pull down to refresh

Unfortunately, there will be no meaningful progress made on bringing the federal government’s runaway spending under control without substantial cuts to military spending. Much of the “discretionary” spending that can be cut in the appropriations process is found in the military and defense budgets. Elderly voters, of course, will throw a fit if anyone mentions cutting their favorite welfare programs, Social Security and Medicare. Moreover, that spending is “non-discretionary” meaning Congress must pass new laws changing spending formulas on top of the appropriations process. That should all be done, of course, but it also means we might as well start with cuts to defense spending.
There seems to be no way out of the dilemma of the national budget deficits. The author suggests starting to cut in the defense areas because the spending on new “gadgets” like the F35, that does not work. Between the exotic projects and the never ending wars, there is a lot of money to cut from the military budget before even thinking of cutting Medicare and Medicaid and Socical Security. But, will they cut the military industrial complex’s funding? One could question that.
Elderly voters, of course, will throw a fit if anyone mentions cutting their favorite welfare programs, Social Security and Medicare.
Very much so. Even my dad, who used to be in favor of reducing spending on these, has gone full Boomer: everything must be sacrificed at the alter of Social Security and Medicare.
reply
Perhaps the reason the elderly are demanding the payment of those promises in full is that they paid into the system and now they are expecting the promises be fulfilled. Nobody promised that we should support 800 bases in foreign countries! No one promised that we should have forever wars! And no one promised that the military budget and accounting should never be able to be balanced according to GAAP. So, in light of the above, which promises should be kept?
reply
I don't want to get into too many details, but he's doing fine financially already and he explicitly wants to get more out than he paid in. He's even referred to rules that were preventing him from doing so as a "scam".
He's also advocating for higher taxes on others to make sure there's enough money for him. That's clearly about taking from others, not getting back what he paid in. He's also started referring to tax breaks for non-profits as a "scam".
I hate it, because he has claimed to be a libertarian for as long as I can remember, but when the rubber met the road he's every bit the welfare grifter that he's always complained about.
As to which promises to keep, the answer is pretty simply "Whichever can be kept without violating anyone's property rights". Tough shit for everyone else. Being victims doesn't grant the right to victimize others.
reply
OK, my father was much like that, too. Claimed libertarianism but was a statist when it came to his claims. The only way to get more out of the Social Security Scam than you put in was if they had kept it there collecting interest. Then it would be like an IRA. I like the idea of the Roth IRA, but like anything else of value, I fear the state is going to take it away and give you sh*tty paper for it. I can see now that BTC is one way to go for making your own pension or retirement fund.
reply