KaiBear said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Ukraine will NOT win this war without foreign troops getting involved.

And as the months (years?) go by this will become obvious to everyone.

---

you are making some assumptions that Russia might not be able to meet. Have you checked the value trends on the ruble recently?
https://www.msn.com/en-xl/news/others/russias-ailing-ruble-takes-another-hit-what-happens-now/ar-AA1a8S7U
at five year lows:
https://tradingeconomics.com/russia/currency

Everything you say would be correct if Ukraine was on its own, having to feed, clothe, arm its own troops. Were that the case, the war would already be over. But that is not the case.

Nato has correctly identified that it does have an interest in the outcome of the war. A number of necessaries flow from that. The Ukrainian state must survive. The war must finish with Russia totally exhausted, decades away from full rearmament. If Ukraine is to remain economically viable, it must own sovereignty over Crimea (fate of Russian naval base at Sebastapol negotiable) in order to A) ensure flow of goods to/from it's major industrial ports in the Sea of Azov, and B) ensure revenues from oil/gas reserves across much of the northern Black Sea up thru the Sea of Azov and into the Donbas. Ergo, Nato has opened up cash and materiel flows that Russia cannot match over time.

A truce right now just gives Russia a breather, a chance to raise more troops and send more ammo to the front line. Ukraine must keep the battle going on, forcing Russia to strain ever harder to resupply, to the point its sclerotic supply lines crack. As long as Nato continues to supply Ukraine, Ukraine can outlast Russia, despite Russia having, on paper at least, far greater resources to wage war than Ukraine.

This is a proxy war. The Nato economy dwarfs the Russian economy by a ratio that far exceeds the advantage Russia has over Ukraine. All Ukraine has to supply is sweat equity, while the vastly superior economies of Nato outspend the heavily sanctioned Russian economy. And Ukraine has the population to do that, particularly given that they are inflicting casualties on Russia at a 7-1 rate.

As long as Russia wants to feed its sons into the maw, we should keep it grinding away. They've grabbed the tarbaby of all tarbabies.

---

Just the flippant way people in our government and on this site casually acknowledge that we are now in a bloody proxy war with a nuclear armed state.....without any vote by the American people...its just stunning.

A nation that has not attacked us by the way.

But this maw as you say is chewing up Ukrainian sons as much as it is chewing up Russian ones. Yet Ukraine can not keep that kind of causality rate up forever.

And even if funding these proxy wars was not at its base level highly immoral...its also unlikely to get us what we want. Heck what do we even want? Regime change in Moscow? The end of the 1,000 year old Russian State itself? No one can seem to agree with what is a final outcome should be.

Just like Afghanistan and Iraq were are tripping and stumbling into another long bloody conflict that is massively expensive and with no clear cut exit strategy or clear point of "victory".

---

Proxy wars are preferable to direct conflict, are they not? They are exactly how great powers engage one another militarily when they cannot come to a peaceful agreement, because they are by wide margin preferable to direct conflict.

"A nation which has not attacked us, by the way" is an old fallacy which presumes war is defined by military conflict. Remember the Cold War? Nations jockey and bluster and negotiate and ally and even poke & prod with third parties all the time. It's how the game is played......to avoid all out conflict.

Ukraine can keep up a 7-1 favorable casualty rate longer than Russia can. Ukrainians are united as one for a war to the death. Same cannot be said for Putin, who is trying to hide the true cost of the war from the Russian people to avoid unrest in the streets.

What we want has been quite clearly stated: Russian withdrawal from sovereign Ukrainian territory. You just don't take it seriously. Regime change has been mentioned as one way to achieve that outcome, and we were wise to do so. It puts pressure on Putin, who has resisted it and pressed on, tying his fate to the outcome of the war. That's fine. He needs to go. We don't want to ever have a Russian head of state who ever again thinks Nato will stand idly by when Russian armies cross European borders.

The analogs you mentioned are not applicable. Holding onto them so tightly badly affects your perception of what is happening. We have not, and will not commit troops to Ukraine. We've been quite consistent on that. Nato has been consistent on that. More to the point, it will not be necessary. Russia is not going to win the war. Ukraine can outlast them (thanks to Nato support).

---

The way the media has completely thrown out "beating Russia is easy" is a sign that what you're hearing about the difficulty of dealing with Russia isn't true.

Have you thought about how much your viewpoint aligns with the uniparty veiwpoint?

---

I haven't noticed a narrative that "beating Russia is easy" from MSM at all. The cheerleading has been obvious,though, and when it reaches the level of virtue posturing can be quite humorous. That in no way changes realities on the ground in Ukraine.

My viewpoint is my own: a masters degree in directly related subject material plus 10 years in the intel/diplomatic world with direct experience on things Russian, followed by relentless self-study on history, geopolitics, etc.... There is a reason Nato and the USA chose to support Ukraine - it is overwhelmingly in their interest to do so. And the fact there is such unity within Nato on the question is telling. Biden didn't hornswoggle them, for sure. The case for not aggressively supporting Ukraine, other than impacts on budget and readiness, is completely a priori reasoning, and laced with one foolish strawman after the other on escalation. Initially opponents ran around with their skirts up about the inevitability of nuclear war. Now, its mostly about the inevitability of direct involvement of US troops. Worst of all, opponents typically misread the situation on the ground because of a general lack of familiarity with the subject material.

One really has to work hard to remain in the shadow of obtusity not to see the wisdom of US support for Ukraine this particular proxy war. Proxy wars have happened for millennia in the past, and will happen for millennia in the future. We do not have a stake in most of them. But this one we do, for reasons that are rather obvious unless one is hidebound determined to ignore them.

---

Can we at least agree that the pricing that the military industrial complex is charging for weapons which is purchased by US tax dollars is way too damn high and we should work on that? They're charging tenfold, if not a hundredfold their cost of production and our government is more than willing to go along with it because they get a piece of it back for their campaigns and under the table deals. It's shifting middle class taxes to giant corporations that are hardly trickling it back into the economy.

A recent POGO analysis, for instance, documented the malfeasance of TransDigm, a military parts supplier that the Department of Defense's inspector general caught overcharging the Pentagon by as much as 3,800 percent!

https://jacobin.com/2022/02/us-pentagon-budget-military-spending-f-35-nuclear-weapons

Its not so much that I'm against the reason for this war. It's the means by which it is being carried out which I consider extremely corrupt.

Our ruling class isn't taking care of our people. They aren't taking care of our borders, our schools are god awful, our infrastructure is ghetto...but we can drop trillions on war?

I'm at the point where I'm like "no you can't have your war until you fix sh it at home".

---

I had dinner with the CEO of a manufacturer a few weeks ago and, in a brainstorming discussion about possibilities, asked him about the cost of a potential new product as a substitute (an innovative one, at that) for an existing one. He said...."well, that depends on how much we can produce. If we can open up the plant and run it 24/7, it will be priced where you need it to be. If not....well, it will not."

That's not rocket science, just an current example.

Arms manufacturers work silo'd with R&D and production, and really only have a single customer (since that customer has to approve exports elsewhere on anything really sexy.). Purchase orders are intermittent, and limited. The initial price of the first unit is always the one quoted by critics, never the costs of the last few on a multi-year run. And on and on. And it's almost always the $900 toilet seat that gets held up as a typical example, when it is anything but. Make 900k of those particular toilet seats designed for the single head in the captain's quarters and they cost about 2-3x what the sexiest model at Home Depot costs. And, yes, the manufacturers do gouge a bit on some items, as pricing is constrained on others, and or overall plant capacity is limited to small percentages of capacity Overall, Lockheed/Martin is not making 3800% on a delivered F-35. Newport News is not going to make 3800% on the USS Doris Miller. And most assuredly, the tax returns for those companies do not show a net taxable profit of 3800%.

Please. We are educated and informed adults here on this board........

---

Since you're educated and can explain, how is it that with Russia's $66b defense budget and NATO's $1t defense budget, the West is running out of weapons and equipment to transfer to Ukraine?

---

Firstly it's the definition of "running out." Nato is running out of inventory to transfer, not running out of production capacity. Beyond inventory levels there is the question of mobiliziation of existing capacity. Production in Europe largely has not been ramped up to meet Ukrainian needs, while in USA it has been substantially increased. I understand conventional artillery round production in the US, for example, has ramped up to current max capacity. And that is all within context of peace-time capabilities. We have not mobilized our industries for war-time production.

Russia has. And is under severe sanctions that effectively cut off its ability to produce it's most technologically advanced systems. So it's pretty much limited to the supply chain it has right now, and fighting with Vietnam War era technology. It is almost impossible to innovate while fighting a war. The Axis started WWII with superior aircraft, and Germany even developed the jet fighter before war-end. But the supply chain demands of training pilots and building existing airframes to stave off an invader......made impossible to deploy that superior technology in battle at scale. It would have required industrial capacity Germany did not and could not employ. The only way they could have done it was to have secured a 1 year truce and use the breathing room to rearm and redeploy. (that story is a direct analog for this war; no truce to allow Russia to rearm, resupply, reform practices.....make them struggle to keep up with what they have.....while we keep upping the ante with new systems for Ukraine....the longer it goes, the worse that equation pressures Russia).

So Russia is facing an even worse and more daunting proposition than it did when Reagan ramped up military spending. Our economy has enjoyed continued growth, built upon a broadening foundation of population growth. Russia, on the other hand, has less than half the population it did during the Cold War, and considerably lower manufacturing and resource levels to draw upon PLUS a population already old and in decline. The demo of young men of "military age" in Russia is approaching half the number it was 40 years ago. Russia cannot afford to let this war drag on indefinitely. It needs to force a quick end. And it cannot. It is not built to do that, and it can neither ramp up nor modernize the way it needs to do that.

For Nato? It's merely a question of how much we're willing to spend to make Russia squirm. We have the resources to bury them, if we want to. Sure, everyone is shocked at the rate at which munitions are being expanded. Current production capacity is inadequate to keep up with it. Which means we'd have to mobilize over to war-time footing. That still would probably not allow us to fire all the rounds we could aim at everything we'd need to shoot at, but it'd be 100x what Russia could manage, so it would be enough.

Most war critics focus too much on Russia's POTENTIAL and not enough on their ability. Yes, they have enormous advantages in manpower and resources. But their ability to deliver what they have at their disposal is pitifully inadequate, as we see on display in Ukraine. A nation they should have been able to roll over in a few days is likely going to win the war on favorable terms. But they can't, because they are still trying to fight with a logistics system that is in some respects essentially 19th century technology.

---

No one has questioned the economic and production power of the USA-EU

Combined population is 778 million and nominal GDP of the USA is 23 trillion and the EU is 17 trillion.

The issue is that Ukraine is running out of men and does not have the manpower to push Russia out of Donbas...much less Crimea.

---

They don't have to push Russia out of Crimea. They take Melitopol down to Sea of Azov and blow the Kerch Bridge and Russia can't supply it's military in Crimea. Ukraine shuts the water supply off up river and starves the army out. Russian military in Crimea is forced to surrender.

---

Wonder what odds Las Vegas would give on such a fantasy ?

---

Probably decent since they almost pulled off taking out the bridge last year.

---

800 - 1 at best .

---

I would take out a HELOC on my house if they'd give me those odds.

---

Better ask your wife first .

No chance in the world Ukraine kicks Russia out of the Crimea .

Putin would sacrifice every Russian soldier if necessary .

---

" Our ruling class isn't taking care of our people. They aren't taking care of our borders, our schools are god awful, our infrastructure is ghetto...but we can drop trillions on war?"

So true

Waco1947 said:

---

" Our ruling class isn't taking care of our people. They aren't taking care of our borders, our schools are god awful, our infrastructure is ghetto...but we can drop trillions on war?"

So true

---

Yeah, but we've dropped a lot of trillions on the ghettos, too, so they're not the only everlasting thing……

whiterock said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

" Our ruling class isn't taking care of our people. They aren't taking care of our borders, our schools are god awful, our infrastructure is ghetto...but we can drop trillions on war?"

So true

---

Yeah, but we've dropped a lot of trillions on the ghettos, too, so they're not the only everlasting thing……

---

True but it's the responsibility of a government to take care of its citizens. That trillions have been dropped ghettos means we have more to do. Part of the problem is an economy of scale as population is burgeoning.
Population Change
State or Region 2020 Census 2000 Census
United States
Resident Population 331,449,281 281,421,906
Percent Change 7.4% 13.2%

Waco1947 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

" Our ruling class isn't taking care of our people. They aren't taking care of our borders, our schools are god awful, our infrastructure is ghetto...but we can drop trillions on war?"

So true

---

Yeah, but we've dropped a lot of trillions on the ghettos, too, so they're not the only everlasting thing……

---

True but it's the responsibility of a government to take care of its citizens. That trillions have been dropped ghettos means we have more to do. Part of the problem is an economy of scale as population is burgeoning.
Population Change
State or Region 2020 Census 2000 Census
United States
Resident Population 331,449,281 281,421,906
Percent Change 7.4% 13.2%

---

Speaking of spewing meaningless stats....

Waco1947 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

" Our ruling class isn't taking care of our people. They aren't taking care of our borders, our schools are god awful, our infrastructure is ghetto...but we can drop trillions on war?"

So true

---

Yeah, but we've dropped a lot of trillions on the ghettos, too, so they're not the only everlasting thing……

---

True but it's the responsibility of a government to take care of its citizens. That trillions have been dropped ghettos means we have more to do. Part of the problem is an economy of scale as population is burgeoning.
Population Change
State or Region 2020 Census 2000 Census
United States
Resident Population 331,449,281 281,421,906
Percent Change 7.4% 13.2%

---

1. America would not have such a radical increase in its population except for mass immigration. Are you in favor of cutting legal immigration rates in half and ending illegal immigration altogether? Or in other words take care of the Americans we have here that are poor and in ghettos before taking care of foreigners?

2. It's the responsibility of the Federal government to protect its citizens from external enemies and internal crime & violence. And to not strip them of their Constitutional liberties and to respect the rights of the States who form the Union. One might make a strong argument that "taking care" of the citizenry from cradle to grave is NOT a function or a responsibility granted to the Federal government.

3. If we do agree that cradle to grave support is a function of the Federal government. How much should we spend? What is the exact number and percentage per citizen?

Sweden spends around 12 billion a year on welfare. "The social welfare expenditure in Sweden was just below 12 billion Swedish kronor in 2021". And it has a population of around 10.4 million people.

So that is around $2,000 a year on each citizen. Other reports say that in purchasing power parity its more like $10,920...is that enough for you? Is that the correct number that the USA should spend?

trey3216 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

" Our ruling class isn't taking care of our people. They aren't taking care of our borders, our schools are god awful, our infrastructure is ghetto...but we can drop trillions on war?"

So true

---

Yeah, but we've dropped a lot of trillions on the ghettos, too, so they're not the only everlasting thing……

---

True but it's the responsibility of a government to take care of its citizens. That trillions have been dropped ghettos means we have more to do. Part of the problem is an economy of scale as population is burgeoning.
Population Change
State or Region 2020 Census 2000 Census
United States
Resident Population 331,449,281 281,421,906
Percent Change 7.4% 13.2%

---

Speaking of spewing meaningless stats....

---

Well no, The USA has that 50,000,000 citizens to provide services, defense, security, regulations on banks, food, irs agents, education, etc It is an economy of scale that makes it more difficult to provide the general welfare

Waco1947 said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

" Our ruling class isn't taking care of our people. They aren't taking care of our borders, our schools are god awful, our infrastructure is ghetto...but we can drop trillions on war?"

So true

---

Yeah, but we've dropped a lot of trillions on the ghettos, too, so they're not the only everlasting thing……

---

True but it's the responsibility of a government to take care of its citizens. That trillions have been dropped ghettos means we have more to do. Part of the problem is an economy of scale as population is burgeoning.
Population Change
State or Region 2020 Census 2000 Census
United States
Resident Population 331,449,281 281,421,906
Percent Change 7.4% 13.2%

---

Speaking of spewing meaningless stats....

---

Well no, The USA has that 50,000,000 citizens to provide services, defense, security, regulations on banks, food, irs agents, education, etc It is an economy of scale that makes it more difficult to provide the general welfare

---

Again,

Do you support cutting the number of legal immigrants drastically and ending totally illegal immigration? That would cut our growth rate down to a manageable level of around +200,000 to +500,000 new citizens a year.

And how much should we spend. Sweden spends somewhere between $2,000 to $10,900 a year on each citizen, depending on what metric you are going by....is that the right number for the USA to spend?

Redbrickbear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

" Our ruling class isn't taking care of our people. They aren't taking care of our borders, our schools are god awful, our infrastructure is ghetto...but we can drop trillions on war?"

So true

---

Yeah, but we've dropped a lot of trillions on the ghettos, too, so they're not the only everlasting thing……

---

True but it's the responsibility of a government to take care of its citizens. That trillions have been dropped ghettos means we have more to do. Part of the problem is an economy of scale as population is burgeoning.
Population Change
State or Region 2020 Census 2000 Census
United States
Resident Population 331,449,281 281,421,906
Percent Change 7.4% 13.2%

---

1. America would not have such a radical increase in its population except for mass immigration. Are you in favor of cutting legal immigration rates in half and ending illegal immigration altogether? Or in other words take care of the Americans we have here that are poor and in ghettos before taking care of foreigners? It is not either/or. By educating, providing public transportation, health services etc we integrate in to a society an educated, healthy, mobile populations into our general populations. It is short sighted to think otherwise.

2. It's the responsibility of the Federal government to protect its citizens from external enemies and internal crime & violence. And to not strip them of their Constitutional liberties and to respect the rights of the States who form the Union. What constitutional liberties have been stripped from personally:

One might make a strong argument that "taking care" of the citizenry from cradle to grave is NOT a function or a responsibility granted to the Federal government. "care for Cradle to grave" is your straw man. No progressive ever said that. Silly argument. You are not silly personally but your argument is.

3. If we do agree that cradle to grave support is a function of the Federal government. How much should we spend? What is the exact number and percentage per citizen? No, I do not agree.

Sweden spends around 12 billion a year on welfare. "The social welfare expenditure in Sweden was just below 12 billion Swedish kronor in 2021". And it has a population of around 10.4 million people.

So that is around $2,000 a year on each citizen. Other reports say that in purchasing power parity its more like $10,920...is that enough for you? Is that the correct number that the USA should spend?
The comparisons are not equal. Try again.

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

" Our ruling class isn't taking care of our people. They aren't taking care of our borders, our schools are god awful, our infrastructure is ghetto...but we can drop trillions on war?"

So true

---

Yeah, but we've dropped a lot of trillions on the ghettos, too, so they're not the only everlasting thing……

---

True but it's the responsibility of a government to take care of its citizens. That trillions have been dropped ghettos means we have more to do. Part of the problem is an economy of scale as population is burgeoning.
Population Change
State or Region 2020 Census 2000 Census
United States
Resident Population 331,449,281 281,421,906
Percent Change 7.4% 13.2%

---

Sweden spends around 12 billion a year on welfare. "The social welfare expenditure in Sweden was just below 12 billion Swedish kronor in 2021". And it has a population of around 10.4 million people.

So that is around $2,000 a year on each citizen. Other reports say that in purchasing power parity its more like $10,920...is that enough for you? Is that the correct number that the USA should spend?
The comparisons are not equal. Try again.

---

---

I am struggling to understand your reason on that.

Sweden is a 1st world nation that has a welfare system. One that most progressives say is one that the USA should copy.

The USA is also a 1st world nation that has a welfare system. Though one that is not as encompassing as what Sweden has.

The only difference is size (330 million vs 10.4 million)

If Sweden has a successful system spending $2,000-$10,900 for each citizen... then why is that not a starting point to discuss how much you think the USA should be spending?

Redbrickbear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

" Our ruling class isn't taking care of our people. They aren't taking care of our borders, our schools are god awful, our infrastructure is ghetto...but we can drop trillions on war?"

So true

---

Yeah, but we've dropped a lot of trillions on the ghettos, too, so they're not the only everlasting thing……

---

True but it's the responsibility of a government to take care of its citizens. That trillions have been dropped ghettos means we have more to do. Part of the problem is an economy of scale as population is burgeoning.
Population Change
State or Region 2020 Census 2000 Census
United States
Resident Population 331,449,281 281,421,906
Percent Change 7.4% 13.2%

---

Sweden spends around 12 billion a year on welfare. "The social welfare expenditure in Sweden was just below 12 billion Swedish kronor in 2021". And it has a population of around 10.4 million people.

So that is around $2,000 a year on each citizen. Other reports say that in purchasing power parity its more like $10,920...is that enough for you? Is that the correct number that the USA should spend?
The comparisons are not equal. Try again.

---

---

I am struggling to understand your reason on that.

Sweden is a 1st world nation that has a welfare system. One that most progressives say is one that the USA should copy.

The USA is also a 1st world nation that has a welfare system. Though one that is not as encompassing as what Sweden has.

The only difference is size (330 million vs 10.4 million)

If Sweden has a successful system spending $2,000-$10,900 for each citizen... then why is that not a starting point to discuss how much you think the USA should be spending?

---

He's probably on the sauce right now and is throwing out incoherent statistics and ideas that don't support or extol any agenda, let alone his.

Redbrickbear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

" Our ruling class isn't taking care of our people. They aren't taking care of our borders, our schools are god awful, our infrastructure is ghetto...but we can drop trillions on war?"

So true

---

Yeah, but we've dropped a lot of trillions on the ghettos, too, so they're not the only everlasting thing……

---

True but it's the responsibility of a government to take care of its citizens. That trillions have been dropped ghettos means we have more to do. Part of the problem is an economy of scale as population is burgeoning.
Population Change
State or Region 2020 Census 2000 Census
United States
Resident Population 331,449,281 281,421,906
Percent Change 7.4% 13.2%

---

1. America would not have such a radical increase in its population except for mass immigration. Are you in favor of cutting legal immigration rates in half and ending illegal immigration altogether? Or in other words take care of the Americans we have here that are poor and in ghettos before taking care of foreigners?

2. It's the responsibility of the Federal government to protect its citizens from external enemies and internal crime & violence. And to not strip them of their Constitutional liberties and to respect the rights of the States who form the Union. One might make a strong argument that "taking care" of the citizenry from cradle to grave is NOT a function or a responsibility granted to the Federal government.

3. If we do agree that cradle to grave support is a function of the Federal government. How much should we spend? What is the exact number and percentage per citizen?

Sweden spends around 12 billion a year on welfare. "The social welfare expenditure in Sweden was just below 12 billion Swedish kronor in 2021". And it has a population of around 10.4 million people.

So that is around $2,000 a year on each citizen. Other reports say that in purchasing power parity its more like $10,920...is that enough for you? Is that the correct number that the USA should spend?

---

The Sweden information is very good. That is telling, It is not far off Social Security. US is not that bad in terms of providing a safety net for old age.

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

" Our ruling class isn't taking care of our people. They aren't taking care of our borders, our schools are god awful, our infrastructure is ghetto...but we can drop trillions on war?"

So true

---

Yeah, but we've dropped a lot of trillions on the ghettos, too, so they're not the only everlasting thing……

---

True but it's the responsibility of a government to take care of its citizens. That trillions have been dropped ghettos means we have more to do. Part of the problem is an economy of scale as population is burgeoning.
Population Change
State or Region 2020 Census 2000 Census
United States
Resident Population 331,449,281 281,421,906
Percent Change 7.4% 13.2%

---

1. America would not have such a radical increase in its population except for mass immigration. Are you in favor of cutting legal immigration rates in half and ending illegal immigration altogether? Or in other words take care of the Americans we have here that are poor and in ghettos before taking care of foreigners?

2. It's the responsibility of the Federal government to protect its citizens from external enemies and internal crime & violence. And to not strip them of their Constitutional liberties and to respect the rights of the States who form the Union. One might make a strong argument that "taking care" of the citizenry from cradle to grave is NOT a function or a responsibility granted to the Federal government.

3. If we do agree that cradle to grave support is a function of the Federal government. How much should we spend? What is the exact number and percentage per citizen?

Sweden spends around 12 billion a year on welfare. "The social welfare expenditure in Sweden was just below 12 billion Swedish kronor in 2021". And it has a population of around 10.4 million people.

So that is around $2,000 a year on each citizen. Other reports say that in purchasing power parity its more like $10,920...is that enough for you? Is that the correct number that the USA should spend?

---

The Sweden information is very good. That is telling, It is not far off Social Security. US is not that bad in terms of providing a safety net for old age.

---

I suspect many progressives never want to get deep into the actual numbers because they would simply confirm that the USA spends per capita on its citizens about what most 1st world Western European and East Asian nations spend on welfare.

Our spending just being directed through various Federal, State, and county programs.

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

" Our ruling class isn't taking care of our people. They aren't taking care of our borders, our schools are god awful, our infrastructure is ghetto...but we can drop trillions on war?"

So true

---

Yeah, but we've dropped a lot of trillions on the ghettos, too, so they're not the only everlasting thing……

---

True but it's the responsibility of a government to take care of its citizens. That trillions have been dropped ghettos means we have more to do. Part of the problem is an economy of scale as population is burgeoning.
Population Change
State or Region 2020 Census 2000 Census
United States
Resident Population 331,449,281 281,421,906
Percent Change 7.4% 13.2%

---

1. America would not have such a radical increase in its population except for mass immigration. Are you in favor of cutting legal immigration rates in half and ending illegal immigration altogether? Or in other words take care of the Americans we have here that are poor and in ghettos before taking care of foreigners?

2. It's the responsibility of the Federal government to protect its citizens from external enemies and internal crime & violence. And to not strip them of their Constitutional liberties and to respect the rights of the States who form the Union. One might make a strong argument that "taking care" of the citizenry from cradle to grave is NOT a function or a responsibility granted to the Federal government.

3. If we do agree that cradle to grave support is a function of the Federal government. How much should we spend? What is the exact number and percentage per citizen?

Sweden spends around 12 billion a year on welfare. "The social welfare expenditure in Sweden was just below 12 billion Swedish kronor in 2021". And it has a population of around 10.4 million people.

So that is around $2,000 a year on each citizen. Other reports say that in purchasing power parity its more like $10,920...is that enough for you? Is that the correct number that the USA should spend?

---

The Sweden information is very good. That is telling, It is not far off Social Security. US is not that bad in terms of providing a safety net for old age.

---

I suspect many progressives never want to get deep into the actual numbers because they would simply confirm that the USA spends per capita on its citizens about what most 1st world Western European and East Asian nations spend on welfare.

Our spending just being directed through various Federal, State, and county programs.

---

I found what this is all about….

“The extinction of all forms of life in North America is inevitable” because Yellowstone will blow up, and that’s why US wants to occupy Russia, says Putin’s national-security advisor. Impressive how Patrushev’s language is full of Stalin-era phraseology. https://t.co/qcqBj7D9g2

— Yaroslav Trofimov (@yarotrof) May 3, 2023

China's exports to Belarus - which has a long border with Russia - are up sharply since Russia invaded Ukraine. If this were about booming import demand in Belarus, you'd expect to see exports from other countries to Belarus going up sharply too. That is clearly not the case... pic.twitter.com/jyn6EpMI6w

— Robin Brooks (@RobinBrooksIIF) May 4, 2023

Redbrickbear said:

---

China's exports to Belarus - which has a long border with Russia - are up sharply since Russia invaded Ukraine. If this were about booming import demand in Belarus, you'd expect to see exports from other countries to Belarus going up sharply too. That is clearly not the case... pic.twitter.com/jyn6EpMI6w

— Robin Brooks (@RobinBrooksIIF) May 4, 2023

---

Well, Russia doesn't exactly have as much stuff to export to them these days...

Redbrickbear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

" Our ruling class isn't taking care of our people. They aren't taking care of our borders, our schools are god awful, our infrastructure is ghetto...but we can drop trillions on war?"

So true

---

Yeah, but we've dropped a lot of trillions on the ghettos, too, so they're not the only everlasting thing……

---

True but it's the responsibility of a government to take care of its citizens. That trillions have been dropped ghettos means we have more to do. Part of the problem is an economy of scale as population is burgeoning.
Population Change
State or Region 2020 Census 2000 Census
United States
Resident Population 331,449,281 281,421,906
Percent Change 7.4% 13.2%

---

Sweden spends around 12 billion a year on welfare. "The social welfare expenditure in Sweden was just below 12 billion Swedish kronor in 2021". And it has a population of around 10.4 million people.

So that is around $2,000 a year on each citizen. Other reports say that in purchasing power parity its more like $10,920...is that enough for you? Is that the correct number that the USA should spend?
The comparisons are not equal. Try again.

---

---

I am struggling to understand your reason on that.

Sweden is a 1st world nation that has a welfare system. One that most progressives say is one that the USA should copy.

The USA is also a 1st world nation that has a welfare system. Though one that is not as encompassing as what Sweden has.

The only difference is size (330 million vs 10.4 million)

If Sweden has a successful system spending $2,000-$10,900 for each citizen... then why is that not a starting point to discuss how much you think the USA should be spending?

---

Evonomy of scale and an educated electorate

Waco1947 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

" Our ruling class isn't taking care of our people. They aren't taking care of our borders, our schools are god awful, our infrastructure is ghetto...but we can drop trillions on war?"

So true

---

Yeah, but we've dropped a lot of trillions on the ghettos, too, so they're not the only everlasting thing……

---

True but it's the responsibility of a government to take care of its citizens. That trillions have been dropped ghettos means we have more to do. Part of the problem is an economy of scale as population is burgeoning.
Population Change
State or Region 2020 Census 2000 Census
United States
Resident Population 331,449,281 281,421,906
Percent Change 7.4% 13.2%

---

Sweden spends around 12 billion a year on welfare. "The social welfare expenditure in Sweden was just below 12 billion Swedish kronor in 2021". And it has a population of around 10.4 million people.

So that is around $2,000 a year on each citizen. Other reports say that in purchasing power parity its more like $10,920...is that enough for you? Is that the correct number that the USA should spend?
The comparisons are not equal. Try again.

---

---

I am struggling to understand your reason on that.

Sweden is a 1st world nation that has a welfare system. One that most progressives say is one that the USA should copy.

The USA is also a 1st world nation that has a welfare system. Though one that is not as encompassing as what Sweden has.

The only difference is size (330 million vs 10.4 million)

If Sweden has a successful system spending $2,000-$10,900 for each citizen... then why is that not a starting point to discuss how much you think the USA should be spending?

---

Evonomy of scale and an educated electorate

---

What is wrong with SS? You pay into the system and you get out of it when you retire. Key point is you pay into the system, it is not an expected gift.

Wagner Group founder gets off script: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65493008

link to video

Boss of PMC Wagner shows a video of Wagner losses on 4 of May and openly yells on Gerasimov and Shoigu and put blame on them!

This is ridiculous, Russia and Wagner have same enemy and should cooperate. I dont understand why is so hard for Russia to send shells to Wagner! pic.twitter.com/UwicpqvgSE

— TweetsFromMe (@GovWard78) May 5, 2023

RMF5630 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

" Our ruling class isn't taking care of our people. They aren't taking care of our borders, our schools are god awful, our infrastructure is ghetto...but we can drop trillions on war?"

So true

---

Yeah, but we've dropped a lot of trillions on the ghettos, too, so they're not the only everlasting thing……

---

True but it's the responsibility of a government to take care of its citizens. That trillions have been dropped ghettos means we have more to do. Part of the problem is an economy of scale as population is burgeoning.
Population Change
State or Region 2020 Census 2000 Census
United States
Resident Population 331,449,281 281,421,906
Percent Change 7.4% 13.2%

---

Sweden spends around 12 billion a year on welfare. "The social welfare expenditure in Sweden was just below 12 billion Swedish kronor in 2021". And it has a population of around 10.4 million people.

So that is around $2,000 a year on each citizen. Other reports say that in purchasing power parity its more like $10,920...is that enough for you? Is that the correct number that the USA should spend?
The comparisons are not equal. Try again.

---

---

I am struggling to understand your reason on that.

Sweden is a 1st world nation that has a welfare system. One that most progressives say is one that the USA should copy.

The USA is also a 1st world nation that has a welfare system. Though one that is not as encompassing as what Sweden has.

The only difference is size (330 million vs 10.4 million)

If Sweden has a successful system spending $2,000-$10,900 for each citizen... then why is that not a starting point to discuss how much you think the USA should be spending?

---

Evonomy of scale and an educated electorate

---

What is wrong with SS? You pay into the system and you get out of it when you retire. Key point is you pay into the system, it is not an expected gift.

---

It is the Social Security Service, not a pension or transactional expectation. It is a trust; a trust between the elderly and its citizens.. My grandmother was widowed in 1938. Social security gave dignity. My mother and dad paid for her social security benefits. Likewise I paid my mom's and dad''s benefits. It is an expected gift because it is a social contract between our nation and our elderly.

Waco1947 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

" Our ruling class isn't taking care of our people. They aren't taking care of our borders, our schools are god awful, our infrastructure is ghetto...but we can drop trillions on war?"

So true

---

Yeah, but we've dropped a lot of trillions on the ghettos, too, so they're not the only everlasting thing……

---

True but it's the responsibility of a government to take care of its citizens. That trillions have been dropped ghettos means we have more to do. Part of the problem is an economy of scale as population is burgeoning.
Population Change
State or Region 2020 Census 2000 Census
United States
Resident Population 331,449,281 281,421,906
Percent Change 7.4% 13.2%

---

Sweden spends around 12 billion a year on welfare. "The social welfare expenditure in Sweden was just below 12 billion Swedish kronor in 2021". And it has a population of around 10.4 million people.

So that is around $2,000 a year on each citizen. Other reports say that in purchasing power parity its more like $10,920...is that enough for you? Is that the correct number that the USA should spend?
The comparisons are not equal. Try again.

---

---

I am struggling to understand your reason on that.

Sweden is a 1st world nation that has a welfare system. One that most progressives say is one that the USA should copy.

The USA is also a 1st world nation that has a welfare system. Though one that is not as encompassing as what Sweden has.

The only difference is size (330 million vs 10.4 million)

If Sweden has a successful system spending $2,000-$10,900 for each citizen... then why is that not a starting point to discuss how much you think the USA should be spending?

---

Evonomy of scale and an educated electorate

---

What is wrong with SS? You pay into the system and you get out of it when you retire. Key point is you pay into the system, it is not an expected gift.

---

It is the Social Security Service, not a pension or transactional expectation. It is a trust; a trust between the elderly and its citizens.. My grandmother was widowed in 1938. Social security gave dignity. My mother and dad paid for her social security benefits. Likewise I paid my mom's and dad''s benefits. It is an expected gift because it is a social contract between our nation and our elderly.

---

My wife receives less than a third of my social security check for the simple reason she paid less into it than I did .

If SS was a 'gift' our checks would be of equal amounts .

KaiBear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

" Our ruling class isn't taking care of our people. They aren't taking care of our borders, our schools are god awful, our infrastructure is ghetto...but we can drop trillions on war?"

So true

---

Yeah, but we've dropped a lot of trillions on the ghettos, too, so they're not the only everlasting thing……

---

True but it's the responsibility of a government to take care of its citizens. That trillions have been dropped ghettos means we have more to do. Part of the problem is an economy of scale as population is burgeoning.
Population Change
State or Region 2020 Census 2000 Census
United States
Resident Population 331,449,281 281,421,906
Percent Change 7.4% 13.2%

---

Sweden spends around 12 billion a year on welfare. "The social welfare expenditure in Sweden was just below 12 billion Swedish kronor in 2021". And it has a population of around 10.4 million people.

So that is around $2,000 a year on each citizen. Other reports say that in purchasing power parity its more like $10,920...is that enough for you? Is that the correct number that the USA should spend?
The comparisons are not equal. Try again.

---

---

I am struggling to understand your reason on that.

Sweden is a 1st world nation that has a welfare system. One that most progressives say is one that the USA should copy.

The USA is also a 1st world nation that has a welfare system. Though one that is not as encompassing as what Sweden has.

The only difference is size (330 million vs 10.4 million)

If Sweden has a successful system spending $2,000-$10,900 for each citizen... then why is that not a starting point to discuss how much you think the USA should be spending?

---

Evonomy of scale and an educated electorate

---

What is wrong with SS? You pay into the system and you get out of it when you retire. Key point is you pay into the system, it is not an expected gift.

---

It is the Social Security Service, not a pension or transactional expectation. It is a trust; a trust between the elderly and its citizens.. My grandmother was widowed in 1938. Social security gave dignity. My mother and dad paid for her social security benefits. Likewise I paid my mom's and dad''s benefits. It is an expected gift because it is a social contract between our nation and our elderly.

---

My wife receives less than a third of my social security check for the simple reason she paid less into it than I did .

If SS was a 'gift' our checks would be of equal amounts .

---

I never said benefits were a gift.

Remember all the partying in Europe during WW2? Yeah me neither.

Meanwhile in Kiev nightclubs… Please donate more money! pic.twitter.com/5USUprPw5O

— RadioGenova (@RadioGenova) May 3, 2023

cowboycwr said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Remember all the partying in Europe during WW2? Yeah me neither.

Meanwhile in Kiev nightclubs… Please donate more money! pic.twitter.com/5USUprPw5O

— RadioGenova (@RadioGenova) May 3, 2023

---

Then you should read some more about cities in WW2.

Plenty of them still had their nightclubs, bars, etc. open at times throughout the war. They would close at times, like in London during the Blitz or Paris as the Allies advanced but then would reopen again.

Paris had all their theaters, music halls, and nightclubs open during most of the German occupation.

Now granted a nightclub scene from WW2 would look a lot different than one from today....

---

Yep. I've got pictures of my Grandfather drinking beers in Naples while on R&R after it was freed and war was still waging just north of there. Same thing not long after in Paris and war was still raging in Eastern France.

cowboycwr said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Remember all the partying in Europe during WW2? Yeah me neither.

Meanwhile in Kiev nightclubs… Please donate more money! pic.twitter.com/5USUprPw5O

— RadioGenova (@RadioGenova) May 3, 2023

---

Then you should read some more about cities in WW2.

Plenty of them still had their nightclubs, bars, etc. open at times throughout the war. They would close at times, like in London during the Blitz or Paris as the Allies advanced but then would reopen again.

Paris had all their theaters, music halls, and nightclubs open during most of the German occupation.

Now granted a nightclub scene from WW2 would look a lot different than one from today....

---

1. The UK was not invaded during WW2 so of course bars and clubs stayed open there. And I am sure they also did in places like Paris when under occupation by the German army...no active fighting there between June 1940 - June of 1944

2. But I am not aware of clubs and bars staying open when the country was in an active war situation. Were bars and clubs open on the Eastern front in Poland or Belarus as Nazi and Soviet armies wage war across the landscape killed people in the millions?

We have been sold that this war is an existential crisis for Ukraine (and the whole of the Western World)...Ukraine will not even let its military age men escape the country...its throwing all of them into the army. And yet then we find out that the club scene in Kyiv is still popping off?

Hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian men are dying in Donbas and then we find out the women are back in Kyiv parting?

Bad optics at the very least.

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Remember all the partying in Europe during WW2? Yeah me neither.

Meanwhile in Kiev nightclubs… Please donate more money! pic.twitter.com/5USUprPw5O

— RadioGenova (@RadioGenova) May 3, 2023

---

Then you should read some more about cities in WW2.

Plenty of them still had their nightclubs, bars, etc. open at times throughout the war. They would close at times, like in London during the Blitz or Paris as the Allies advanced but then would reopen again.

Paris had all their theaters, music halls, and nightclubs open during most of the German occupation.

Now granted a nightclub scene from WW2 would look a lot different than one from today....

---

1. The UK was not invaded during WW2 so of course bars and clubs stayed open there. And I am sure they also did in places like Paris when under occupation by the German army...no active fighting there between June 1940 - June of 1944

2. But I am not aware of clubs and bars staying open when the country was in an active war situation. Where bars and clubs open on the Eastern front in Poland or Belarus as Nazi and Soviet armies wage war across the landscape killed people in the millions?

We have been sold that this war is an existential crisis for Ukraine (and the whole of the Western World)...Ukraine will not even let its military age men escape the country...its throwing all of them into the army. And yet then we find out that the club scene in Kyiv is still popping off?

Hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian men are dying in Donbas and then we find out the women are back in Kyiv parting?

Bad optics at the very least.

---

They didn't quit having proms in high school or dances in colleges during WWII. You strive to retain such normalcy as one can, particularly the last pieces of youth before it marches off to be scarred or worse by war.

Poles making a statement.

In Poland, the Monument of Gratitude to the Red Army, erected on the burial site of 500 dead Soviet soldiers, was destroyed live pic.twitter.com/0M7jC7lGQ9

— Spriter (@Spriter99880) May 5, 2023

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Remember all the partying in Europe during WW2? Yeah me neither.

Meanwhile in Kiev nightclubs… Please donate more money! pic.twitter.com/5USUprPw5O

— RadioGenova (@RadioGenova) May 3, 2023

---

Then you should read some more about cities in WW2.

Plenty of them still had their nightclubs, bars, etc. open at times throughout the war. They would close at times, like in London during the Blitz or Paris as the Allies advanced but then would reopen again.

Paris had all their theaters, music halls, and nightclubs open during most of the German occupation.

Now granted a nightclub scene from WW2 would look a lot different than one from today....

---

1. The UK was not invaded during WW2 so of course bars and clubs stayed open there. And I am sure they also did in places like Paris when under occupation by the German army...no active fighting there between June 1940 - June of 1944

2. But I am not aware of clubs and bars staying open when the country was in an active war situation. Where bars and clubs open on the Eastern front in Poland or Belarus as Nazi and Soviet armies wage war across the landscape killed people in the millions?

We have been sold that this war is an existential crisis for Ukraine (and the whole of the Western World)...Ukraine will not even let its military age men escape the country...its throwing all of them into the army. And yet then we find out that the club scene in Kyiv is still popping off?

Hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian men are dying in Donbas and then we find out the women are back in Kyiv parting?

Bad optics at the very least.

---

They didn't quit having proms in high school or dances in colleges during WWII. You strive to retain such normalcy as one can, particularly the last pieces of youth before it marches off to be scarred or worse by war.

---

Where....the USA home front? In Britain? Occupied Norway? Sure of course

You are telling me they were having proms and school dances in Belarus and Ukraine in 1943 in the middle of the war on the Eastern Front? B.S.

Again, the Western corporate-government-media complex keeps telling us this is a existential war. The most serious "threat to the Western World since WWII"...a conflict our leaders are spending billions on and risking a nuclear war breaking out over...and yet then we find out that outside of Donbas the women of Ukraine are hitting the clubs?

Bad bad optics

Waco1947 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

" Our ruling class isn't taking care of our people. They aren't taking care of our borders, our schools are god awful, our infrastructure is ghetto...but we can drop trillions on war?"

So true

---

Yeah, but we've dropped a lot of trillions on the ghettos, too, so they're not the only everlasting thing……

---

True but it's the responsibility of a government to take care of its citizens. That trillions have been dropped ghettos means we have more to do. Part of the problem is an economy of scale as population is burgeoning.
Population Change
State or Region 2020 Census 2000 Census
United States
Resident Population 331,449,281 281,421,906
Percent Change 7.4% 13.2%

---

Sweden spends around 12 billion a year on welfare. "The social welfare expenditure in Sweden was just below 12 billion Swedish kronor in 2021". And it has a population of around 10.4 million people.

So that is around $2,000 a year on each citizen. Other reports say that in purchasing power parity its more like $10,920...is that enough for you? Is that the correct number that the USA should spend?
The comparisons are not equal. Try again.

---

---

I am struggling to understand your reason on that.

Sweden is a 1st world nation that has a welfare system. One that most progressives say is one that the USA should copy.

The USA is also a 1st world nation that has a welfare system. Though one that is not as encompassing as what Sweden has.

The only difference is size (330 million vs 10.4 million)

If Sweden has a successful system spending $2,000-$10,900 for each citizen... then why is that not a starting point to discuss how much you think the USA should be spending?

---

Evonomy of scale and an educated electorate

---

What is wrong with SS? You pay into the system and you get out of it when you retire. Key point is you pay into the system, it is not an expected gift.

---

It is the Social Security Service, not a pension or transactional expectation. It is a trust; a trust between the elderly and its citizens.. My grandmother was widowed in 1938. Social security gave dignity. My mother and dad paid for her social security benefits. Likewise I paid my mom's and dad''s benefits. It is an expected gift because it is a social contract between our nation and our elderly.

---

There is always a portion of the population that bad things happen and society takes care of them. The vast majority of SS is a system that was paid into over a lifetime. I have no problem with how SS is run and I recognize that some get more than they paid. For the most part, it is the disabled, widows, and children that are the beneficiary from that aspect. That is part of the social contract, no issues.

I am not a fan of able-bodied people receiving money for not working or adding to society, but expecting a check. That is my pain point.

RMF5630 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

" Our ruling class isn't taking care of our people. They aren't taking care of our borders, our schools are god awful, our infrastructure is ghetto...but we can drop trillions on war?"

So true

---

Yeah, but we've dropped a lot of trillions on the ghettos, too, so they're not the only everlasting thing……

---

True but it's the responsibility of a government to take care of its citizens. That trillions have been dropped ghettos means we have more to do. Part of the problem is an economy of scale as population is burgeoning.
Population Change
State or Region 2020 Census 2000 Census
United States
Resident Population 331,449,281 281,421,906
Percent Change 7.4% 13.2%

---

Sweden spends around 12 billion a year on welfare. "The social welfare expenditure in Sweden was just below 12 billion Swedish kronor in 2021". And it has a population of around 10.4 million people.

So that is around $2,000 a year on each citizen. Other reports say that in purchasing power parity its more like $10,920...is that enough for you? Is that the correct number that the USA should spend?
The comparisons are not equal. Try again.

---

---

I am struggling to understand your reason on that.

Sweden is a 1st world nation that has a welfare system. One that most progressives say is one that the USA should copy.

The USA is also a 1st world nation that has a welfare system. Though one that is not as encompassing as what Sweden has.

The only difference is size (330 million vs 10.4 million)

If Sweden has a successful system spending $2,000-$10,900 for each citizen... then why is that not a starting point to discuss how much you think the USA should be spending?

---

Evonomy of scale and an educated electorate

---

What is wrong with SS? You pay into the system and you get out of it when you retire. Key point is you pay into the system, it is not an expected gift.

---

It is the Social Security Service, not a pension or transactional expectation. It is a trust; a trust between the elderly and its citizens.. My grandmother was widowed in 1938. Social security gave dignity. My mother and dad paid for her social security benefits. Likewise I paid my mom's and dad''s benefits. It is an expected gift because it is a social contract between our nation and our elderly.

---

There is always a portion of the population that bad things happen and society takes care of them. The vast majority of SS is a system that was paid into over a lifetime. I have no problem with how SS is run and I recognize that some get more than they paid. For the most part, it is the disabled, widows, and children that are the beneficiary from that aspect. That is part of the social contract, no issues.

I am not a fan of able-bodied people receiving money for not working or adding to society, but expecting a check. That is my pain point.

---

Agree.

SS is a great program...the problem is that the Federal Government has stolen from social security.



[In case you haven't heard, America's top social program isn't on the best financial footing. According to the latest report from the Social Security Board of Trustees, Social Security is staring down a $13.9 trillion cash shortfall between 2035 and 2093, with the expectation that its $2.9 trillion in asset reserves will be completely exhausted in 15 years....The Government Has Borrowed $1.7 Trillion From The Social Security Trust Fund. The government has borrowed the total value of the Trust Fund to pay for other government spending.]

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Remember all the partying in Europe during WW2? Yeah me neither.

Meanwhile in Kiev nightclubs… Please donate more money! pic.twitter.com/5USUprPw5O

— RadioGenova (@RadioGenova) May 3, 2023

---

Then you should read some more about cities in WW2.

Plenty of them still had their nightclubs, bars, etc. open at times throughout the war. They would close at times, like in London during the Blitz or Paris as the Allies advanced but then would reopen again.

Paris had all their theaters, music halls, and nightclubs open during most of the German occupation.

Now granted a nightclub scene from WW2 would look a lot different than one from today....

---

1. The UK was not invaded during WW2 so of course bars and clubs stayed open there. And I am sure they also did in places like Paris when under occupation by the German army...no active fighting there between June 1940 - June of 1944

2. But I am not aware of clubs and bars staying open when the country was in an active war situation. Where bars and clubs open on the Eastern front in Poland or Belarus as Nazi and Soviet armies wage war across the landscape killed people in the millions?

We have been sold that this war is an existential crisis for Ukraine (and the whole of the Western World)...Ukraine will not even let its military age men escape the country...its throwing all of them into the army. And yet then we find out that the club scene in Kyiv is still popping off?

Hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian men are dying in Donbas and then we find out the women are back in Kyiv parting?

Bad optics at the very least.

---

They didn't quit having proms in high school or dances in colleges during WWII. You strive to retain such normalcy as one can, particularly the last pieces of youth before it marches off to be scarred or worse by war.

---

Where....the USA home front? In Britain? Occupied Norway? Sure of course

You are telling me they were having proms and school dances in Belarus and Ukraine in 1943 in the middle of the war on the Eastern Front? B.S.

Again, the Western corporate-government-media complex keeps telling us this is a existential war. The most serious "threat to the Western World since WWII"...a conflict our leaders are spending billions on and risking a nuclear war breaking out over...and yet then we find out that outside of Donbas the women of Ukraine are hitting the clubs?

Bad bad optics

---

Really? That is what the bad optics to you are? I can think of a hell of a lot worse optics than the population trying to feel a bit normal. Putin with his shirt off for one, on every occasion known to man. Must have a Vitamin D deficiency.