English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

okay, do they hurt my medicare benifits? and what does the leadership say that is does help?

2007-01-06 03:15:32 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Military

* Mud Marine (maybe) this was a trick question. Of course it affects ssi and everything else. All expenses affects ss. You people are so wierd and answer with so much stuff that inperttinent to the real question. does it or doesn't it. it does. so you are wrong. just wrong. foresty service expenses affects ss etc. etc. the decision to use the services and the expensive eqjuipment irresponsably would be a crime. and it would hold down my hard won retirement. i now what it is like to be young but you don't know what it is like to be old. but you may not get old.

2007-01-06 10:10:58 · update #1

* did anybody here take or score any points on the sat? you have to aswer the question not write a morality essay. you surely didn't take one econmics or accounting course. you may all qualify to be on the jay leno show and answer questions on the street corner. what a pity. nobdy wins this one.

2007-01-06 10:16:13 · update #2

7 answers

Of course they hurt them $500 billion is hard to come by (honestly) even if you are the DOD.

2007-01-06 03:21:02 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1 6

What are you talking about? The budgets for military and social security have nothing to do with one another, other than they both come from the same primary source. You might as well ask if the roads and highways hurt your social security or medicare benefits.

I've yet to see any indication that the increased military spending has endangered any other budgets, it's just increased our deficit.

Edit: If the revenue source for all of the budgets was static & unchanging, then increasing the amount of one budget would require a decrease in one or more other budgets. But there is no specific requirement that the money be taken from any particular budget. Therefore, with multiple budgets and a single static revenue source, there is no reason to automatically assume that an increase in the military budget requires a decrease in the social security budget. It may require a decrease in a third budget.

However, the revenue source is not a static one, and it is also NOT the limit on the budgets. That's why we have a defecit; the government gets to spend more than the revenue source provides. With multiple budgets and a non-static revenue source plus the 'authority' to go into debt, there is no require for any budget to have any affect on any other budget.

So, again.... NO! There is no inherent, automatic reason for the military budget to affect the social security or medicare budget.

If you want to get into complex economics, then ask a specific question. Otherwise, don't get smarmy. Many of us did answer your question, very specifically, and respectfully. I know I did. And while it's none of your business, I did score quite well on my SATs, 1410 in fact. And I would love to be on Jay-walking, just to be editted out. The producers of that show admit that they cut out almost all the people that answer the questions intelligently, and just keep the few that sound goofy. That's to make people like you feel superior about yourselves, so you can think, "Heh, I'm smarter than the average young American whipper-snapper". Truth is, you're really not. You don't see that on T.V. because it's not ratings-worthy. But, then, you don't really want to know the truth when a warm cozy lie feels so much better.

Good day, sir. Next time you ask a question, be more specific, and be less disdainful of those trying to help you.

2007-01-06 11:21:06 · answer #2 · answered by Devil Dog '73 4 · 5 1

N O!!!!! The military expenditures have absolutely
nothing to do with Social Security or medicare benefits,
without the Military, there wouldn't be any need for your
freedoms or social security or medicare benefits.

2007-01-06 11:54:53 · answer #3 · answered by Vagabond5879 7 · 2 1

They are two separate issues in the federal budget. How about this idea??...........Hold Congress accountable for their "at home -in my state" spending. List of some of their goodies below....

Contrary to popular opinion, new defense spending comprises just 21 percent of the $782 billion spending increase of the 2003 budget.

These projects merely build on the $20 billion spent on more than 8,000 similar programs in fiscal year 2002, including:

$273,000 to help Blue Springs, Missouri, combat teenage "Goth culture";
$1,500,000 for a statue of the Roman god Vulcan in Birmingham, Alabama;
$1,000,000 for an "Intelligent Transportation" grant for Moscow, Idaho--population 22,000;
$50,000 to fund a tattoo removal program in San Luis Obispo County, California;
$26,000 to study how thoroughly Americans rinse their dishes-GOT TO LOVE THIS ONE
$4,572 to Las Vegas Helicopters (LVH), which performs airborne weddings officiated by Elvis Presley impersonators, as part of the post-September 11 package of aid to airlines.
$82,500 for Hawaiian Monk Seals;
$489,000 for swine waste management in North Carolina;
$661,000 for Alaskan Groundfish Surveys;
$225,000 for hoop barns in Iowa;
$750,000 for Walla Walla basin habitat; and
$400,000 to create an urban village at the Asian Pacific Community Center in St. Paul, Minnesota.

The federal government can promote accountability, flexibility, and local control by eliminating many of the mandates on how state and local governments address their own issues, and by letting them raise their own revenues and create their own programs without meddling from Washington, D.C.
Last year’s Budget estimated a deficit of 4.5 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 2004, or $521 billion. Private and other forecasters had similar deficit expectations. Largely because economic growth generated stronger revenues than originally estimated, and because the Congress adhered to the spending restraint called for in the President’s Budget, the 2004 deficit came in $109 billion lower than expected, at $412 billion, or 3.6 percent of GDP.

2007-01-06 11:55:49 · answer #4 · answered by Akkita 6 · 1 1

No, they';re separate budgets.
What good are all the benefits in the world if you loose your freedom?
A conquerer will take them away and you'll have twice as much to complain about.

2007-01-06 11:21:52 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 5 1

They help keep the enemy off your nation's soil and keep you alive long enough to collect Social Security.

2007-01-06 12:20:25 · answer #6 · answered by senior citizen 5 · 1 1

They only hurt your benefits if they kill you. Then you get $250.00 for burial benefits.

2007-01-06 11:49:17 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3 2

fedest.com, questions and answers