@ Corzak: Okay, 3 responses to my one post. A little unusual, but okay. I’ll play ball. Your first post: I do not deny the elderly are pulling more from SS than they put in. That’s the flaw of the system when it was created. But, at the same time, life expectancy when it was first created was such that people were on SS for only a few years. Now you have elderly living for 20+ years past their retirement point. I personally expect the SS system to bankrupt itself in the next 5-10 years because people refuse to make any sort of structural reform to it. I don’t refute it’s becoming unaffordable for us to keep having SS. But we can’t also, at the same time, yank the rug out from under those who rely on it now. It’s a complex issue for the system, mostly because a lot of those currently on SS failed to plan appropriately for their retirement, and now expect it to be there. But, in fairness to them, they did pay in their entire working lives into the system, so they should be permitted to draw out of it.Second Post: I have never argued against the Iraq or Afghanistan war, and never will. In the entirety of the two wars, in which I participated, we have spent less in 12 years than our government overspends in two and a half years. These were good and just causes, and I’ve seen the positive impact we have had, despite the Media’s attempt at painting them as bad. And I ask the question: Would you rather have us trained warriors fighting and dying 6,000 miles away, or our children dying 500 miles away? The tab for both wars is relatively small compared to our “entitlement” programs. Even the democratic “budget” (and I’m being generous calling it that) projects we’re going to “save” only $240 billion by ending the Afghanistan war in the next decade. That’s less than our government spends in a single month. Also keep this in mind: The federal government is responsible for protecting the nation (it’s enumerated in the Constitution — Common Defense). It is not responsible for providing a retirement plan for people, nor is it responsible for providing free xyz program, especially for illegal immigrants (something that is not enumerated in the Constitution).Third post: What is fair? Your definition of fair is probably skewed. Is it fair because they have more? Why is it fair for you to take which you did not earn? Why is it fair for the government to take from someone who likely mortgaged their home to start a business and found a niche that allowed them to succeed? What’s “fair” enough? 50%? 80%? 100%? How is it fair that just because you didn’t work as hard as them, you can take what isn’t yours? How is it fair that because they put in 90-hour weeks to grow their business that you feel somehow entitled to a piece of their pie?You exemplify the attitude that rubs me frigging raw. You feel justified in demanding something from someone when you did absolutely nothing to earn it. You think it’s not fair that they have money and you don’t. Remember my aforementioned greedy and capricious attitudes? Yeah, you’re a perfect example of it. Just because you don’t have it and they do, you feel like you deserve more of what they have. How dare you? Your actions and beliefs (shared by a large segment of the population) are what are causing the “class warfare” in the first place. You are making it into an “us versus them” thing, and politicians are milking you for all it’s worth. Instead of complaining about it, about how unfair life is (because life is unfair), maybe you should go out and make it happen, just like they did and still do. Then maybe, just maybe, you’ll see what it’s like to earn that much, and will realize just how unfair it is that the top 5% of earners pay half this country’s tab.