In response to:

History Suggests That Entitlement Era Is Winding Down

Marion69 Wrote: Jan 14, 2013 7:42 AM
It is interesting that while the government is saying that we need to end SS, they just raised the premium they are collecting from workers by 2% again. If we really want to save money, we need to put a moratorium on all grants and awards for 2 years, except for absolute emergency disasters. We need to end the "non profit" status on the 5 trillion dollars worth of assets held by the very profitable "non profits" and collect tax from them like everyone else. Why is it always the essential things that the feds want to cut first, never the pork?
Stanpauley Wrote: Jan 14, 2013 9:53 AM
A couple of years ago (cannot remember how many, 2 or 3?) the government reduced the social security contribution by 2% to help the economy. Big mistake! I guess someone thought that the additional money put into circulation would help reduce inflation. But, of course, there was no consideration given to the fact that the program was heading into financial problems. So, now all they are doing is reestablishing the original contribution to an underfunded program. How would you like it if your employer said 'times are tough and I am going to cut your pay 2% and when I can raise it back up' --- then does not raise it back up?
You can't be serious Wrote: Jan 14, 2013 7:48 AM
What are you calling 'essential", Marion?

You see, a great many of do not consider a 56" LCD television an essential for a welfare recipient, yet most of them seem to have one.
Seawolf Wrote: Jan 14, 2013 8:11 AM
The only thing essentail is the military, the rest is all bullshiite and could be eliminated pretty quickly.

If we'd elected McCain, his energy policy would have had millions working by now. With good jobs available, one can start cutting welfare and other useless and stupid vote buying programs..Start cutting fed employees that we have to pay for right though retirement plus the new hire ad infinitum, most of whom perform no useful work.
I or any conservaitive with a brain could reduce the fed budget by 25% in a year just ignore the screaming..
AWLblack_powder Wrote: Jan 14, 2013 8:17 AM


I can't afford the whole package. It's over $150. a mo. But, every ghetto dweller has

Marion69 Wrote: Jan 14, 2013 8:20 AM
Actually I was thinking of the Obama plan to cut military, police, teachers, doctors, etc. He considers the "gimmes" to be essential, I most assuredly do not. Welfare should be limited to food and shelter, no tobacco, pop, booze, movies, cable, etc.
Seawolf Wrote: Jan 14, 2013 8:41 AM
There's a house up the road that's almost falling down, woman has 5 maybe 6 little rugrats, no husband although "it do get busy" on the weekend, but it has the dish on the roof. A couple of trailers down that way are dealing drugs, cars come and go constantly, plenty of people complain but nothing happens, seems the residents are all sec8 recipients. The cops promised action and all of a sudden nada.kind of makes one wonder, who pulled that plug?
It's often good fun and sometimes revealing to divide American history into distinct periods of uniform length. In working on my forthcoming book on American migrations, internal and immigrant, it occurred to me that you could do this using the American-sounding interval of 76 years, just a few years more than the Biblical lifespan of three score and 10.

It was 76 years from Washington's First Inaugural in 1789 to Lincoln's Second Inaugural in 1865. It was 76 years from the surrender at Appomattox Courthouse in 1865 to the attack at Pearl Harbor in 1941.

Going backward, it was 76 years...