ExPatriatePen wrote:npv708 wrote:Are you trying to tell me there weren't security concerns in Beirut in 1983 that weren't fully addressed? Really? Beirut 1983 is far more dangerous than Libya in September 2012.
Bengahzi didn't even have the security that the Beruit barracks had. Almost 20 years later. And no, Beruit didn't ask for additional security and yes, they at lest had US marines guarding the barracks, not local militia forces.
My father-in-law was deployed to Beirut in '58, and my uncle helped clean up the mess there in '82.
You are both quite right..... what happened in Benghazi this past year bears no resemblance whatsoever to Beirut. And I invite you both to stop making comparisons between the two.
DelPen wrote:For every $1 raised in taxes they need to cut $2 in spending at minimum.
And yet, at one of the debates during the GOP primary this past year when a field of 8 or 9 presidential contenders were given the following scenario: "Raise your hands if you would accept a deal that included $10 in revenue cuts for every $1 in increased tax revenue," not a single one of them raised there hands. All hail, his highness Sir Grover. Or something.
The country is at an impasse in terms of the type of government people want, versus the amount of money they are willing to pay (via taxes) to fund it. Income taxation is at a level that's lower than nearly all of us on this board have known in our lifetimes. Shoot, Mitt Romney took a punch on the nose for saying something that's essentially true: nearly half of this country pays no income tax whatsoever. (Okay, he phrased in a way that was entirely unpalatable, but that's a side issue.) Yet we still manage to spend 40% more than we collect in tax revenue. That's a bit of a wonky construct.
Where to cut? Reps refuse to even countenance cuts in defense spending, and Dems clam up and shut down if you suggest entitlement reform. Guess what? Excluding Defense and entitlements means you are left addressing about 12% of the non-discretionary budget. All the cuts are going to come from there? Really?!?
ExPatriatePen wrote:It's completely dysfunctional right now. Hell, I was able to 'retire' for nearly two years and collect unemployment benefits. (thanks uncle Sam). Not one time did anyone check my situation. They just sent me two years of unemployment checks. That's two years of me collecting and them not getting taxes.
Then you no longer get to complain about the situation.
If you are so happy to sit back and claim your benefit and then get all huffy about the government actually paying you (without even checking!) then you, sir, are part of the problem.
I come here and post that I am willing to pay more taxes (temporarily) to help dig out from the deficit and debt albatross around this country's neck. You come here and boast that you've quite happily mooched government benefits that you didn't really deserve for two years. And yet I'm the one that gets chastised.
I no longer want my tax dollars subsidizing ExPat's faux 'retirement'. Is there a form I can check on my return to prevent that happening?