27 Million trees. Craig's response to Garth should be noted (and Garth ridiculed for being wrong by a parsec). Land ownership matters. The Little Hoover Commission Report is available here. It does a good job of laying out both problems and solution. Treatments need to happen at landscape/watershed/fireshed scales, and that means lots of ground. That also means both public and private interests working together. For decades we have had very effective mutual aid agreements that allow state, local and fed fire fighting resources to be shared. We need similar arrangements to deal with fires before they happen. The current target has a 1 M acre/year goal (half fed, half private); its going to take a lot to get there. The current political climate recognizes this (not surprising given the last two years); I don't have a lot of faith it will persist without repeated catastrophic events to keep reminding people we have a systemic problem.
It would be funny as hell if NOT totally sad, that these people have themselves convinced that the illegals contribute MORE to our society financially than it costs us in social programs, schooling, crimes, prison costs and FRAUD.
You'll have to give Garth a break, he probably thinks soybeans are a forest. Iowa has almost 44,000 acres of "forest", not sure how you have forests without any hills? California has 33 million acres of forest land, Iowa's total acreage is 35 mil acres.
Highly recommend watching this if you truly do not understand the impact of this out of control immigration.
Because it isn't just a retirement plan. It also helps out those who are unable to help themselves. Sadly there is a certain percentage of the population that is just physically and/or mentally unable to take care of themselves and part of what SS pays for is to take care of them. Are there some people scamming that system? Probably a few, but there are a lot more using it that really need it. This isn't welfare for moms squeezing out kids, this is for people that are truly disabled. Alternatively, a "Disability Tax" could be assessed to pay for that care and you could put the remaining amount into your own retirement saving plan (401k or the like). I would be OK with that. Except there is a problem with that. Since Congress raided the SS funds, SS is actually a Ponzi scheme and we have to keep bringing in more working people every year to fund it.
It's welfare for old people who haven't planned ahead. You know... like the govt employees that you all said should have saved their money. If it were only for the disabled our mandatory contributions would be much smaller... and i'd be fine with paying that.
If I had been allowed, I would have opted out 45 years ago. That option was denied, so I intend to exercise my contract to receive back the money that was confiscated from my earnings, including that my employers have paid.
I have paid into it for 20 some odd years now. I have said I will let them keep what I’ve sent and call it even and let me manage my money
I'm too close to the end to exercise the option. I didn't set the rules, the "contributions" were not optional. I kept up my end of the deal.
Yes it is, and it is not "welfare". I have other funds for retirement, but I have no intention of not taking SS. I've been working for damn near 50 years, and I intend to have a good time.
So since we are forced into said arrangement how can receiving back some of the money that a person paid in to the system be considered welfare? Or were you just trolling? There are alot of us that would love to opt out but if we did how would we pay back Bills "balanced budget" IOU's?
100%. That was in my dream world. I’m getting to that point in contributions as well. I told my buddy the other day that the more a person tries to do what’s right and lawful the more they get fucked by people who cheat on taxes or don’t report. Or just do all the little shit that adds up over time. Penalties for doing it the right way. Go figure