who should pay

[LordBrownTrout]

What in the world?!

 

[PoliticalChic]

we could freeze and cut public sector benefits and cut elected official's salaries down to the average wage of all americans.

We could close bases in countries such as germany and japan and stop spending our resources to help defend them when they are capable of defending themselves.

We could stop giving so much foreign aid to nations until we pay back our debt.

there are more ways than one to acheive spending cuts so that we can pay back the money we have borrowed and spent already.

We are all going to have to suffer a little to deal with the problem we let our government create for the country.

More, Pilgrim, more!

If you want a real eyeful of potential cuts that would save billions, …

a. The GAO says the federal government made at least $98 billion in ‘improper’ payments in 2009. White House reports $98B in improper government payments - Nov. 18, 2009

b. Federal auditors rated every government program, and found that 22% of them, $123 billion in spending, were ineffective! 50 Examples of Government Waste | The Heritage Foundation

c. Did you know that the CBO reports a vast number of cuts that would save a fortune? http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/102xx/doc10294/08-06-BudgetOptions.pdf
Here are a few:
i. The CBO also considered the option of cutting the Airport Improvement Program that provides grants to airports to expand runways and improve security, saying this would reduce spending by $10.7 billion through 2019.

ii. End subsidized loans to graduate students Ten year savings $18.8 billon

iii. End Department of Energy research on fossil fuels. Ten year savings $7.9 billion.

And Federal agriculture subsidies are between $10 and $30 billion a year. This stems from the Depression, when farm families earned half of what the rest of the country earned. Today that is far from the case, and the subsidies primarily go to large operators and landowners- and celebrities. New light shed on farm subsidy payments - Politics - msnbc.com

All of these are still nibbling around the edges, until we reform entitlements, nothing substantive will happen.

When social security was created the average life expectancy in the US was 65. Not coincidentally, the retirement age was set at 65. So, if you worked your expected life, and you were still alive, well then you should take a break. Social security would still work if they had indexed the retirement age to the life expectancy. We need to get there. Start that mother moving right not and 4 months per year until it is equal to the average life expectancy in the US again and keep it there. Yep, those of us that aren't that far from 65 (20 years or so) will need to work a little longer than we thought. Well, that's hardly the biggest problem or inconvenience we've had to deal with is it?

If you don't like it you can still get your 401(k), IRA at 59 1/2 and retire when you want on your own dime.

Someone else can deal with socialized medicine (medicare and medicaid)

I like the cut of your jib, Tech.

The idea is excellent, but then reality rears its ugly head. First, we have to keep the promises we've made, i.e., entitlements, especially to folks who've retired, and, second, politicians are far from the bravest folks, and will hesitate to put their re-elections on the line...we can work on S.S., as you suggest, but we won't see wholesale changes.

My suggestions, in addition to yours are
1. Since 70% of our GDP is the production of red tape, we should cut it, and regulation, and taxes on business: change the landscape to encourage investment and initiative, and, as in the past, watch the prosperity pour in tax revenue.

Make sure that public sector jobs are the ones that pay well, not government jobs:

2. The average federal employee earned $81,258 per year in 2009. The average private-sector worker earned $50,462. When benefits are added, the private-industry worker gets $10,500, while the federal employee gets $42,000- or more! Federal workers earning double their private counterparts - USATODAY.com

a. The disparity has grown from 66% in 2000, to 101% in 2009. Federal Employees Continue to Prosper | Cato @ Liberty

b. When you compare job-to-job, which is difficult as job titles are hard to compare, total compensation for federal employees is 50% higher than private sector counterparts. Even considering skill, education, and seniority, it’s still a large disparity. USAToday, op.cit.

c. “An apples-to-apples comparison shows that the federal pay system gives many federal workers significantly more compensation than they would get in the private sector. The total premium costs taxpayers $40 billion (according to Richwine and Biggs) or $47 billion (Sherk) per year above market rates.” Federal Pay Still Inflated After Accounting for Skills | The Heritage Foundation

3. In addition to the lack of fairness, consider the effect on society if we incentivize government work as opposed to private work, and business creation…and the effect on innovation and productivity.

a. Traditionally, one could expect security from a government job, but lower pay. Now, since public employees have been allowed to unionize, we have public unions negotiating against the government, and using union funds to elect pro-union politicians.

 

[Cecilie1200]

What a bunch of vague, unsubstantiated, muddled BULLSHIT.

republicans want you to believe that all you need to do is cut taxes and fire people and get rid of programs and all will be well.

Simplistic and untrue. That isn't ALL that's needed, but it's a good fucking place to start.

But none of them want to do without what they want, protection of all kinds, from fire to police to food safety to the arm forces.

First of all, Troll Boy, that is a massive generalization, and based on nothing other than your own vague, hate-filled opinion of "what all Republicans think". Second of all, learn to differentiate between "cutting taxes" and "cutting out all taxation". No Republican has ever suggested that we should have no taxes whatsoever. The idea that calling for cuts in taxes and wasteful spending is somehow incompatible with the idea of core services is as childish as it is ludicrous. Third, learn to differentiate between federal, state, and local government. Calling for cuts to the bloated federal government has exactly two things to do with firemen and policemen: Jack and shit, and Jack just left town.

They want the kids taught at a high level, and they want the roads cleaned of snow and ice and potholes.
They want safe parks and lighted streets.

See above, fucknut.

they want you to lose your job or do it for less because they think your not worth the price.

Yeah, Republicans are all about people being unemployed. Jesus Christ, did the drug store lose your prescription for psych meds?

But when it comes to paying for everything they want you, the people who work for a daily wage to pick up more of the cost so they can lower their cost.

Yeah, cutting taxes and wasteful spending is all about getting others to pay MORE, as opposed to the Democrat plan of having the government take on even more responsibility. Because THAT doesn't involve the people who work for their money - and by the way, what is it you think Republicans do? - picking up more of the cost to lower someone ELSE'S expense.

What the fuck are you even basing this on, aside from your unreasoning, frothing hatred of Republicans?

They understand that 90% of the average persons income goes to living needs and little of anything is left to be taxed.
They think this is unfair because they make more than you do and have to pay more in taxes.

Maybe they just think it's unfair that people like you do shit with your lives and then sit around puling and whining because the government's not stealing enough from more successful people to give to you. And you know what? It IS unfair. You come in here and bitch about Republicans wanting someone else to pick up more of THEIR cost, but isn't that what YOU'RE advocating with your yelping about cutting government programs? Hypocrite much?

But the truth is people who make more use more, and have a built in advantage that goes to provide them with what is needed to make the govt work that allows them to be all they can and make all they can.

Oh, is that a fact? And now you're going to lose the vagaries and explain to us EXACTLY how rich people use more tax-funded government services than poor people do, right? And THEN you're going to explain what this "built-in advantage" is, other than your own built-in belief that everyone's somehow cheating if their lives aren't the shit sandwich yours is, right? Contemplate the possibility that if others are being all they can and making all they can, and you're a miserable failure, it could just be because they worked harder and made better decisions, rather than that they cheated. Or contemplate the possibility that your shitty life IS all you're capable of being.

The truth is everything that we have is for the benefit of business to be successful. From Police, to city workers to highway workers to teachers to schools to universities to military complex. A single person gets little good out of all that we provide except a chance at taking care of himself and maybe a family.

Well, gloryosky. We have a system that's intended to facilitate success, instead of facilitating being a whining, useless lump? Where the fuck do I go to vote and change THAT around?

Aside from the fact that you are getting exactly the same things from your police, city government, highway system, school district, university system, and military that everyone else is - including people who pay little to no taxes - exactly what else did you WANT besides a chance at taking care of yourself and your family? What more do you suppose society owes you?

A company makes money on every person it uses, and everything that person has to have is very important to those companies because without it they wouldn't be workers who are trained and functional.

And they pay for it. So what? By the way, everything that person has to have to do his job is ALSO important to that person, because instead of being trained and functional and having a job, he'd be you, pissing and moaning on an Internet message board about how rich people are oppressing him.

Now really where are we to get the money needed to run this country and keep everything working if we don't get it from what is best know as income above living needs. You really want to do without what we have now, or is just that you really haven't look at the bottom line, that being that the less that people who do the daily grind have to use/spend the less they will have for incentives to keep the system going, and the less people who will have jobs which is making the wealthy more wealthy every year as they cry all the way to the bank with all their gains.

Like I said before, shitbrain, learn to differentiate between cutting taxes and wasteful spending and cutting out ALL taxes, which no one has suggested. Your all-or-nothing bullshit wouldn't work here, even if it WASN'T so puerile and egregious.

Get on answering those questions, Tardboy, or don't bother wasting space with any more of these long-winded, half-assed diatribes of yours. Be specific, or be gone.

 

[Provocateur]

I got an idea, lets get out of war making, cut our military by 80%, pay for what we use when we use it like roads, highways, hospitals, airports, school.
Then we turn everything over to the private sector to run it, and get rid of any laws or the need for courts or govt officials as we know the corp's will do a bang up job of doing what is needed and we can trust them.

What the heck, we all know your fellow man will look out for you. and if for some reason your not worthy that's your problem to deal with, it's not ours. It's up to you to get what you have comming and if I or someone is a little better than you at it, tough break learn to live with it.

Cut our military by 80%?

Brilliant.


/sarcasm

 

[PoliticalChic]

Of all the things you listed, police, fire, education, military etc, only one of them ,military, should be done by the FEDERAL government. The rest are STATE responsibility's according to the Constitution. Not that anyone pay's any attention to that anymore.

Allow me to second that!

1. George Washington had four cabinet departments. Since then we’ve added fourteen new departments, and reduced by two (Navy Department became part of Defense, and US Post Office became a quasi-corporation). How many are in line with constitutional requirements, and how many could be dispersed as state functions?

a. Department of Energy could be eliminated; President Carter created it to minimize our dependence on foreign oil, and to regulate oil prices. Good job? This department is tasked with maintaining and producing nuclear weapons. Why? What does the Pentagon do? And management of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve could, as Clinton suggested, become an outside entity. It also disperses ‘stimulus package’ funds. And it runs an appliance-rebate program, and ‘Weatherization Assistance Program,” and for this it received an additional $37 billion in ‘stimulus’ money, doubling its annual budget.

b. Department of Education is, of course, unconstitutional. The Constitution clearly states that powers not granted to the federal government belong to the states. So where is the impetus for its creation? Unions. The National Education Association (NEA) “In 1972, the massive union formed a political action committee…released ‘Needed: A Cabinet Department of Education’ in 1975, but its most significant step was to endorse a presidential candidate- Jimmy Carter- for the first time in the history of the organization.”
D.T. Stallngs, “A Brief History of the Department of Education: 1979-2002,” p. 3.
When formed, its budget was $13.1 billion (in 2007 dollars) and it employed 450 people. IN 2010, the estimated budget is $107 billion, and there are 4,800 employees. http://crunchycon.nationalreview.co...-department-education-not-radical/mona-charen

“In November 1995, when the federal government shut down over a budget crisis, 89.4 percent of the department’s employees were deemed ‘nonessential’ and sent home.” Beck and Balfe, “Broke,” p.304

2. Any program that is currently federal could probably be handled better and cheaper by the states, figuring that local folks would keep a closer eye on the funds being spent…For example:

a. Federal housing programs should be completely disbanded, as they were the reason for the mortgage meltdown. And, clearly, the right to a home is not in the Constitution.

b. Federal highway and mass transit programs, budgeted at $41.3 billion in 2011. Eisenhower’s Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956 was supposed to expire in 1972, “designed to create a national 41,250-mile highway system to be completed by 1969.” It has been expanded to 160,000 miles. The 18.4 cents federal fuel tax to fund the plan could be assumed by the states (I know, the Constitution gives the feds the power to establish ‘post roads’… can’t we assume that to have been done?). Federal Highway Funding | Downsizing the Federal Government

 

[shintao]

All of these are still nibbling around the edges, until we reform entitlements, nothing substantive will happen. Someone else can deal with socialized medicine (medicare and medicaid)

We might be well to take each government department and let the people vote on what the top priorities are in each department to keep. That way, what passes is truely what the majority wants today in their lives. Everything else is eliminated, and a budget is passed of those items only.

 

[shintao]

Department of Education is, of course, unconstitutional. The Constitution clearly states that powers not granted to the federal government belong to the states. So where is the impetus for its creation?

Not sure who prepared you list, but it wasn't a founding father.

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare,and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare,they may take the care of religion into their own hands;they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parishand pay them out of their public treasury;they may take into their own hands the education of children,establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union;" James Madison

"Congress could exercise independently to benefit the general welfare, such as to assist national needs in agriculture or education" Alexander Hamilton



BUT, that aside, just because items are constiutional, does not mean they shouldn't be eliminated along with the military, corporate and foreign aid welfare, etc. The constitution doesn't say anything has to be funded, or set an amount on how much to fund.

Get serious, get cutting the whole thing out.

 

[uptownlivin90]

I got an idea, lets get out of war making, cut our military by 80%, pay for what we use when we use it like roads, highways, hospitals, airports, school.
Then we turn everything over to the private sector to run it, and get rid of any laws or the need for courts or govt officials as we know the corp's will do a bang up job of doing what is needed and we can trust them.

What the heck, we all know your fellow man will look out for you. and if for some reason your not worthy that's your problem to deal with, it's not ours. It's up to you to get what you have comming and if I or someone is a little better than you at it, tough break learn to live with it.

We have a military for a reason. Protection, security, and advancement. We can balance our budget without making a single cut to the military, and we should as a strong military is essential to a strong economy. What thriving economy in the western world do you know of rivaling ours that has a weak military? None. China's military has expanded RIDICULOUSLY over this past decade, their economy still thrives. Why?

Our leader's focus in this "recovery" should be one thing: jobs.

Not unemployment benefits.
Not "living wage".
Not how well wall street does.

Who creates jobs? Private corporations. Private businesses mainly look for one general characteristic of an environment before investing: security. Does a nation with a weak bullshit military who pisses on it's veterans that's run on credit because we can't balance our books sound safe or secure to you?

Corporations will GLADLY train workers and provide them health care IF they feel they're investment is secure. Cutting the military budget by 80% is FOOLISH and immoral. If anything our goal should be to expand our military with better pay and benefits for both active duty and veterans, and encourage more innovation from our military.

I agree we shouldn't have useless bases everywhere and I was against BOTH wars.

But you seem to have the typical lefty "I hate the military" retard complex. In reality a nations military is one of it's BEST assets and should be treated as such, which is why baseless wars probably shouldn't be fought.

 

[uscitizen]

How many billions were lost and unaccounted for in Iraq?
Not counting Iraq and Afganistan we pay nearly 1/4 trillion for overseas military bases..

 

[uptownlivin90]

How many billions were lost and unaccounted for in Iraq?
Not counting Iraq and Afganistan we pay nearly 1/4 trillion for overseas military bases..

That ball is and has been in the democratic party's court since 2006.

 

[uscitizen]

How many billions were lost and unaccounted for in Iraq?
Not counting Iraq and Afganistan we pay nearly 1/4 trillion for overseas military bases..

That ball is and has been in the democratic party's court since 2006.

So? It was in the republicans court from 2000-2006.

No one expects the dems to actually cut spending, that is the Republicans mantra.
And they were not in charge when the money was lost in Iraq.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Department of Education is, of course, unconstitutional. The Constitution clearly states that powers not granted to the federal government belong to the states. So where is the impetus for its creation?

Not sure who prepared you list, but it wasn't a founding father.

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare,and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare,they may take the care of religion into their own hands;they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parishand pay them out of their public treasury;they may take into their own hands the education of children,establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union;" James Madison

"Congress could exercise independently to benefit the general welfare, such as to assist national needs in agriculture or education" Alexander Hamilton



BUT, that aside, just because items are constiutional, does not mean they shouldn't be eliminated along with the military, corporate and foreign aid welfare, etc. The constitution doesn't say anything has to be funded, or set an amount on how much to fund.

Get serious, get cutting the whole thing out.

1. There is a reference you might use, called the Constitution. See U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 8 - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

2. Could you quote the item in the Constitution which identifies education as a federal function, rather than Madison and Hamiltion?

BTW, neither was particularly pleased with the document as passed, but viewed it as a better alternative than the Articles of Confederation. See Bursein and Isenberg, "Madison and Jefferson."

3. Now, here is a major problem with your worldview: "...along with the military...."

a. Reagan saw the Cold War as the pivot of history: “If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth.” Ronald Reagan, “Speaking My Mind: Selected Speeches,” p. 26.

b. “Look, I am the President of the United States…If we don’t have our security, we’ll have no need for social programs. We’re going to go ahead with these [defense] programs.” Peter Schweitzer, “Reagan’s War: The Epic Struggle and Final Triumph Over Communism,” p. 139-140

The following from a lecture by Brian Kennedy, President of Claremont Institute, and Ballistic Missile Defense Project Director. It was carried on C-Span.

4. Existential threats from abroad include Iran, whose beliefs include the necessity of destroying the infidel. The have developed advanced missiles that could destroy an American city, or if it could deliver the warhead as an electromagnetic pulse weapon, it could destroy the electronic infrastructure of the United States, causing hundreds of millions of United States deaths.

a. The pulse would destroy transformers, so that your lights won’t work, your refrigerator nor would the pumps that bring water to your home. Without transportation, food stores could not be restocked. The Electromagnetic Pulse Commission has estimated that after such an attack, the United States could support life for about 30 million people. The report makes for interesting reading: http://www.empcommission.org/docs/empc_exec_rpt.pdf

b. Such an attack requires that that a warhead be exploded in the high atmosphere, rather than reentering as in a missile attack. The Iranians have twice practiced such an attack in the Caspian Sea, exploding a dummy warhead in the high atmosphere to simulate a pulse bomb. How difficult would it be for them to position a ship off our coast?

c. We do not currently have a missile defense to counter these weapons. The American people should be informed of this.

5. China is openly anti-American, and write in their military journals about the use of unrestricted warfare using a combination of military warfare, economic warfare, cyberwarfare, atomic war, and terrorism. They have shown a desire to improve landbased and space based military options.

a. “China Deploys World’s First Long-Range, Land-Based ‘Carrier Killer’ DF-21D Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile (ASBM)” China Deploys World?s First Long-Range, Land-Based ?Carrier Killer?: DF-21D Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile (ASBM) Reaches ?Initial Operational Capability? (IOC)|Andrew S. Erickson
We do not have a missile defense against this. [/B

]b. “The Soviets succeeded: by developing several supersonic anti-ship missiles, one of which, the SS-N-22 Sunburn, has been called "the most lethal missile in the world today." The Sunburn - Iran's Awesome Nuclear Anti-Ship Missile

This missile has been deployed by the Chinese and the Iranians, and presents a problem due to its Mach-3 speed.

c. The subject of the intent of the Chinese should include a discussion of the ‘Red-Guard’ generation of generals, 55-60 years old, having grown up during the Cultural Revolution, and who will not be satisfied with China as a secondary power. “…Lt. Gen. Xiong Guang Kai, a senior Chinese official, made an implicit nuclear threat against the U.S., warning our government not to interfere because Americans "care more about Los Angeles than they do Taipei." The Claremont Institute - Protecting Our Nation:The Urgent Need for Ballistic Missile Defense

6. Americans have been raised to misread superpower conflicts. Policy leaders have taught that we must understand a balance of power between the US and Russia, and that if we seek strategic superiority over other nations, we will create strategic instability. This is the view propounded by universities, think tanks, and schools of foreign service. President Obama: “…"no single nation should pick and choose which nation holds nuclear weapons…"

a. And there are those who hold the view that America is hardly worth defending, or, that our military power is fundamentally suspect. Would that be you?

b. Conservatives seem to feel that it was good enough to have won the Cold War...but fail to appreciate that we did not disarm the Russians of their nuclear arsenal, nor curtail their active efforts to undermine the US and the West, nor create a democracy in Russia.
We have not tested a nuclear weapon since 1992, nor created more tactical nuclear weapons. And the new START treaty? “The new treaty came at the time of Obama's new nuclear posture statement which promised America won't perform nuclear tests or build new nuclear weapons.” Jed Babbin: Inside the Obama Doctrine for American decline | The Examiner | Op Eds | Washington Examiner

7. Our economic problems limit our ability to face these problems, so deficits become a national security issue. How much should we spend on defense? The answer: what ever is necessary to protect the United States. It is as simple as that.

 

[Avatar4321]

Why are you living paycheck to paycheck?

There is only ever one reason. Poor spending choices.

 

[Avatar4321]

I got an idea, lets get out of war making, cut our military by 80%, pay for what we use when we use it like roads, highways, hospitals, airports, school.
Then we turn everything over to the private sector to run it, and get rid of any laws or the need for courts or govt officials as we know the corp's will do a bang up job of doing what is needed and we can trust them.

What the heck, we all know your fellow man will look out for you. and if for some reason your not worthy that's your problem to deal with, it's not ours. It's up to you to get what you have comming and if I or someone is a little better than you at it, tough break learn to live with it.

Here is a better idea. We cut inefficient military spending and we don't spend money on those other things. Instead we let people keep their own money and let them and the local governments build the infrastructure the local governments need.

See that way, we actually follow the Constitution and the law rather than being corrupt as hell.

 

[Cecilie1200]

In common sense land, we can cut government spending almost in half, build up the private sector, strengthen the dollar, and run the federal government on a simple low flat tax rate. We start by closing all oversees military bases in Europe and Asia, save those in Japan and South Korea, ending the War on Drugs, reforming the prison system, scaling back USAID to foreign nations, and cutting social programs by 2% every year for 10 years.

What?! Cut government spending?! Cut programs?! But . . . But . . . I thought that's what REPUBLICANS wanted! I thought that's why you were so convinced they were eeee-vil!

Make up your fucking mind. Or is this just about "It's evil to cut the programs I want to benefit from, so we should cut the stuff I don't like"? Hypocrisy again, in other words.

I don't see anything in this motto of citizenship that effects the right, except maybe bringing another 3,000,000 people back into the workforce to drive down wages, and then to get things going again maybe start another war.

Wars do not help the economy in any real, long-term sense, and what the hell does the government have to do with the workforce or wages?

The flat tax if properly done would be fine, where the income up to the poverty level wasn't included but you know that wouldn't happen. so the bottom line is it's just another scheem for the rich to pay less and force more cost onto those who can't afford it now.

"Tax everyone but me!!!" Wait, wasn't that ALSO what you were excoriating Republicans for, Hypocrite?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Department of Education is, of course, unconstitutional. The Constitution clearly states that powers not granted to the federal government belong to the states. So where is the impetus for its creation?

Not sure who prepared you list, but it wasn't a founding father.

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare,and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare,they may take the care of religion into their own hands;they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parishand pay them out of their public treasury;they may take into their own hands the education of children,establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union;" James Madison

I don't think he was suggesting that this was the case, or making an argument in favor of it being so. How could poor Madison have known when he warned of dire consequences, that someday our country would be filled with morons who would say, "Wow! What a great idea!"

"Congress could exercise independently to benefit the general welfare, such as to assist national needs in agriculture or education" Alexander Hamilton

Hamilton was a monarchist whose wild ideas made the other Founding Fathers shunt him off into the Department of Treasury because they didn't want him making national policy. Hello! If there is one man among our Founding Fathers to whom you should NOT look for guidance as to what the Fathers as a group wanted or intended, Hamilton would be that guy.

BUT, that aside, just because items are constiutional, does not mean they shouldn't be eliminated along with the military, corporate and foreign aid welfare, etc. The constitution doesn't say anything has to be funded, or set an amount on how much to fund.

Brilliant thinking. Let's eliminate the military, and see how long you nancyboy leftists can continue your liberal ways after we've been invaded.

And yeah, I'm sure the Founding Fathers intended to direct us to establish certain departments and operations, and then not fund them. That makes a fuckload more sense than discontinuing the Unconstitutional stuff. You're a genius . . . in Bizarro World.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Why are you living paycheck to paycheck?

There is only ever one reason. Poor spending choices.

Well, no. It COULD be poor education and job choices, resulting is such a piddly-ass paycheck that you're one step from the homeless shelter.

 

[uscitizen]

Why are you living paycheck to paycheck?

There is only ever one reason. Poor spending choices.

or having too many or any children.
Or illness.
Or poor choices in education.
Or your job got shipped overseas and you are too old for anyone else to hire you or you have to work in McDonalds to survive because that is the only job there is.

there is seldom any one reason.

 

[AquaAthena]

I believe I speak for the majority of Americans when I say everyone but me should pay.

 

[uscitizen]

I believe I speak for the majority of Americans when I say everyone but me should pay.

Yep that is the base of this discussion isn't it?