ole sarg Loc: south florida

You are right. But, I don't think you would like the revelation that we spend too much on you and me. Most of the spending is on SS and Medicare.

You did not pay for your SS and Medicare but for your parents benefits. Look it up!

So, lets be realistic. We were in a none debt situation when Bush took office. We had a tax cut, two wars and a new drug benefit all of which was not accounted for in the revenue side of the ledger.

We have to reduces spending and increase taxes to get back in balance.

The alternative is to cut SS and Medicare the big items.

You want that?

workhorse Loc: Nashville, TN

I agree with Romney's question about spending and borrowing. I run my household budget that way, if I don't have enough money saved to buy something is it important enough to borrow against my house to get it. Just my opinion now, too few people are willing to take the bitter pill that will fix the economy in this country. Few want to suffer the discomfort of paying more for things made in the USA, limit the amount of imports allowed, and provide for themselves instead of waiting for the Gvt. to take care of them.

ted45 Loc: Delaware

SS and Medicare were set up to work the way they do and have worked all along. The government created the program and we were forced to deal with it. The only thing wrong with either program is the way it is used as a club during every election.

So why does every conversation about cutting spending always go right to SS and Medicare? Why not some of the insane programs our government spends money on to pander votes? Just a small sample:

1.The U.S. government is spending $750,000 on a new soccer field for detainees held at Guantanamo Bay.

2.The Obama administration plans to spend between 16 and 20 million dollars helping students from Indonesia get master's degrees.

3.The federal government has shelled out $3 million to researchers at the University of California at Irvine to fund their research on video games such as World of Warcraft. Wouldn't we all love to have a "research job" like that?

4.The Department of Health and Human Services plans to spend $500 million on a program that will, among other things, seek to solve the problem of 5-year-old children that "can't sit still" in a kindergarten classroom.

5.Fannie Mae is about to ask the federal government for another $4.6 billion bailout, and it will almost certainly get it.

6.The federal government once spent 30 million dollars on a program that was designed to help Pakistani farmers produce more mangos.

7.A total of $615,000 was given to the University of California at Santa Cruz to digitize photos, T-shirts and concert tickets belonging to the Grateful Dead.

8.China lends us more money than any other foreign nation, but that didn't stop our government from spending 17.8 million dollars on social and environmental programs for China.

9.U.S. farmers are given a total of $2 billion each year for not farming their land.

10.The U.S. government once spent 2.6 million dollars to train Chinese prostitutes to drink responsibly.

source = http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/30-stupid-things-the-governemnt-is-spending-money-on

bvargas Loc: Palm Harbor, Florida

Vote everyone that's in, OUT. Includes Congress. (TERM LIMITS). Eventually, we will get better government.

thegrover Loc: Yorba Linda, CA

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

richard-sports Loc: New York City

+1
Wow!! Someone on this board with the intelligence to see where the problems started. Great answer.

BW326 Loc: Boynton Beach, Florida

And normally I'd agree with your point of view but in this case, Leatherhelmet stated that later on that if we would only answer 'A' or 'B' that there would be shown ... "a method to his madness".

The clear implication is that he would be using result, 'A' or 'B' as the foundation for a conclusion. I was simply pointing out that if the responders true feelings, that neither was the correct answer, all by inself, i,e., to the exclusion of the other, then a weighted response was the only appropriate way to answer.

You may remember last month that one of the members posed a mathematical problem that superficially showed a conclusion that '1 =2' and our job was to find the step in his logic that led to that obvious incorrect conclusion. If Leatherhelmet was going to use the results of question #1 for the basis of a further argument it could lead us to an equally flawed conclusion as the previous math exercise.

Also.... you cannot restrict the liberal's right to chow down on waffles .... things could turn ugly.
:D

docrob Loc: Durango, Colorado

Sorry but making $250 a week on unemployment seems more like desperation than greed.

Hershel Loc: New York City

A

cheineck Loc: Hobe Sound, FL

A, no doubt.

AUminer Loc: Brandon, Ms

If the waffles cost 5 dollars and you only have 4 dollars, should you borrow a dollar to get them because the person at the next table has them, or should you settle for the 4 dollar pancakes?

BW326 Loc: Boynton Beach, Florida

I don't believe in borrowing, I work for my money ...

What I do is 1) grab a towel, 2) go to a table where someone left a tip, 3) pretend like I'm clearing the table (and grab the tip)

Problem solved! Ummmm! waffles!

GeneB Loc: Chattanooga Tennessee

A

GeneB Loc: Chattanooga Tennessee

you are out of your mind and I like it.

GeneB Loc: Chattanooga Tennessee

+
tip of the iceberg info but it is a good start on where to cut spending. Also did you know that the congress has given the SSA IOU's for the money they took out of that fund (Peter) to pay Paul. That money will never make it back where it belongs.