercised in the Defense Department. However, I was asked what entitlements I would cut, and my post made a number of proposals, which collectively are not "pennies". Implementing all of the options I proposed would put a major dent in the deficit.

---

The eligibility age for government support like Social Security has been increased to 70, it's being phased in for those under 65, so that wouldn't help any. Now if you want those on Social Security Disability or pensions or other Government support to have to work for those benefits regardless of their age, that would be radical. Most taxpayers don't know how much the Government subsidizes Veterans, while Reagan eliminated the ability of Federal employees to have both a Civil Service Pension and Social Security benefits, even if they paid into both; the Veterans loopholes were mostly retained. For retired military the benefits are substantial, not only could they draw their military pensions immediately upon retirement, as early as 38 without having to wait until 70 as you suggest; but Federal, State and Local governments also count those years of military service toward retirement benefits if they get a government job. In California some local jurisdictions give employees 3% of their top 3 salary for each year of service; a twenty year military vet gets a job in that locality works another 10 years and retires at 90% of their top 3 salary. And the pension fund suffers as the vet has only paid into the system for 10 of the 30 years of credited benefits. Also some Government jobs have much earlier retirement ages for full benefits than Social Security. Maybe instead of taking money from the elderly, delaying benefits for the young might not only be reasonable, but could save a lot more money; it would save a lot of government pension funds from bankruptcy.

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Agreed with SP. I always called the military a republican welfare and it's by far our largest entitlement. I'm okay having the best military in the world by a hair. Doesn't need to be better than everyone else combined. We no longer have that much to protect and it's more of a benefit for the allies and other foreign countries we protect. People complain about the foreign aid we provide (I don't disagree with the criticism generally) but don't apply the same security to our military.

---

SRBear said:

---

Face it, they're all in on the act...

Toot, toot

---

golden sloth said:

---

I also wanted to make a point about Rand Paul. I deeply disagree with him politically, but it was nice to see someone maintain the same position on government spending in spite of the white house changing parties.

---

dajo9 said:

---

I appreciate you making social security, Medicare, and Medicaid as programs you'd like to cut. Republican politicians usually lie about these goals. Trump lied and promised more healthcare for less money.

The reason these programs don't get cut is because the American people support them. Taxes will be raised on the very wealthy eventually. It wouldn't be such a small group of people if they hadn't hoarded it all to themselves in the first place.

In the meantime we will have to endure a fiscal crisis wrought by lying politicians doing the bidding of the 1%.

---

Golden One said:

---

I agree with you about the lying politicians. However, I think they're doing the bidding of the 99%, not the 1%. The 99% wants more freebies and more benefits; they don't care where the money to pay for them comes from, and they don't care about the annual deficit. This 99% elects the lying politicians. The 1% doesn't have enough votes to elect anybody.

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Agreed with SP. I always called the military republican welfare and it's by far our largest entitlement. I'm okay having the best military in the world by a hair. Doesn't need to be better than everyone else combined. We no longer have that much to protect and it's more of a benefit for the allies and other foreign countries we protect. People complain about the foreign aid we provide (I don't disagree with the criticism generally) but don't apply the same scrutiny to our military.

---

dajo9 said:

---

When Trump lies and says you'll get more health care for less money and then tries to cut healthcare and cut taxes for the rich he is lying for votes and doing the bidding of the 1%.

People pay into and earn their social security.

The solution to expensive healthcare is to do what every other advanced country does, which actually will deliver better healthcare for less money.

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Golden One said:

---

I agree with you about the lying politicians. However, I think they're doing the bidding of the 99%, not the 1%. The 99% wants more freebies and more benefits; they don't care where the money to pay for them comes from, and they don't care about the annual deficit. This 99% elects the lying politicians. The 1% doesn't have enough votes to elect anybody.

---

I can't tell if you are being serious or not. Do you think campaign finance bears any relation to the outcome of elections? The impact of the donor class is real. Look at republican congressmen who acknowledged their donors told them never to call them again if they didn't pass the tax cut bill. Politicians are bought and sold relatively cheaply when you consider how much of an impact they have. It's money well spent for the 0.01%.

---

Golden One said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

When Trump lies and says you'll get more health care for less money and then tries to cut healthcare and cut taxes for the rich he is lying for votes and doing the bidding of the 1%.

People pay into and earn their social security.

The solution to expensive healthcare is to do what every other advanced country does, which actually will deliver better healthcare for less money.

---

Yeah, right. That's the party line B.S. pitched by the Libs.

---

dajo9 said:

---

It also happens to be backed up by data but your views are clearly dominated by your emotions and feelings.

---