Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Joe bob is retarded. He never put anything into social security. Who pays for Joe Bob?
Mary SUe is a housewife she dutifully raised her children and her husband worked tirelessly at the dog food plant and then died at age 59. Who pays for Mary SUe's social security when she reaches 65. See the problem with your theory.
Friends, neighbors, parents and charities pay for Joe Bob.
Mary Sue's husband should have been saving for retirement, not relying on the government for something that is his responsibility.
We seen one thing from the 1990's. When you cut welfare, you increase revenues. Yet we dont hear a peep from liberals suggesting real solutions, do we?
You are making the assumption that it can't be used to pay down the debt. You could earmark the money to pay the debt by law.
Yes you could, but history has shown us that government cannot be trusted to use money as it was intended. For example, gas taxes are used for things other than roads and SS taxes have also been siphoned off.
Government will always spend 100% plus of all revenue. The only way to control our bloated government is to reduce it's revenue.
Which programs do you cut? The big three are medicaid, medicare and Defense. You won't make a dent unless you take these three on.
You're correct on one of them. Social programs spending other than Medicare and Social Security (which are paid for through payroll taxes) is the largest percentage of the federal budget. ~24% (could be more) is allocated to Medicaid, CHIP, safety net programs, and education. There may be others, making the percentage of the federal budget even higher. Policy Basics: Where Do Our Federal Tax Dollars Go? — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
Defense spending has a Constitutional mandate. Welfare spending does not. Eliminate welfare spending and stop enabling the exponential growth of the dependent class.
It was never intended to be a retirement plan. It was always intended to be a safety net. Anyone who would rely solely on Social Security for retirement has not looked at the numbers.
I don't how people got this in their mind that taxes is theft or is not somehow how REDISTRIBUTION. It is redistrubution. Taxes are taken from the individual and redistributed to the community...not to one person. If we taxed you, for the purpose of giving it to John that would be theft and would be unconstitutional. All taxes are redistributed. If a person were given back every penny that they put in there would be no point of a tax to start with. Why is this concept so hard to understand.
No, all taxes are not redistribution. Taxes to build shared infrastructure are not redistribution.
Taxes that are funneled back to selected individuals are redistribution.
We as a society own the debt. I do get to vote as to how to distribute the burden of that debt. The fact is you can't get blood from a stone. The extremely wealthy is the only place to get additional revenue. They have all of the money.
You don't need to get blood from the stone. You can just cut spending.
Whenever you try to address the fiscal irresponsibility of politicians by "increasing revenue," you are playing a fool's game.
If you give politicians 100% of every penny in the economy, they'll spend that and borrow 100% more and spend that, and then print 100% more (thus devaluing all our wages and savings) and spend that.
Isn't it obvious now, after an endless stream of politicians from both parties have done this for decades? How much more can they prove the point?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.