Before you mess with SS here's a few thoughts....

[samplegirl]

The US has over 100 military bases in Germany alone. These bases may have made sense when we feared a Soviet attack on Western Europe, but the Cold War ended 20 years ago. Why is American taxpayers' money being spent on bases that stimulate the economy of Germany, while defending NATO against a threat that no longer exists? #

Since 2001, the US has spent over $55 billion on Afghan reconstruction. Much of this money has been wasted and has fueled corruption in Afghanistan. For example, USAID earmarked $100 million of American taxpayers' money on the Khost-Ghardez Highway, but, due to a militant attack, opted to abandon the project halfway through until security improves. The Army spent $5.5 million to build seven police headquarters, five of which were not completed. And if you want a "bridge to nowhere," the Army built a million-dollar suspension bridge in Afghanistan, but it is useless since no road leads to it. Further, under the $2.2 billion Host Nation Trucking contract, the Pentagon pays protection money to corrupt Afghan security companies that, according to the New York Times, gives some of this money to the Taliban to assure safe passage of American supplies #

The Pentagon cannot account for $2.6 billion that it spent in Iraq. According to congressional investigators, Halliburton overbilled American taxpayers by as much as $1.4 billion PDF for services in Iraq. This included $45 for cases of soda, and $1,000 for VCRs. According to Fox News, Halliburton overbilled the taxpayer $61 million for gasoline. The $708 billion defense budget proposed for 2011 is, in constant dollars, the highest it has been since World War II -- 36 percent higher than it was at the height of the Vietnam War in 1968, and as much as all other discretionary programs in the federal budget combined. Astonishingly, a half of all military spending in the world comes from the US taxpayer. The average American family gives $5,615 of its hard-earned money to the Pentagon every year Inexplicably, some national politicians seek to protect this outrageous waste of your money. John Boehner has said that we should raise the retirement age to stretch the social security budget, but that the military budget should be off-limits to budget cutting.. The founding fathers were suspicious of standing armies. They would be horrified to see how their beloved country has become a government of the people for the defense contractors. If you want to take your country back, you have to take it back from General Dynamics, Northrop Grumman, Lockheed, Halliburton, Bechtel, and their errand boys and girls in Congress, too. ht;Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

These are a few copy/pastes that I kept!

[Bryn]

1. From what I understand they aren't there for security

but to provide for the super rich.

[CC]

2. Social Security has absolutely no negative effect

on the deficit and so should not be part of any discussion on the deficit we have now. It does have a trust fund that the GOP allowed to be used in a bookkeeping measure to make the deficit appear smaller but it is self sustaining for decades yet. If they are really worried about what happens in 2035 or (whatever the latest scare date is) with SS then raise or eliminate the earnings cap, means test for benefits and don't let anyone touch the trust fund for anything else. The whole SS thing is that it is killing the banks, Wall Str. and GOP that so much money is sitting there and they can't run it through their greedy little paws taking a cut off it every way they can come up with.

[katmondoo]

3. They have been raiding SS and Medicare funds for years

for their wars. Starting with LBJ. THat is why Gore wanted the funds in a lock box.

[Recursion]

6. Unfortunately Gore's idea as he campaigned on it was pretty bad

He wanted to take excess FICA funds and rather than purchase treasury bonds, redeem treasury bonds on the theory that it would make borrowing cheaper later (which it would). Unfortunately that also assumes Congress is not full of sociopathic children; under the lockbox plan the SSA wouldn't even have the bonds it has now, just a gentlemen's agreement from Congress to pay back the SSA for the redeemed bonds when the SSA needed it.

[Dragonfli]

4. And yet, even here people talk about it as if it is an item in the budget, a complete lie /nt

[Recursion]

5. It will have no effect on the *debt* going forward, it will have an effect on the deficit

That is, unless we find more revenues or cut spending, it will require an increase in annual deficits, they just won't add to the total debt since the money will be spent redeeming the bonds in the Trust Fund.

[Recursion]

7. And actually it will have some effect on the debt

In that the 2.5 trillion will have to be serviced the way other bonds are rather than internally; though that's a very small change.

[raccoon]

8. Great post. Can you give us some links? nt