War is costly, Government operations are costly. Why would the question of using money belonging to the most elderly or disabled even be thought of as a source of income to fund war? Investing money is a dangerous game period, to many unanswered questions--should not be considered. From the age of 55 on, most people (a high %) develope catastrophic illnesses, many long or life term. Money invested in Insurance companies or stocks, is not secure money. Doctors, attorneys, and other medical professionals can take one to court and bang, the money is gone. Using tax money for investment is bordering on socialisium--Government does not belong in business, it will eventually be controlled. Individual retirement and investment are also vulnerable, younger people need to take a healthy look at that scenario. Government should not be in the business of employeeing more people than is needed, secured by civil service and etc., nor should there be lobbying allowed by Insurance companies, and investment firms--false persumption of needs we do not have. Government is out of control with unqualified employees, most need to be dropped, in case of war they would probably run away. We do not need them, thus cutting operational costs by 50%. Frugal growth from this point on is essential, less frivolous behavior and more statesman like thinking. It is easier to be in control a few, rather than a million. Federal Witholding should be ample to fight a war. Where on earth did this second question come from? It is down righ stupid.
