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.
First, Wikipedia is NOT a trusted source.
As of 1987 ALL gov't employees, Congress, the Preident and federal judges included, participate in FERS, not Pers. Federal Employees Retirement System.
Rather then giving you all the details, you can read it for yourself. what you post is not true.
I stand by what I said, they have a sweet deal. According to your source, they pay in only 1% and are encouraged to add savings to another tax free account that's matched. They can take early retirement at age 50, and are fully vested after only 6 years.
My point was they are treated like royalty, while we call them "public servants". We encourage them to serve themselves. Federal Politician Benefits | eHow.com
Ron Paul is the only Congressman that refused to sign up for the lucrative retirement benefits. He has actually returned money to Washington from his PAC. We need many more like him.
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
I think the elderly is entitled to social security as well as the military. If your not one of the two, then you shouldn't get these things.
Yes, I would eliminate them ... population control. LOL
But, seriously, I think that if people put money into their retirement funds then they should get it. I really don't like too many social programs though. That's just me. It sounds cruel to some, but I've seen how they get abused. I think some people truly do need help though and one of those groups is the elderly once they get old, so ... let's help those folks. In some way, not providing for people who can't work is kinda cruel and inhumane. I mean, how are some people supposed to get food or shelter? I mean, maybe they can do things to help contribute to the community or something as they get older. Like a light-work program or something.
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
The Founders, with their direct experience, set up a system of limted and distributed government with only a few powers being given to the central (Federal) government, with the majority residing with the states and the people. Tyranny, under such a system, would be virtually impossible.
However, the new Federalism turned this Pyramid upside down, with an omnipotent Federal gov at top and basically lap-dog state governments doing nothing but clean-up stuff.
It was done, chiefly, by expanding the power of Congress to regulate commerce between states.
The entire concept of entitlements is something not envisioned by the Constitution and should, therefore, reside only at the state or lower level, if at all.
I absolutly would end virtually all of these entitlements including soc sec. medicare, welfare, food stamps etc at the Federal Government. If a state or states wanted to do these things, that is up to them.
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
Eliminate them because they're not Constitutional. But I would keep Federal disability statutes. If States wanted to do the entitlement thing, that would be their right to do so.
First of all, defense is the only thing the federal government should be doing, and while it spends over $1.4 trillion a year for "defense," this money is 95% wasted. Waging wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and heaven knows where else, does NOTHING to make us safer--just the opposite. Terrorists hate us because we are the world's biggest bully, and would soon turn to other things if we stopped constantly goading them. Also, we flood the world with arms, then feel justified in rushing in to "keep the peace." It's a joke and we all know it, politicians in Washington especially. They're the ones who refuse to actually defend our borders and go after illegal immigration, which was the whole purpose of a defense budget in the first place. So the way things are, I'd say just abolish the Defense/Offense budget entirely. Nobody would want to take over a bankrupt nation anyway.
As to Social Security, yes, I'd get rid of it--but only by allowing anyone today to opt out of the system, while preserving the benefits everyone paid for already (and while the scumbag politicians stole and spent the entire $2.6 trillion dollar SS Trust Fund, use the evil Military Empire budget to pay it back, and also confiscate every penny of retirement benefits for politicians in office over the last 30 years as the thefts took place). Even though my family has lost over $200,000 in Social Security taxes alone, we'd opt out today--because we wouldn't collect a dime for 17 years (at the earliest) and benefits will be drastically reduced.
And before the liberals scream "this nut wants to hurt Social Security," let me remind everyone that the program IS going away, because politicians stole the money Baby Boomers paid extra, that would have paid for their retirement. So politicians over the last 30 years effectively bankrupted the program, and there's no way 2.1 workers can support 1 retiree.
The entire tax system must be re-done, perhaps a consumption-based tax. Under the current incredibly unfair income tax system, workers should get huge tax breaks (1 to 1) for saving for their own retirements. Had we done a workable program like that in the beginning, SS would have worked. But no, liberals had to give government full control, and make it a Ponzi Scam that had to collapse. Consequently, we all pay through the nose, and those born after 1960 will see a LOSS instead of an investment return. The courts ruled that government doesn't owe citizens a single dime in Social Security, despite huge mandatory taxes.
Anytime government is in charge, the citizens lose big.
As for Medicare, we need to revamp the whole health care industry. It has to be done in a way similar to how the military gets doctors: they pay for their education, then take a few years mandatory service. It works great, and would work just as well if government-subsidized non-profit clinics served anyone who couldn't afford the price of capitalist health care. I thought Obama might do something good for us in this regard, but he sold us down the river to preserve the huge profits of our lucrative health care industry.
So this is why I'd get government out of the business of entitlements: government is fiscally insane and will soon be bankrupt, leaving us bankrupt after paying huge taxes, with absolutely no benefits. Any conservative could have told you, when they were pushing through the Great Society Social Security and Medicare (which was totally voluntary, and cost almost nothing, as all government foot-in-the-door scams begin), it's always a disaster when government is involved.
And while it worked out well for those now retired, who will get back far more than they paid in, everyone born after 1960 loses big, and probably loses everything. But I guess that's government's game, after all. Rob everyone, spend like a crack addict takes crack, and blame the other party when the whole mess collapses.
Eliminate them because they're not Constitutional.
I'm not saying you are wrong, but if they are not Constitutional then how did the federal government set them up and operate them all this time? I hear people talk about the Constitution so much (which is good), but it seems to me that the federal government has taken other roads to setting things up. Obviously, it is wrong to circumvent the Constitution, but doesn't that make what they have created legal?
If I am not correct then we are guilty for not demanding our government to stop executing programs that are illegal.
i would reform welfare, and make it the program it was originally intended to be, that being a program that would help those whose unemployment benefits ran out, but they had yet to find work. it was designed as a temporary program, not to be a program that people could/would live on.
This is a perfect example of could/would live on as you mentioned..
I'm not saying you are wrong, but if they are not Constitutional then how did the federal government set them up and operate them all this time? I hear people talk about the Constitution so much (which is good), but it seems to me that the federal government has taken other roads to setting things up. Obviously, it is wrong to circumvent the Constitution, but doesn't that make what they have created legal?
If I am not correct then we are guilty for not demanding our government to stop executing programs that are illegal.
No, that would not legitimize an Unconstitutional law. That's why the Supreme Court and State Supreme Courts rule on laws to determine if they are Constitutional or not.
First, Wikipedia is NOT a trusted source.
As of 1987 ALL gov't employees, Congress, the Preident and federal judges included, participate in FERS, not Pers. Federal Employees Retirement System.
Rather then giving you all the details, you can read it for yourself. what you post is not true.
NO, absolutely not true. Postal workers hired in 1987 could still opt for the older system.
Last edited by Doctor Blues; 08-08-2011 at 12:29 AM..
Reason: took out personal information
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.
LOL 
