Is healthcare a right? why or why not?

[Bern80]

Are you daft or just lying? Please show me where I said that ANY government program is nothing but positives! What? You can't? Of course you can't. So really, please just quit lying, okay? Thanks.

Actually it is you that would lying here. Please show me where I used the words 'any government program' or any other such phrasing that would indicate I was talking about anything other than healthcare. 'What? You can't? Of course you can't. So really, please just quit lying, okay? Thanks.' We're talking about healthcare. Grow a pair and address the reality that 'all other industrialized nations' with some for or other of UHC also run rather significant deficits in health care spending.

And what about when they get out? Then again, why not the lawyer who foregoes the huge Wall St. salary in order to provide free legal counsel to the vetereans who are in need? Is he less deserving? Why?

In my personal opinion vets should received medical benefits for life. Lawyers aren't vets. They didn't sacrafice themselves to defend the country. So yes I would say they are less deserving.

Why does the government have an obligation to provide a military? Streets? Highways? Libraries? Education? People allow governments to exist and to tax them in exchange for what they get in return. You claim that health care or health insurance is not something that should be provided. We simply have different opinons but what it comes down to and what you can't escape is that it is simply a matter of prioritization. Apparently you think giving $20B to Pakistan or $50B to let the government help profitible companies make more profits or whatever, is more important than health care. I don't.

They federal government has only the obligations laid out for it in the constitution. Some of the things you listed indeed the fed doesn't have an obligation to provide even though they do. And not it has nothing to do with prioritization. You can not logically conclude that because I am not for governmetn UHC I must be for wars. In fact I don't think we should be or need to be spending what we spend on defense. That doesn't change my opinion that government should not provide healthcare. It will invariably require curbing people's freedom as I mentioned in another post and again your condition, whether it be your health or your financial one, isn't anyone elses responsibility or obligation to fix.

Well fine. Yes, what are called "Liberal" views in America would be considered very Conservative in most of the world. Also very stupid. We spend more than every other country in the world combined on defense but we can't help our citizens and our economy with health care? Our priorities are just plain stupid sometimes but the AMA, Insurance idustry etc... have done such a good job of selling this bs, there are people who buy it.

Again this not about substitutions. People use cliches like that all the time too which are 'also very stupid'. Cliche's like "we're the richest nation in the world so we ought to do this', or 'we spend so much on this, but not on that'. THEY ARE NOT RELATED. The reason we don't spend more tax dollars to provide health care is not because of how much we're spending on other stuff. The reason is because providing health care has not been deemed to be the government's responsibility.

As far as believing what you say, you're the one with the closed mind. What have you presented to believe? You've only put forth your opinions. When faced with facts - like that the money is there, this country just budgets & prioritizes extremely poorly, you revert to FOX soundbites and labels.
Google health care in Indonesia. Combination of Public & Private sector health are. Fantastic stuff and probably among the least abused systems out there. Or check Sweden or Austria's. Even Japan.
Contrary to what you've been told, offering public health insurance doesn't mean private sector insurance has to go away. This is the only industrialized country in the world where someone ever has to consider health as a factor to switiching jobs or starting their own business. That's bad for the economy.

I'm not disputing you're facts. I agree that we could divert money from some things and probably pay for a lot of people's health care. It isn't a question of whether we can it's a question of whether we should. The answer is short some very basic safety nets, no, we should not. I asked before to someone else and so I ask you; what is more important to you? Government ensuring your security or government ensuring our freedom. You can't have it both ways. When government does one it takes away from the other. If you want government to keep you more secure via paying for your health care, then invarably you will lose some of your freedom. You will lose some financial freedom because everyone's taxes will have to go up. You will also lose some freedom of choice since I am now paying for healthcare I most certainly have a say in making sure you aren't behaving in a way that may result in encurring some unneccessary health care expenses. Deal?

 

[Bern80]

Well, you could easily afford HC by restructuring the military budget. US spends 700 billion $ this year on military. Most of it spent overseas, far away from USA.

In fact 20% of US federal budget goes to homeland security and military. So I would say that is to prioritate security before freedom. The big spenders in US is the republicans which you support. It’s the pubs that are the big spenders on military and security. It is inflationary to spend so much money overseas on military. The dems at least want to spend the money on the home-market which will create jobs.

So I find it ironic that you as a republican talk about giving up freedom for security. Patriot act, Guantanmo where all created by pubs.

First I'm not a Republican. Never assume about people what you don't know to be true. It makes you look really stupid.

Secondly, as I said before, this is not about what we can or can't fiscally do. It's about what government should do. All kinds of people say 'I think government should do more for people'. At which point I usually ask the question that you refused to answer. Is security or freedom more important to you?

 

[Bern80]

I think there is a religious imperative to help the less fortunate, but it is also just part of being a thinking, feeling human being.

One does not need religion at all to determine what is right and wrong. Your position presuppses that anyone less fortunate is a victim of circumstance and responsible for why they are where they are. Part of being a thinking, feeling human being is having the integrity to not hold other people accountable for your problems.

 

[Cecilie1200]

We have a duty as humans to look after those less fortunate than ourselves, and those less fortunate have a right to demand that help from others.

Healthcare is absolutely a right.

brainalin.com

Bullshit. I have a duty to God to help others - which is NOT the same as "looking after them", as though they're retarded children - and they have NO right to DEMAND anything from me or anyone else who is not actually their family or in some other way responsible for them.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It is a moral obligation as a fellow human being.

Not everyone defines their moral obligations to other humans in the same way, or even defines "help" in the same way. You should perhaps take a step back and consider that your particular view of the world and humanity is not THE view.

 

[Cecilie1200]

One thing I wonder is why do the US HC cost so much?. The pr. capita spending in US is much higher than other countries. Both public and private spending is the highest in the world. The US HC system must be extremely inefficient and bureacratically organized. France that has the number one and best HC in the world spend far less money on HC than US, that are ranked nr. 37 worse than Costa Rica.
Total Per Capita > Health Care Funding statistics - countries compared - NationMaster

So the US bureaucrats must be extremely inefficient and greedy compared to other nations bureaucrats. I can understand Bern80s sceptic to government-run HC, because the US bureaucrats are less efficient and greedier than other nations bureaucrats. To make it better and cheaper you’ve to do something with all the bureaucrat costs the US system has. Because it’s far more bureaucratic than other systems, that makes it expensive.

I also know that it is a tradition to pay government workers more money than private sector workers in US, in Europe and Canada private sector workers earn more money than public sector workers.
So with the tradition you have in US to pay you’re government workers high salaries, the system will be more expensive. In Canada and Europe they control the salaries for the government workers.

You need to put more control on bureaucrats and politicians in US, control salaries on government workers to make HC cheaper. So it is hard to compare US with other systems because they don’t have the tradtion for greedy and overpaid government workers as in US.

You need to clarify your question, because you're asking one, but looking at the stats for a different one.

Do you want to know why healthcare prices are so high, or why Americans spend so much on healthcare every year? While the two are related, they aren't the same question.

One of the reasons that we spend so much on healthcare every year is pretty simple: because we can. In many ways, healthcare is a luxury item. We tend to think of it in terms of essential urgent care, ie. I fell and broke my arm or my kid has an unexplained rash or something like that, but a great deal of it isn't at all.

The fact is that when people have a high standard of living and a certain amount of discretionary income, most will divert at least some of that income to improving their lives through better health. They will go to doctors more for non-essential things, like cosmetic dentistry or dermatological treatments. They will schedule more well-patient visits, annual prostate exams, mammograms, and various other diagnostic tests. You can spend thousands of dollars just on diagnostics before the doctor ever actually does anything to you, if that's your pleasure. They will spend money on trying to lose weight, and on taking dietary supplements. All of these things are factored into annual healthcare spending numbers.

You should also keep in mind that America has an aging population, and most of our money is in the hands of older people. It should come as no surprise that the older people get, the more health concerns weigh on their minds, and the higher a spending priority they become. I can't speak for other countries, but American senior citizens fully expect to continue living their lives more or less as though they were still middle-aged, and are more than willing to spend the money to achieve that, when they have it.

Now, the question of healthcare prices is a whole 'nother thing. Healthcare prices are high because 1) in the case of anything covered by Medicare, Medicaid, or health insurance, the consumer is not the payer, which will always inflate costs, and 2) Americans as a group tend to abhor government price controls, so we have artificial price manipulation from one end, but we don't have it from the opposite end the way more socialist countries do.

Another reason we spend more is that we are a country of rather unhealthy habits. Nearly half of the U.S. is considered obese. Our diets are poor, etc. All leading to more health care needs down the road.

Well, that is a part of our high standard of living: wanting to indulge ourselves without stint and still be able to avoid the consequences.

 

[TheLonelySquire]

I think there is a religious imperative to help the less fortunate, but it is also just part of being a thinking, feeling human being.

See, I understand the religious part. However, if someone is an athiest and believes we are just a cosmic accident, I could also understand that person having no morality belief at all.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You need to clarify your question, because you're asking one, but looking at the stats for a different one.

Do you want to know why healthcare prices are so high, or why Americans spend so much on healthcare every year? While the two are related, they aren't the same question.

One of the reasons that we spend so much on healthcare every year is pretty simple: because we can. In many ways, healthcare is a luxury item. We tend to think of it in terms of essential urgent care, ie. I fell and broke my arm or my kid has an unexplained rash or something like that, but a great deal of it isn't at all.

The fact is that when people have a high standard of living and a certain amount of discretionary income, most will divert at least some of that income to improving their lives through better health. They will go to doctors more for non-essential things, like cosmetic dentistry or dermatological treatments. They will schedule more well-patient visits, annual prostate exams, mammograms, and various other diagnostic tests. You can spend thousands of dollars just on diagnostics before the doctor ever actually does anything to you, if that's your pleasure. They will spend money on trying to lose weight, and on taking dietary supplements. All of these things are factored into annual healthcare spending numbers.

You should also keep in mind that America has an aging population, and most of our money is in the hands of older people. It should come as no surprise that the older people get, the more health concerns weigh on their minds, and the higher a spending priority they become. I can't speak for other countries, but American senior citizens fully expect to continue living their lives more or less as though they were still middle-aged, and are more than willing to spend the money to achieve that, when they have it.

Now, the question of healthcare prices is a whole 'nother thing. Healthcare prices are high because 1) in the case of anything covered by Medicare, Medicaid, or health insurance, the consumer is not the payer, which will always inflate costs, and 2) Americans as a group tend to abhor government price controls, so we have artificial price manipulation from one end, but we don't have it from the opposite end the way more socialist countries do.

Another reason we spend more is that we are a country of rather unhealthy habits. Nearly half of the U.S. is considered obese. Our diets are poor, etc. All leading to more health care needs down the road.

The government will get reports from doctors and consultants of what causes sickness. The government can stimulate you to live healthier. It can cut taxes and subsidize fruit,vegetables,fish etc. It can tax fat food, cigarettes and alcohol. That way the government can regulate the consumption in a way that makes people live healthier.

That way the government can stimulate the people to live healthy and cap HC costs through making people live healthier. Keynesian thinking into HC. US already have the food stamps, that’s a way to stimulate to live healthier. I don’t know what they can buy with it, but it’s basically healthy food, so it is a way to stimulate.

You can buy any food in the grocery store with food stamps, except for prepared foods such as the deli or hot foods. So no, it's not "basically healthy food". You can spend the entire amount on potato chips and ice cream, if you want.

 

[TheLonelySquire]

Freedom.

 

[logical4u]

You make me laugh to the point that my lovely bride is asking what is so funny.
The only American government official who has ever denied critical healthcare to those needing it is a Conservative Republican. No surprise.
In the meantime, I love your 'fairytale world". Dark evil villains creating an aryan race or whatever. You realize that government health care is provided in virtually every industrialized nation in the world right? Which of them have created these super races you refer to?
But again, I get it. You have zero direct knowledge to draw from so you go to your little Glenn Beck Book of Responses. It IS funny to read.

Famous words of libs/progressives/dem/socialists/communists/homosexual activists/islam extremists/environmentalists (pick one, they all act the same).... "this time it will be DIFFERENT"....

And you make the points of whackjobs whether they're Liberal or Conservative: Zero. Which is to say, you don't address the topic, you offer nothing of substance, you just come in with BS.
For example: What did I say would be different when? Uh oh. Direct question. Quick dodge! Change the subject! But don't address the topic or a direct question! Remember The Code of the Whackjob! Don't address things directly!

In most of the countries that instituted gov't "health care", those countries are now trying to "privatize" their health care because they cannot afford to continue gov't care. You have stuff pointed out to you, and instead of looking at the history and where this usually takes you, you say: Oh that won't happen, here (this time it will be different). Not that I would expect you to make that connection. It seems you would prefer to financially break the country and let "more" people suffer (after the healt care system collapses), than actually think something thru.

Even when you can see that happening, you refuse to acknowledge that it is even possible. And you want to accuse me of living in "fairy tale land".....

 

[logical4u]

We have a duty as humans to look after those less fortunate than ourselves, and those less fortunate have a right to demand that help from others.

Healthcare is absolutely a right.

brainalin.com

How much are you, "you" willing to pay for someone else's care? If a person has cancer, does not have insurance, lived their life making choices for pleasure and not survival, how much of your income or savings should have to go to that person? Should "your" savings be wiped? Should your income be halved to pay for someone else's "right"?

This country has been blessed. Those blessings have been used to make this country's people, on average, the most generous people in the world. What you are telling us, it that we must put our resources in "a common purse" (look it up in Proverbs), for anyone to decide how it should be used. Who determines who gives how much? Why don't people that choose to be non-productive have to contribute? Why do you want to encourage poor choices?

Once you have blown thru "your" income, and your savings paying for some else's health care, you can ask others for assistance. They have the "right" to say NO.

 

[logical4u]

You need to clarify your question, because you're asking one, but looking at the stats for a different one.

Do you want to know why healthcare prices are so high, or why Americans spend so much on healthcare every year? While the two are related, they aren't the same question.

One of the reasons that we spend so much on healthcare every year is pretty simple: because we can. In many ways, healthcare is a luxury item. We tend to think of it in terms of essential urgent care, ie. I fell and broke my arm or my kid has an unexplained rash or something like that, but a great deal of it isn't at all.

The fact is that when people have a high standard of living and a certain amount of discretionary income, most will divert at least some of that income to improving their lives through better health. They will go to doctors more for non-essential things, like cosmetic dentistry or dermatological treatments. They will schedule more well-patient visits, annual prostate exams, mammograms, and various other diagnostic tests. You can spend thousands of dollars just on diagnostics before the doctor ever actually does anything to you, if that's your pleasure. They will spend money on trying to lose weight, and on taking dietary supplements. All of these things are factored into annual healthcare spending numbers.

You should also keep in mind that America has an aging population, and most of our money is in the hands of older people. It should come as no surprise that the older people get, the more health concerns weigh on their minds, and the higher a spending priority they become. I can't speak for other countries, but American senior citizens fully expect to continue living their lives more or less as though they were still middle-aged, and are more than willing to spend the money to achieve that, when they have it.

Now, the question of healthcare prices is a whole 'nother thing. Healthcare prices are high because 1) in the case of anything covered by Medicare, Medicaid, or health insurance, the consumer is not the payer, which will always inflate costs, and 2) Americans as a group tend to abhor government price controls, so we have artificial price manipulation from one end, but we don't have it from the opposite end the way more socialist countries do.

Another reason we spend more is that we are a country of rather unhealthy habits. Nearly half of the U.S. is considered obese. Our diets are poor, etc. All leading to more health care needs down the road.

The government will get reports from doctors and consultants of what causes sickness. The government can stimulate you to live healthier. It can cut taxes and subsidize fruit,vegetables,fish etc. It can tax fat food, cigarettes and alcohol. That way the government can regulate the consumption in a way that makes people live healthier.

That way the government can stimulate the people to live healthy and cap HC costs through making people live healthier. Keynesian thinking into HC. US already have the food stamps, that’s a way to stimulate to live healthier. I don’t know what they can buy with it, but it’s basically healthy food, so it is a way to stimulate.

Have you watched what people "buy" with food stamps? I have: steak, ice cream, brand name junk food. I am watching my dollar, and have a cart full of what is on sale, or what I need. Food stamps are not the answer to "healthier living".

 

[logical4u]

The government will get reports from doctors and consultants of what causes sickness. The government can stimulate you to live healthier. It can cut taxes and subsidize fruit,vegetables,fish etc. It can tax fat food, cigarettes and alcohol. That way the government can regulate the consumption in a way that makes people live healthier.

That way the government can stimulate the people to live healthy and cap HC costs through making people live healthier. Keynesian thinking into HC. US already have the food stamps, that’s a way to stimulate to live healthier. I don’t know what they can buy with it, but it’s basically healthy food, so it is a way to stimulate.

Then it comes down to a real simple decison. The above would obviously constitute a major reduction on individual freedom. Using government to socially engineer the behavior you deem 'good' neccissitates that. The simple decision is do you value freedom or security more? With freedom comes the responsibility that you live with the consequences of your choices. With security comes the consequence that there are fewer choices you are free to make.

Well, you could easily afford HC by restructuring the military budget. US spends 700 billion $ this year on military. Most of it spent overseas, far away from USA.

In fact 20% of US federal budget goes to homeland security and military. So I would say that is to prioritate security before freedom. The big spenders in US is the republicans which you support. It’s the pubs that are the big spenders on military and security. It is inflationary to spend so much money overseas on military. The dems at least want to spend the money on the home-market which will create jobs.

So I find it ironic that you as a republican talk about giving up freedom for security. Patriot act, Guantanmo where all created by pubs.

What do you do when the USA is attacked? Your military budget has been slashed to the bone, and there are to many people getting "health care" to move money to the military. How much "health care" do you think you will have when the country is CONQUERED because the military was disassembled , and the enemy has no one to stop them? Do you think the "conquerers" will be giving you free health care? Do you think they will care if you have food, or shelter? Continue to be one of the sheep.

 

[Euro]

Then it comes down to a real simple decison. The above would obviously constitute a major reduction on individual freedom. Using government to socially engineer the behavior you deem 'good' neccissitates that. The simple decision is do you value freedom or security more? With freedom comes the responsibility that you live with the consequences of your choices. With security comes the consequence that there are fewer choices you are free to make.

Well, you could easily afford HC by restructuring the military budget. US spends 700 billion $ this year on military. Most of it spent overseas, far away from USA.

In fact 20% of US federal budget goes to homeland security and military. So I would say that is to prioritate security before freedom. The big spenders in US is the republicans which you support. It’s the pubs that are the big spenders on military and security. It is inflationary to spend so much money overseas on military. The dems at least want to spend the money on the home-market which will create jobs.

So I find it ironic that you as a republican talk about giving up freedom for security. Patriot act, Guantanmo where all created by pubs.

What do you do when the USA is attacked? Your military budget has been slashed to the bone, and there are to many people getting "health care" to move money to the military. How much "health care" do you think you will have when the country is CONQUERED because the military was disassembled , and the enemy has no one to stop them? Do you think the "conquerers" will be giving you free health care? Do you think they will care if you have food, or shelter? Continue to be one of the sheep.

Soldiers are government workers, they are paid through the budget by tax-payers. They don’t earn their own money, they get their money. Just like people on welfare,social services etc. The diifrence is that they get more. Those on food stamps or welfare spends their money on the home market and buy products, that stimulates the economy and creates jobs. Soldiers stationed overseas is a total waste.
Most of the overseas spending in Germany,Korea,Japan are unesseccary. They could have spent their money in US and created jobs in the US by buying products.

So it is an easy way to balance the budget is to cut their, or at least take the soldiers home. Then they can spend money on the home-market, that will create jobs and the economy will grow.

Those on welfare and social services arent the biggest problem since they stimulate the economy by buying products in us, that keeps the prices down. The soldiers overseas dosen’t stimulate the US economy in any way, its just a total waste that kills jobs and keeps the federal reserve busy printing money.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Well, you could easily afford HC by restructuring the military budget. US spends 700 billion $ this year on military. Most of it spent overseas, far away from USA.

In fact 20% of US federal budget goes to homeland security and military. So I would say that is to prioritate security before freedom. The big spenders in US is the republicans which you support. It’s the pubs that are the big spenders on military and security. It is inflationary to spend so much money overseas on military. The dems at least want to spend the money on the home-market which will create jobs.

So I find it ironic that you as a republican talk about giving up freedom for security. Patriot act, Guantanmo where all created by pubs.

What do you do when the USA is attacked? Your military budget has been slashed to the bone, and there are to many people getting "health care" to move money to the military. How much "health care" do you think you will have when the country is CONQUERED because the military was disassembled , and the enemy has no one to stop them? Do you think the "conquerers" will be giving you free health care? Do you think they will care if you have food, or shelter? Continue to be one of the sheep.

Soldiers are government workers, they are paid through the budget by tax-payers. They don’t earn their own money, they get their money. Just like people on welfare,social services etc. The diifrence is that they get more. Those on food stamps or welfare spends their money on the home market and buy products, that stimulates the economy and creates jobs. Soldiers stationed overseas is a total waste.
Most of the overseas spending in Germany,Korea,Japan are unesseccary. They could have spent their money in US and created jobs in the US by buying products.

So it is an easy way to balance the budget is to cut their, or at least take the soldiers home. Then they can spend money on the home-market, that will create jobs and the economy will grow.

Those on welfare and social services arent the biggest problem since they stimulate the economy by buying products in us, that keeps the prices down. The soldiers overseas dosen’t stimulate the US economy in any way, its just a total waste that kills jobs and keeps the federal reserve busy printing money.

I beg your fucking pardon?! Soldiers don't earn their money?! They're just like people on welfare?!

The difference, you braindead sack of feces, is that the military is a JOB. They are EMPLOYED by the government. They go to work every day, perform specific tasks, and . . . oh, yeah, their JOB includes risking their lives - or even giving them - to protect the rest of the country. Sitting on your ass, collecting food stamps and TANF, is not a job.

"Soldiers don't earn their money." You are cordially invited to go die, shitstain. Get off my screen.

 

[Euro]

What do you do when the USA is attacked? Your military budget has been slashed to the bone, and there are to many people getting "health care" to move money to the military. How much "health care" do you think you will have when the country is CONQUERED because the military was disassembled , and the enemy has no one to stop them? Do you think the "conquerers" will be giving you free health care? Do you think they will care if you have food, or shelter? Continue to be one of the sheep.

Soldiers are government workers, they are paid through the budget by tax-payers. They don’t earn their own money, they get their money. Just like people on welfare,social services etc. The diifrence is that they get more. Those on food stamps or welfare spends their money on the home market and buy products, that stimulates the economy and creates jobs. Soldiers stationed overseas is a total waste.
Most of the overseas spending in Germany,Korea,Japan are unesseccary. They could have spent their money in US and created jobs in the US by buying products.

So it is an easy way to balance the budget is to cut their, or at least take the soldiers home. Then they can spend money on the home-market, that will create jobs and the economy will grow.

Those on welfare and social services arent the biggest problem since they stimulate the economy by buying products in us, that keeps the prices down. The soldiers overseas dosen’t stimulate the US economy in any way, its just a total waste that kills jobs and keeps the federal reserve busy printing money.

I beg your fucking pardon?! Soldiers don't earn their money?! They're just like people on welfare?!

The difference, you braindead sack of feces, is that the military is a JOB. They are EMPLOYED by the government. They go to work every day, perform specific tasks, and . . . oh, yeah, their JOB includes risking their lives - or even giving them - to protect the rest of the country. Sitting on your ass, collecting food stamps and TANF, is not a job.

"Soldiers don't earn their money." You are cordially invited to go die, shitstain. Get off my screen.

You have to understand the diffrence between government jobs and private sector jobs.

The private sector is what creates income, soldiers are paid by the income in the private sector. Government workers are mainly a cost, not all but soldiers are because they don’t create anything. Government workers like soldiers are a cost more than people on food stamps and welfare becuase they produce nothing.

When I did my one year of mandatory military service, I was paid far less money than people on welfare and people on unemployment beneftis. Unemployed people and people on welfare gets about 2000$ a month. When I was a soldier I got 500$ a month in salary, I worked as a MP protecting an airforce base. I think that was fair, because their are other people that needed that money more than me. Sick,elderly,kids at school, or free HC. Those soldiers are young ,healthy etc. so they don’t need so much.They can take care of themselves. Elderly,sick etc. can’t. So if I get sick or when I’m old I can get better services.

I agree that soldiers in wars like afghanistan should get paid and they do get paid about 50.000$ a year, but that war was a wrong decision and a unescecary war just like Iraq. But you are not risking your life when you protect a base in a country where their is peace. E.g. those soldiers in Germany,Japan,Korea and USA don’t risk anything. They are mainly their only for presence. It hasn’t been a war in those countries for the last 50-60 years.

By keeping the salaries on military down, you can keep the military budget low and provide the same services. It is very inefficient to spend so much money as US does on military. The government should spend its money in a way that benefits its people investing in businesses,infrastructure,schools,HC. You have to get something back from your taxes.

If you could decide how you would spend your tax money, would you have spent it 60.000 soldiers in Germany, 80.000 in Japan/korea, when 46 million americans are on food stamps?
I wouldn’t, I would have taken back those troops, fired them and put the money into e.g. infrastructure,HC, job creation,education etc.
By doing that I would have cut government spending and created more private sector jobs.

 

[beagle9]

Soldiers are government workers, they are paid through the budget by tax-payers. They don’t earn their own money, they get their money. Just like people on welfare,social services etc. The diifrence is that they get more. Those on food stamps or welfare spends their money on the home market and buy products, that stimulates the economy and creates jobs. Soldiers stationed overseas is a total waste.
Most of the overseas spending in Germany,Korea,Japan are unesseccary. They could have spent their money in US and created jobs in the US by buying products.

So it is an easy way to balance the budget is to cut their, or at least take the soldiers home. Then they can spend money on the home-market, that will create jobs and the economy will grow.

Those on welfare and social services arent the biggest problem since they stimulate the economy by buying products in us, that keeps the prices down. The soldiers overseas dosen’t stimulate the US economy in any way, its just a total waste that kills jobs and keeps the federal reserve busy printing money.

I beg your fucking pardon?! Soldiers don't earn their money?! They're just like people on welfare?!

The difference, you braindead sack of feces, is that the military is a JOB. They are EMPLOYED by the government. They go to work every day, perform specific tasks, and . . . oh, yeah, their JOB includes risking their lives - or even giving them - to protect the rest of the country. Sitting on your ass, collecting food stamps and TANF, is not a job.

"Soldiers don't earn their money." You are cordially invited to go die, shitstain. Get off my screen.

You have to understand the diffrence between government jobs and private sector jobs.

The private sector is what creates income, soldiers are paid by the income in the private sector. Government workers are mainly a cost, not all but soldiers are because they don’t create anything. Government workers like soldiers are a cost more than people on food stamps and welfare becuase they produce nothing.

When I did my one year of mandatory military service, I was paid far less money than people on welfare and people on unemployment beneftis. Unemployed people and people on welfare gets about 2000$ a month. When I was a soldier I got 500$ a month in salary, I worked as a MP protecting an airforce base. I think that was fair, because their are other people that needed that money more than me. Sick,elderly,kids at school, or free HC. Those soldiers are young ,healthy etc. so they don’t need so much.They can take care of themselves. Elderly,sick etc. can’t. So if I get sick or when I’m old I can get better services.

I agree that soldiers in wars like afghanistan should get paid and they do get paid about 50.000$ a year, but that war was a wrong decision and a unescecary war just like Iraq. But you are not risking your life when you protect a base in a country where their is peace. E.g. those soldiers in Germany,Japan,Korea and USA don’t risk anything. They are mainly their only for presence. It hasn’t been a war in those countries for the last 50-60 years.

By keeping the salaries on military down, you can keep the military budget low and provide the same services. It is very inefficient to spend so much money as US does on military. The government should spend its money in a way that benefits its people investing in businesses,infrastructure,schools,HC. You have to get something back from your taxes.

If you could decide how you would spend your tax money, would you have spent it 60.000 soldiers in Germany, 80.000 in Japan/korea, when 46 million americans are on food stamps?
I wouldn’t, I would have taken back those troops, fired them and put the money into e.g. infrastructure,HC, job creation,education etc.
By doing that I would have cut government spending and created more private sector jobs.

Sounds like something Ron Paul would say, and that man is a basket case....Just saying.... B/

 

[logical4u]

Well, you could easily afford HC by restructuring the military budget. US spends 700 billion $ this year on military. Most of it spent overseas, far away from USA.

In fact 20% of US federal budget goes to homeland security and military. So I would say that is to prioritate security before freedom. The big spenders in US is the republicans which you support. It’s the pubs that are the big spenders on military and security. It is inflationary to spend so much money overseas on military. The dems at least want to spend the money on the home-market which will create jobs.

So I find it ironic that you as a republican talk about giving up freedom for security. Patriot act, Guantanmo where all created by pubs.

What do you do when the USA is attacked? Your military budget has been slashed to the bone, and there are to many people getting "health care" to move money to the military. How much "health care" do you think you will have when the country is CONQUERED because the military was disassembled , and the enemy has no one to stop them? Do you think the "conquerers" will be giving you free health care? Do you think they will care if you have food, or shelter? Continue to be one of the sheep.

Soldiers are government workers, they are paid through the budget by tax-payers. They don’t earn their own money, they get their money. Just like people on welfare,social services etc. The diifrence is that they get more. Those on food stamps or welfare spends their money on the home market and buy products, that stimulates the economy and creates jobs. Soldiers stationed overseas is a total waste.
Most of the overseas spending in Germany,Korea,Japan are unesseccary. They could have spent their money in US and created jobs in the US by buying products.

So it is an easy way to balance the budget is to cut their, or at least take the soldiers home. Then they can spend money on the home-market, that will create jobs and the economy will grow.

Those on welfare and social services arent the biggest problem since they stimulate the economy by buying products in us, that keeps the prices down. The soldiers overseas dosen’t stimulate the US economy in any way, its just a total waste that kills jobs and keeps the federal reserve busy printing money.

....."Those on welfare and social services arent the biggest problem since they stimulate the economy by buying products in us, that keeps the prices down." ...
Is like giving your child "allowance" and then asking them to have it back to demonstrate "their contribution" to the family finances. Not that you would ever look at it, like that.

 

[logical4u]

Soldiers are government workers, they are paid through the budget by tax-payers. They don’t earn their own money, they get their money. Just like people on welfare,social services etc. The diifrence is that they get more. Those on food stamps or welfare spends their money on the home market and buy products, that stimulates the economy and creates jobs. Soldiers stationed overseas is a total waste.
Most of the overseas spending in Germany,Korea,Japan are unesseccary. They could have spent their money in US and created jobs in the US by buying products.

So it is an easy way to balance the budget is to cut their, or at least take the soldiers home. Then they can spend money on the home-market, that will create jobs and the economy will grow.

Those on welfare and social services arent the biggest problem since they stimulate the economy by buying products in us, that keeps the prices down. The soldiers overseas dosen’t stimulate the US economy in any way, its just a total waste that kills jobs and keeps the federal reserve busy printing money.

I beg your fucking pardon?! Soldiers don't earn their money?! They're just like people on welfare?!

The difference, you braindead sack of feces, is that the military is a JOB. They are EMPLOYED by the government. They go to work every day, perform specific tasks, and . . . oh, yeah, their JOB includes risking their lives - or even giving them - to protect the rest of the country. Sitting on your ass, collecting food stamps and TANF, is not a job.

"Soldiers don't earn their money." You are cordially invited to go die, shitstain. Get off my screen.

You have to understand the diffrence between government jobs and private sector jobs.

The private sector is what creates income, soldiers are paid by the income in the private sector. Government workers are mainly a cost, not all but soldiers are because they don’t create anything. Government workers like soldiers are a cost more than people on food stamps and welfare becuase they produce nothing.

When I did my one year of mandatory military service, I was paid far less money than people on welfare and people on unemployment beneftis. Unemployed people and people on welfare gets about 2000$ a month. When I was a soldier I got 500$ a month in salary, I worked as a MP protecting an airforce base. I think that was fair, because their are other people that needed that money more than me. Sick,elderly,kids at school, or free HC. Those soldiers are young ,healthy etc. so they don’t need so much.They can take care of themselves. Elderly,sick etc. can’t. So if I get sick or when I’m old I can get better services.

I agree that soldiers in wars like afghanistan should get paid and they do get paid about 50.000$ a year, but that war was a wrong decision and a unescecary war just like Iraq. But you are not risking your life when you protect a base in a country where their is peace. E.g. those soldiers in Germany,Japan,Korea and USA don’t risk anything. They are mainly their only for presence. It hasn’t been a war in those countries for the last 50-60 years.

By keeping the salaries on military down, you can keep the military budget low and provide the same services. It is very inefficient to spend so much money as US does on military. The government should spend its money in a way that benefits its people investing in businesses,infrastructure,schools,HC. You have to get something back from your taxes.

If you could decide how you would spend your tax money, would you have spent it 60.000 soldiers in Germany, 80.000 in Japan/korea, when 46 million americans are on food stamps?
I wouldn’t, I would have taken back those troops, fired them and put the money into e.g. infrastructure,HC, job creation,education etc.
By doing that I would have cut government spending and created more private sector jobs.

Gov't workers "cost more" than those on welfare?????? Don't they do jobs? What do the people on welfare "give back" to society????????? According to your logic, "eliminating" those on welfare would be a great way to balance the budget.

 

[Euro]

I beg your fucking pardon?! Soldiers don't earn their money?! They're just like people on welfare?!

The difference, you braindead sack of feces, is that the military is a JOB. They are EMPLOYED by the government. They go to work every day, perform specific tasks, and . . . oh, yeah, their JOB includes risking their lives - or even giving them - to protect the rest of the country. Sitting on your ass, collecting food stamps and TANF, is not a job.

"Soldiers don't earn their money." You are cordially invited to go die, shitstain. Get off my screen.

You have to understand the diffrence between government jobs and private sector jobs.

The private sector is what creates income, soldiers are paid by the income in the private sector. Government workers are mainly a cost, not all but soldiers are because they don’t create anything. Government workers like soldiers are a cost more than people on food stamps and welfare becuase they produce nothing.

When I did my one year of mandatory military service, I was paid far less money than people on welfare and people on unemployment beneftis. Unemployed people and people on welfare gets about 2000$ a month. When I was a soldier I got 500$ a month in salary, I worked as a MP protecting an airforce base. I think that was fair, because their are other people that needed that money more than me. Sick,elderly,kids at school, or free HC. Those soldiers are young ,healthy etc. so they don’t need so much.They can take care of themselves. Elderly,sick etc. can’t. So if I get sick or when I’m old I can get better services.

I agree that soldiers in wars like afghanistan should get paid and they do get paid about 50.000$ a year, but that war was a wrong decision and a unescecary war just like Iraq. But you are not risking your life when you protect a base in a country where their is peace. E.g. those soldiers in Germany,Japan,Korea and USA don’t risk anything. They are mainly their only for presence. It hasn’t been a war in those countries for the last 50-60 years.

By keeping the salaries on military down, you can keep the military budget low and provide the same services. It is very inefficient to spend so much money as US does on military. The government should spend its money in a way that benefits its people investing in businesses,infrastructure,schools,HC. You have to get something back from your taxes.

If you could decide how you would spend your tax money, would you have spent it 60.000 soldiers in Germany, 80.000 in Japan/korea, when 46 million americans are on food stamps?
I wouldn’t, I would have taken back those troops, fired them and put the money into e.g. infrastructure,HC, job creation,education etc.
By doing that I would have cut government spending and created more private sector jobs.

Gov't workers "cost more" than those on welfare?????? Don't they do jobs? What do the people on welfare "give back" to society????????? According to your logic, "eliminating" those on welfare would be a great way to balance the budget.

Soldiers overseas dosen’t keep the purchasing power on the home-market up. US has 300.000 soldiers overseas. Germany,Korea,Japan their is no war their.
I especially talk about soldiers,you could need more government workers in for instance infrastructure, R&D. But they suffer because of all the overseas spending.

But soldiers overseas is a total waste, and the its better to spend the money on the home market when the goverment pays the salaries.