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.
As for cutting Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, I wouldn't completely cut it, but align the funding with investments that are lucrative in the long term. I really have no problems with the elderly who worked and put into the fund for their entire career and disabled people who are legitimately unable to work for themselves getting funds to live decent lives. However, it needs a reform, especially since in the long term, SS will get even more expensive to maintain, even after most of the Baby Boomers are gone. If the Baby Boomer's effect doesn't do SS in, the obesity epidemic with latter boomers, Gen X, and Gen Y, will. SS will need to work like a private health insurance policies in the way that the healthier a person has kept themselves throughout the years, the more money they receive with SS, Medicare, and Medicaid. The opposite will also apply.
As for cutting entitlement programs like welfare, food stamps, and WIC, let me tell you all a story. I grew up in a society that was surrounded by those who leeched off welfare, and while my immediate family was more working class, I have witnessed and sustained enough damage from the welfare class to determine that these kind of programs have to go! These programs cost Americans untold billions in lost productivity, crime enforcement & prisons, poor schools, social programs, drug prevention, childhood prevention & health, and other effects along with the psychological effects of increased crime, violent subcultures, racial strife, and uneducated labor class with the inability to become utilized for jobs in the 21st century. Either get rid of it or reduce it to the point where only those who were laid off from a job and are actively looking for a new one can have the welfare benefits.
Certainly iot would be better if everyoen could support their way and if 100% paid taxes to support the governamnt.Its never as investment goes to invest in anyhtig that purely consumes and does not increase wealth.That is always a negative in the books. Whhen the negatives over take the positves then you have what we see now happening in this country. Too few supporting too many.
Honest to God, I'm not trolling. This is a real question.
I hear a lot of conservatives say that the government should only provide for defense and little else. So here's my question: If you had the power, would you eliminate Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid or other entitlements, since, in your view, they aren't part of the Constitution's enumerated powers, and therefore unconstitutional? Or do you dislike entitlements because the federal govt. runs them and not states? I look forward to any responses.
mackinac
Your question is somewhat misleading. On their current trajectories, entitlements will eliminate themselves when they go bankrupt and implode (taking the rest of our economy with them). It is the reforms being pushed by Conservatives that will preserve entitlements.
OTOH, it's the rhetoric of the Liberals - spouting the same old scare tactics that someone is looking to put granny out on the street all in a myopic effort to get more votes and cling to power - that is the true threat to entitlements and will lead to their eventual defacto elimination.
Reform of the system will make little economic difference, unless you cut it completely. Its a funding issue. People are living longer due to better preventative measures. They either need to save more or need to pay in more in order to accomadate longer uses of benefits.
Total nonsense. Cutting waste and abuse and fraud won't help save money ... only eliminating the programs can? This is so anti-logic it's beyond words.
Quote:
Originally Posted by odinloki1
Personally I'm a fan of doing some form of forced savings (higher SS payments basically), because if we don't, we won't be able to save. Our track record shows it. The money will be forced out by landlords or banks demanding more in housing costs, or by gas costs rising, etc. However if it is already taken out, then the market will accomodate. I understand the idealism that goes against it. But lets look at reality. Americans suck at saving money. Lets deal with reality instead of hoping some idealism might work.
To liberals it seems, that the answer is always "force", which is why conservatives accurately label liberals as anti-liberty and enemies of freedom.
But tell us about how successful FDR's "New Deal" of socialism by force has worked out for us so far? It's been a decade to decade cumulative disaster, resulting in the rich more rich than ever, and the poor never more poor, with 40 Million people now relying on food stamps. It's total insanity. And simply raising more revenue (taxes) to continue to service insanity is simply ... insane.
Government's track record is absolutely consistent in one clear way ... it is a consistent failure in everything it touches. Someone said that if you put the Federal Government in charge of the Sahara Desert, within a year or two, there would be a shortage of sand.
Government run education has us now at the bottom of educational standards for western countries. The war on illiteracy is as much a failure as is the war on poverty, the war on drugs, and war in general.
The reality is, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are nothing but additional revenue streams which go directly into the general fund for government expenditures for whatever they decide to spend it on, including Trillions for Banker bailouts and more Trillions for endless war. There are no trust funds ... only accounting entries saying what was collected via what source ... but all of it goes into the big kitty. And right now, the big Kitty is 1.5 Trillion short this year ... just as it was last year, and the year before that. Social Security isn't driving the nation bankrupt ... up to this year it brought in more than it paid out ... it's just been looted by the gangsters, and used for other things.
But these "entitlement" programs do make for a good excuse .... let's blame the lazy freeloading people for the financial woes created by the gangsters looting the economy at a rate 10 times that paid out in "entitlement benefits". Every time these crooks raise taxes ... a dime goes back to the people in some benefit, and $1 goes into the pockets of the crooks.
That's why you have to end these programs ... not to deprive the needy of the dime they need .. but to deprive the crooks of the dollar they are stealing through that mechanism. It's a ponzi scheme, and it needs to be stopped ... not facilitated with more dollars.
Quote:
Originally Posted by odinloki1
On the other hand, if there were some rent or price controls that would allow for individuals to save realistically, then perhaps there is some compromise to be had. However, a free market system will inevitably screw over those at the bottom. They will be in economic circumstances where they will be unable to save money for the future, and then when there bodies fail them what happens?
What you propose is "Slavery". You want to take money from people by force (theft) and restrict people from selling at a price they decide (more theft). And somehow, your math suggests Theft + Theft = Gain ? Only if you are the one stealing ... otherwise, Theft + Theft = Loss if you are the one being stolen from.
Honest to God, I'm not trolling. This is a real question.
I hear a lot of conservatives say that the government should only provide for defense and little else. So here's my question: If you had the power, would you eliminate Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid or other entitlements, since, in your view, they aren't part of the Constitution's enumerated powers, and therefore unconstitutional? Or do you dislike entitlements because the federal govt. runs them and not states? I look forward to any responses.
mackinac
No. I would maintain medicare, social security and medicaid. However, I would markedly change these programs to insure solvency. Changes?
1. Raise social security eligibility to age 72
2. Raise the payroll tax
3. Raise medicare eligibility to age 72
4. Mandate that medicare pay for only generic drugs
5. If statistical mortality for a condition is 95% +, refuse Medicare payment. Most medicare expenses are made in the last three months of life.
6. Eliminate social security disability. In most instances it is a scam for people who can work.
7. Make Medicaid co-pays of 5-10%. This would essentially eliminate the $5,000 ambulence rides and er visits for colds.
8. Mandate generic drugs only for medicaid recipients
Honest to God, I'm not trolling. This is a real question.
I hear a lot of conservatives say that the government should only provide for defense and little else. So here's my question: If you had the power, would you eliminate Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid or other entitlements, since, in your view, they aren't part of the Constitution's enumerated powers, and therefore unconstitutional? Or do you dislike entitlements because the federal govt. runs them and not states? I look forward to any responses.
mackinac
There are only 'Three' things that are empowered to the Feds by the Constitution!
(I know, to some of you .. "That's some kind of paper thing, huh"?)
Those 'Three' forms of entitlement are: Life, Liberty and The Pursuit of Happiness!
The Feds have overgrown the bounds envisioned by the Founding Fathers and Yes .. I would take away Every Entitlement Not guaranteed by the Constitution!
It would then fall on the People of each State to do whatever is necessary to help others.
I would eliminate all except defense .The government is giving too many handouts .In days gone by , you had no help from anyone except churches or a sympathetic neighbor. We need to learn to reliant only on our selves except expecting a check in the mail when you lose your job.Time Americans learned to stand on their own two feet or die .
On the other hand, if there were some rent or price controls that would allow for individuals to save realistically, then perhaps there is some compromise to be had. However, a free market system will inevitably screw over those at the bottom. They will be in economic circumstances where they will be unable to save money for the future, and then when there bodies fail them what happens?
We don't need price controls to save money. Millions of people have saved for retirement by living within their means.
The problem we have is many people prefer to spend their money than save it. And we reward their spending by taking money from other people and giving to those who live beyond their means.
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.
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.
