Mar 29, 2022Liked by Chris J. Karr, David Thornton
We need to increase defense spending, cut entitlement spending and do away with some federal bureaucracies entirely. The problem with entitlement spending is that you have to start with 35-year-olds.
Mar 29, 2022Liked by Chris J. Karr, David Thornton
35-year-olds need to know that they cannot rely on Social Security and Medicare if they are fortunate enough to have high retirement income. It's true that some retirement age people today do not need SS and Medicare to supplement their income. I do not believe I would have needed full SS and Medicare benefits if I had known 50 years ago to make alternative plans, I would have worked a few more years and bought fewer new cars and not upgraded my housing as often.
I'll let SGman chime in here - being part of the demographic in question - but as a fellow approaching my mid-40s. Social Security hasn't EVER been a program that I expected to be around supporting me in my old age. My working assumption since I started working is that it will go bust before I EVER see a check in the amount in those letters the gov't sends out.
Mar 29, 2022Liked by Chris J. Karr, David Thornton
Yeah, we already know we can't rely on SSI and Medicare to make up the full amount of needed expenses. Some of us are lucky enough to have been working and contributing to retirement for many years (myself since 2006): others not as much, just as with Gen X/Boomers that perhaps did not contribute enough for whichever reasons (lack of foresight, or lack of economic ability).
Let's face it: it's pretty hard to put anything away when you have to work two full-time jobs to make basic ends meet, as some must.
Mar 29, 2022Liked by Chris J. Karr, David Thornton
Tanks have nothing to do with what should be done to upgrade our military. Some tanks, some aircraft, some military bases and dozens of other things are political pork - not something military professionals and politicians with integrity would deem necessary.
Mar 29, 2022Liked by Chris J. Karr, David Thornton
So in other words, you agree with me: there are areas where political pork is making for inefficient use of appropriated dollars for Defense, and that we can make the spending more efficient and useful for maintaining and upgrading our military.
We can also start to utilize much less expensive systems: the Switchblade 600 carries a Javelin warhead, and has a much greater effective range while costing less per unit than a Javelin. These are loitering missles, and are one-and-done.
The Ukrainians have been using drones carrying modified anti-tank grenades (they added fins to the handle, making them accurate small bombs), dropping them silently on targets (there's video's available if you search for RKG-1600). Ostensibly the drone can return for rearmament, and perhaps is more useful in the future.
The amount of money appropriate for defense may be more than enough, provided we actually use those dollars wisely and avoid the political pork as much as possible - especially when new technologies are available that can, more or less, be taken off the shelf and slightly modified.
Political landscape in short term may yield increased defense spending, but no cuts concerning entitlements.
We need to increase defense spending, cut entitlement spending and do away with some federal bureaucracies entirely. The problem with entitlement spending is that you have to start with 35-year-olds.
"The problem with entitlement spending is that you have to start with 35-year-olds."
Can you elaborate on this?
35-year-olds need to know that they cannot rely on Social Security and Medicare if they are fortunate enough to have high retirement income. It's true that some retirement age people today do not need SS and Medicare to supplement their income. I do not believe I would have needed full SS and Medicare benefits if I had known 50 years ago to make alternative plans, I would have worked a few more years and bought fewer new cars and not upgraded my housing as often.
Got it.
I'll let SGman chime in here - being part of the demographic in question - but as a fellow approaching my mid-40s. Social Security hasn't EVER been a program that I expected to be around supporting me in my old age. My working assumption since I started working is that it will go bust before I EVER see a check in the amount in those letters the gov't sends out.
Yeah, that was my assumption too until I was in my mid-50s. Then it became apparent that SS would be here for as long as I would be.
Yeah, we already know we can't rely on SSI and Medicare to make up the full amount of needed expenses. Some of us are lucky enough to have been working and contributing to retirement for many years (myself since 2006): others not as much, just as with Gen X/Boomers that perhaps did not contribute enough for whichever reasons (lack of foresight, or lack of economic ability).
Let's face it: it's pretty hard to put anything away when you have to work two full-time jobs to make basic ends meet, as some must.
Seconded, considering I *am* a 35 year old :-)
Congratulations. I barely remember being 35.
What we need to more efficient defense spending: we don't need more M1 Abrams tanks, but we keep making them against the Army's desires.
Tanks have nothing to do with what should be done to upgrade our military. Some tanks, some aircraft, some military bases and dozens of other things are political pork - not something military professionals and politicians with integrity would deem necessary.
So in other words, you agree with me: there are areas where political pork is making for inefficient use of appropriated dollars for Defense, and that we can make the spending more efficient and useful for maintaining and upgrading our military.
To a point, yes. I don't think it's enough but it's certainly a start.
We can also start to utilize much less expensive systems: the Switchblade 600 carries a Javelin warhead, and has a much greater effective range while costing less per unit than a Javelin. These are loitering missles, and are one-and-done.
The Ukrainians have been using drones carrying modified anti-tank grenades (they added fins to the handle, making them accurate small bombs), dropping them silently on targets (there's video's available if you search for RKG-1600). Ostensibly the drone can return for rearmament, and perhaps is more useful in the future.
The amount of money appropriate for defense may be more than enough, provided we actually use those dollars wisely and avoid the political pork as much as possible - especially when new technologies are available that can, more or less, be taken off the shelf and slightly modified.