• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Think tank recommends big benefits cuts

Arbo said:
In general, do the people that support Obamacare, and even voice that it is 'not enough' or a 'good first step' want MORE government involvement or LESS?
Click to expand...

People support the ACA for a variety reasons. You are asking me to classify a variety of support into a single group.

Some like it because it doesn't discriminate anymore.
Some like it because it sets up free market insurance exchanges.
Some like it because their kids can still be covered.
Some like it because it pushes preventive care.
Some like it because it removes life time limits.
Some like it because it slows the theft of premiums by the uninsured

I can't answer your question because the reasons why people like the ACA are very, very varied.

But to say that the government can't reduce costs by getting involved ignores the capacity of the government to act as a single large buyer of drugs. While both Bush and Obama essentially failed to do that, state governments and foreign government do use their own weight to drive down drug prices. That saves money. No question about it.
 
apdst said:
Hell of a way to say, "Thank you!".
Click to expand...

It's what you highlight that defines the story.

. . .
In calling for less spending on military pay raises, the report basically endorses a plan proposed, but not yet executed, by the Defense Department. Under the Pentagon plan, pay raises beginning in 2015 would be capped at less than the average increase in private sector pay, a move that responds to a belief that military members are being paid more than civilians with comparable jobs and experience. This happened because Congress, over Pentagon objections, has regularly provided the military with raises that were slightly larger than the average private-sector raise to eliminate what had been perceived as a pay gap. The end result, says the report, is that the average service member is receiving $5,400 more in annual compensation than a comparable civilian.

The Defense Department plan calls for a 0.5 percent raise in 2015, a 1 percent raise in 2016 and a 1.5 percent raise in 2017 to bring pay levels back in line, which the CAP report endorses.

“To its credit, the Department of Defense has attempted to tackle this problem in its FY 2013 budget request, outlining a plan that would gradually bring military pay back in line with the Employment Cost Index without cutting any service member’s pay,” the report says. “Congress should demonstrate political courage and allow the Department of Defense to execute this long-term plan.”

Similarly, the report endorses many of the Defense Department’s proposals for cutting health care costs by raising fees, mostly on retirees and their families. But the report goes a step further: “To truly restore the Tricare program to stable financial footing, the Defense Department should enact measures to reduce the overutilization of medical services and limit double coverage of working-age military retirees,” the report says.

One idea would be to modify Tricare for Life benefits for Medicare-eligible retirees so that the program would not cover the first $500 of costs per year and would cover only 50 percent of the next $5,000.

. . .
Click to expand...

Not so bad now, huh?

You don't mind when the republicans talk of cutting back foodstamps on children, or getting rid of their Medcaid.
 
Liberal leaning Think Tank - lol

Are there any think tanks out there that actually recommend ordinary people be looked after in the USA?

Who funds "think tanks"?
 
obvious Child said:
People support the ACA for a variety reasons. You are asking me to classify a variety of support into a single group.
Click to expand...

Because with very limited exceptions, it is one single group.
 
apdst said:
Hell of a way to say, "Thank you!".
Click to expand...

I would like to know the financing source for The Center for American Progress. I never view these agencies as objective, but trying to promote their sponsor's agenda. This isn't the same group that ginned up the Iraq War, is it?
 
DaveFagan said:
I would like to know the financing source for The Center for American Progress. I never view these agencies as objective, but trying to promote their sponsor's agenda. This isn't the same group that ginned up the Iraq War, is it?
Click to expand...

Progressive globalist Soros is a major contributor.
 
Muddy Creek said:
It's what you highlight that defines the story.



Not so bad now, huh?

You don't mind when the republicans talk of cutting back foodstamps on children, or getting rid of their Medcaid.
Click to expand...

i'm on the fence over this particular issue... but I have to take exception to the idea that Soldiers are paid more than civilians doing comparable jobs.


there are no military jobs that are comparable to civilian jobs.
 
Muddy Creek said:
It's what you highlight that defines the story.



Not so bad now, huh?

You don't mind when the republicans talk of cutting back foodstamps on children, or getting rid of their Medcaid.
Click to expand...

No, not so bad unless you are one of the people affected.

I notice you try to steer your arguments to the Republicans trying to hurt children, does that mean you support ending food stamps and medicaid for adults? Or are you trying to create an emotional response to garner support for you view? If so, it is really disturbing that you hide behind children and want to use them for your own ends.

If you believe that everyone should receive the same from the government, regardless of their contributions to society, then your view might hold water. However, it is a socialist view point that does not equate value output to value input. The value someone gets back from society should be directly proportional to what the value they have provided to society. Exceptions can and should be made for the disabled who are unable to give. Military veterans, especially war and career veterans have given more to society than any other class or group of people in our society. To say they only deserve what is given to welfare recipients should unthinkable and demonstrates a rather selfish mindset.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. If the needs of 20% or less of our population places a bankrupting burden upon the other 80%, then it is better for all to stop that support. The society must survive, the individual does not have to for the society as a whole to survive.
 
NO CUTS to existing veterans and retirees....Cut the pentagon, bring all our troops home from NON combat stations, like Germany. Why do we still have troops in Germany other than to aid their economy ? We have troops around the world that should be brought home immediately. STOP the wars and ease out of afghanistan....stop trying to police the world....BUT LEAVE OUR VETS ALONE....
 
apdst said:
Hell of a way to say, "Thank you!".
Click to expand...

If anyone's pay and benefits should be cut it should be the clowns in office. The only benifit those in office should get is a paycheck and nothing else.If they want security then they should pay for it themselves,If they want health insurance then they should pay for it themselves. If they want to travel then they should pay for it themselves. They should get no raises.They should pay into social security like everyone else. There should be congressional and senate barracks that are exactly like the ones lower enlisted in the army live in and if they don't want to live in those barracks then they can pay for their own housing out of their own pocket and they shouldn't get extra money because they choose to live off the barracks.
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
The troops, who served and sacrificed for you and I, aren't the, "military industrial complex". They deserve to be given the bennies they were promised in return for their service.

The ultimate hazard here, is that cutting bennies and pay will hurt recruitment and neccesitate conscription, the next time we need to fill the ranks.

Cutting pay and bennies, now, would send a big knife in the backs of the people that sacrificed for YOU.
Click to expand...

I think you misconstrue what I was trying to say here. As a veteran, I believe everyone who signs on the dotted line in defense of their country and served honorably are certainly entitled to their military benefits. They deserve their health care either as active duty personnel, retirees or wounded warriors same as they deserve their retirement pay and education benefits. However, I don't think it's necessary for us as a country to keep spending millions, if not billions, on what has become "the business of defense contracting" just to develop the next super weapon. Of course, there are those who would say that had we not spent so much money on research and development of military hardware, we would never have retained our military edge in the world and, thus, continue to be a super power.

While I'm sure there are areas in our national defense where we can cut back, I wouldn't accept cut backs to military benefits to those who served honorably just to trim the budget.
 
Fisher said:
Take away the military and what do you suppose a lot of these poor minorities are going to be doing to support themselves? They sure as hell won't be thanking you for their welfare check and pulling the lever for you. The military provides a critical platform for upward mobility for poor people. They train doctors, nurses, instill leadership skills, etc. In terms of economics, it makes a billion times more sense to have the military as it is than college loans and grant programs to help people, especially when there are so few jobs that will pay you enough not to be buried under your student loan debt for 15-25 years.
Click to expand...

Yes, poor people can benefit from receiving skills, training and learning discipline from serving in the Armed Services, but the problem with this thinking is some people begin to think that the military is THE only place most young, poor people can go to acquire meaningful skills they need to get ahead in life. So very untrue! Unfortunately, this has been one of the myths that has lived on since 'Nam where college kids became less a part of the "all volunteer force" and young men of lesser economic means were targetted as likely military prespects, a step ahead of social degenerates and criminal miscrants. Think I'm wrong in this assessment? Read the book, "Your Government Failed You," by Richard A. Clarke or "Broken Government" by John W. Dean.

I believe that if people can see opportunities for upward mobility and firmly believe they can achieve good things for themselves, then they'd be more willing to take certain risks. But when they can't see such opportunities being afforded to them, they'll take the path of least resistance and for some the military is that pathway.

Now, don't get it twisted. There are people serving in our military today who I'm sure at one point never dreamed they'd make a career out of it. Then again, there are those who get out and put their newfound skills to good use earning a living. Some of those folks went from one form of government employment - active duty - to another - federal civil servant. Either way, they took advantage of the skills and experiences they learned from Uncle Sam and turned it into something good, i.e., 20 year career that led to retirement OR parlaying their training into civil service career, federal contractor, private sector employment (or business opportunities) or even politics! The point is, while I agree that poor people are likely targets for military recruitment, it's not the only pathway to personal achievement for poor folks nor should it be.
 
Last edited:
that's a grand idea, we'll cut-to-the-bone the benefits for ex-military.

these people risked everything for their country.
these people are trained in combat.
these people will rightly feel betrayed if this occurs.

while i don't support unwarranted violence, violence on behalf of these disenfranchised veterans would not be unwarranted.

talk about creating dissent, why dont we do away with their pensions all together, and just get the civil war over with now.
 
Objective Voice said:
However, I don't think it's necessary for us as a country to keep spending millions, if not billions, on what has become "the business of defense contracting" just to develop the next super weapon.
Click to expand...

The existance of that industry has helped create the finest military in the history of the world. It not only develops better ways to kill people it also develops better ways to keep wounded soldiers alive on the battlefield. Not to mention, that the more effectively we can kill the enemy, the better chance our soldiers have of not being killed themselves.

There's almost no way to cut the defense budget, without it having a negative impact on the troops.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom