AMERICA's RESOURCES for AMERICA, FIRST!!!

[LynnTheDem]

I want our troops HERE. Protecting AMERICAN SOIL.

I want our $300 billion bush has blown in Iraq spent HERE, on AMERICA.

Starving AMERICAN children.

AMERICAN hospitals pulling the plug on life support machines if AMERICANS can't pay the bill.

New infrastructure for Iraq...while AMERICA's infrastructure is rated as 3rd world.

New schools for Iraq...while AMERICA closes AMERICAN schools down for lack of funding.

Social Security would be FULLY FUNDED until the 22nd Century with what bush has already blown on Iraq!

America's resources are needed HERE, in AMERICA, for AMERICANS. AMERICAN RESOURCES FOR AMERICA FIRST.

[murray hill farm]

1. YES!!!

But no one listens to what we need! no one listens to what we want! It has become that kind of country..it is not about us anymore....or so it seems.

[Renew Deal]

2. That's exactly right.

The problem is that the government doesn't care about us. They care about their funding more. We need to take this country back corporations, thugs and murderers who are running everything now. Who is looking out for us? I'd like the answer to that. We have been sold to the MBNA's of the world and the Democratic party has gone along with it. That's the worst part. Maybe it's time for another option.

[Hissyspit]

3. "Social Security would be FULLY FUNDED until 22nd Cen. with what Bush..."

Where are all our infotainment pundits with that one? Haven't heard any one talk about that. Has Krugman?

By the way, I'm sure it's true, but do you have any numbers to reference?

[LynnTheDem]

4. Yep I have the numbers...from the Congressional Budget Office. LOL!!!

And yep, Krugman has spoken of it.

And no, the USSA State Media isn't very interested in mentioning it.

:eyes:

Projections in a recent report by the Congressional Budget Office say that the trust fund will run out in 2052. The system won't become "bankrupt" at that point; even after the trust fund is gone, Social Security revenues will cover 81 percent of the promised benefits.

The report finds that extending the life of the trust fund into the 22nd century, with no change in benefits, would require additional revenues equal to only 0.54% G.D.P.

That's less than 3 percent of federal spending - less than we're currently spending in Iraq.

And it's only about one-quarter of the revenue lost each year because of President Bush's tax cuts - roughly equal to the fraction of those cuts that goes to people with incomes over $500,000 a year.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70E11F73F550C748CDDAB0994DC404482

But bush's TAX CUTS for his HAVES and HAVE-MORES base is MORE IMPORTANT.



http://www.cbpp.org/1-4-05socsec.htm

[Hissyspit]

5. Thanks! Have you ever put this in a separate post? I think it is useful.

I knew about the 81 percent by 2052, but I never made the connection to the $300 Billion... duh.

[LynnTheDem]

7. Yep many many many times...and sent it to every (left) blog I know

And it was just ignored every time, lol.

:shrug:

Now me, I'd simply do an ad showing the graph and voice-over of the "less than 0.54%, less than 3% fed spending, less than spending in Iraq.

Clear. Concise. Visual.
Even morans would understand it.

Feel free to post separately about it. We should take turns posting it 1/week until Americans GET it, imo. Which could take awhile, lol!

[Hissyspit]

9. I posted it to Americablog. I still think I need a direct dollar...

correlation between the money needed to do for SS until 22nd century and the money spent on Iraq. Is that in the nytimes article?

[LynnTheDem]

12. I don't recall, hissy; are you a subscriber?

If not, inbox me.

[sandnsea]

10. That really doesn't matter

SS should not be paid for out of federal revenues. The gap that MIGHT exist after 2052 has to be paid for out of FICA. Otherwise it stops being an insurance program funded by the beneficiaries and starts being a welfare program. That's exactly what FDR did not want to have happen.

If I understand this link correctly, there are scenarios where SS will not be in trouble at all. If wages don't drop like they claim, if immigration doesn't drop like they claim, and if the birth rate doesn't drop like they claim, we won't have a problem. Is that how you read that "low cost" column?

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/TR04/IV_LRest.html#wp179669

[Zorra]

6. "AMERICA's RESOURCES for AMERICA, FIRST!!!"

"AMERICA's RESOURCES for AMERICA, FIRST!!!"
"AMERICA's RESOURCES for AMERICA, FIRST!!!"
"AMERICA's RESOURCES for AMERICA, FIRST!!!"
"AMERICA's RESOURCES for AMERICA, FIRST!!!"
"AMERICA's RESOURCES for AMERICA, FIRST!!!"

(Thanks, Lynn, great post.)

[LynnTheDem]

8. Love the chant! Funny thing, so should every conservative! lol!

:)

[TrustingDog]

11. It is a great post, and let us not forget that Nicaraguans and Iraqis and.

etc's all over the world deserve their own resources as well

[DebJ]

13. The administration is NOT the only problem here; American

attitudes are as well. Americans for a very long time have been much more willing to donate to charities for, say, children overseas, then for the ones that help children right here.

The reason? Americans don't want to face the fact that people here actually need help, for then, they would have to face the fact that someday THEY might need help themselves. It is much more comforting to think that 'anyone can make it in the USA', and those that don't make it here are just lazy bums.

Whereas, people overseas don't have that wonderful advantage of being an American, and therefore are deserving of our help.

After 4 more years, Americans are going to need help from overseas: China, India, Pakistan might give us a hand

[kodi]

14. Ein Volk, ein Reich!

now, finally someone on site has touched the nub of it.

America firsters. the benign name for an.......

AMERICAN....NATIONAL....SOCIALIST....WORKERS....MOVEMENT.

only this time its coming from the Left, because the Right has already latched on to international trade for its milk and honey, leaving the workers to eat sawdust.