D?j? vu all over again?

[Smiling JOe]

I completely understand.

 

[Linda]

I completely understand.

Me too

 

[traderx]

Link below is to a page in the Heritage Foundation website which breaks out the federal budget. Here is an interesting tidbit: I just read elsewhere that the number of people receiving welfare is between five and six million. Let's assume six million. In 2006, we spent more than 192 billion dollars on Medicaid which is means-tested healthcare benefits. This means we spent $32,000 per person on federally funded healthcare to welfare recepients. This is the same federal government which is going to provide us with "free" healthcare?

And this does not include cash payments per Title VII or food stamps. I also don't think it includes the cost of administration, i.e., federal government employees who administer social entitlement programs, IT costs, state reviews, etc. I assume that "income security programs" means welfare cash payments. If you divide the $215 billion we spend in this category, that equals $36,000 per. Honestly, I don't know if the six million number is the number of families or individuals; I believe it is families.

So, thus far, just between providing health care and cash to needy families, we spend $68,000 per family!!!! And I can assure you there are more expenses I have not included. As more and more folks line up for government solutions, be careful what you wish for.

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/Issues/issuearea/Budget.cfm

 

[Linda]

Link below is to a page in the Heritage Foundation website which breaks out the federal budget. Here is an interesting tidbit: I just read elsewhere that the number of people receiving welfare is between five and six million. Let's assume six million. In 2006, we spent more than 192 billion dollars on Medicaid which is means-tested healthcare benefits. This means we spent $32,000 per person on federally funded healthcare to welfare recepients. This is the same federal government which is going to provide us with "free" healthcare?

And this does not include cash payments per Title VII or food stamps. I also don't think it includes the cost of administration, i.e., federal government employees who administer social entitlement programs, IT costs, state reviews, etc. I assume that "income security programs" means welfare cash payments. If you divide the $215 billion we spend in this category, that equals $36,000 per. Honestly, I don't know if the six million number is the number of families or individuals; I believe it is families.

So, thus far, just between providing health care and cash to needy families, we spend $68,000 per family!!!! And I can assure you there are more expenses I have not included. As more and more folks line up for government solutions, be careful what you wish for.

http[B]://www.heritage.org[/B]/research/features/Issues/issuearea/Budget.cfm

Thanks for the link. I've added it to my favorites.

 

[Bob]

in 5 years the Pentagon says we've spent 600 billion in Iraq. This figure does not count the cost of the government going forward for all the soldiers disabled physically and mentally. I see a huge opportunity here to save not only money, but lives. We may finally leave when W leaves, but to hear D.C. speak, we're stuck.

 

[traderx]

in 5 years the Pentagon says we've spent 600 billion in Iraq. This figure does not count the cost of the government going forward for all the soldiers disabled physically and mentally. I see a huge opportunity here to save not only money, but lives. We may finally leave when W leaves, but to hear D.C. speak, we're stuck.

I suspect we are stuck there for a while; however, we have plenty of other opportunities to save defense money. We have men and woman stationed all over the world including Germany, Japan, Saudi Arabia, etc. I am clearly in favor of a strong defense but not acting as the world's policeman. Besides, if the Europeans hate us so much, fine, let them defend themselves.

 

[DuneLaker]

Politics is a mean, nasty business. The best candidate does not always win. Lincoln's campaign was very ugly. Clay was defeated by Polk. TV does have an impact. A low turnout would probably be good for the country. Having to answer a questionnaire on relevant topics before you voted will probably never happen, but you would have an informed voter instead of a bought one. Please don't vote if all your political information comes only from TV commercials, soundbites or simple campaign themes.

 

[30ashopper]

I suspect we are stuck there for a while; however, we have plenty of other opportunities to save defense money. We have men and woman stationed all over the world including Germany, Japan, Saudi Arabia, etc. I am clearly in favor of a strong defense but not acting as the world's policeman. Besides, if the Europeans hate us so much, fine, let them defend themselves.

We are actively drawing down troop levels, the military estimates pre-surge levels by July with more troop cuts likely in the fall and next year. I'd be willing to bet we'll be down around 70,000 by next summer. By comparison we have around 41,000 in Japan, 36,000 in Korea, and around 65,000 in Germany. I think if you put it into perspective, by next year we'll either be at typical ally deployment levels, or alternatively, we're "stuck" in a lot of places including Iraq. Whether or not we should be in any of these places is open for discussion, but I think the idea that we are somehow "stuck" in Iraq isn't being entirely honest about the current situation and outlook.

 

[elgordoboy]

I suspect we are stuck there for a while; however, we have plenty of other opportunities to save defense money. We have men and woman stationed all over the world including Germany, Japan, Saudi Arabia, etc. I am clearly in favor of a strong defense but not acting as the world's policeman. Besides, if the Europeans hate us so much, fine, let them defend themselves.

Is it your impression that we have troops in these places to protects these places interests?

 

[elgordoboy]

We are actively drawing down troop levels, the military estimates pre-surge levels by July with more troop cuts likely in the fall and next year. I'd be willing to bet we'll be down around 70,000 by next summer. By comparison we have around 41,000 in Japan, 36,000 in Korea, and around 65,000 in Germany. I think if you put it into perspective, by next year we'll either be at typical ally deployment levels, or alternatively, we're "stuck" in a lot of places including Iraq. Whether or not we should be in any of these places is open for discussion, but I think the idea that we are somehow "stuck" in Iraq isn't being entirely honest about the current situation and outlook.

Nice examples. How long before we can similarly start squeezing Iraq's nads for payback in trade and such?