Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-08-2011, 06:31 PM
 
58,749 posts, read 27,080,924 times
Reputation: 14186

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi View Post
i agree, and yet, ask a bunch of tea party conservatives what they think about our biggest unfunded entitlement, and you will get no response.
This is why you loose credibility. Medicare is a program taxpayers contributed into.

Medicaid is for the poor.

They are not comparable. To lump them together only shows a lack of knowledge or just a childish antic to stir the pot.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-09-2011, 10:48 AM
 
22,768 posts, read 30,670,896 times
Reputation: 14737
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Enough View Post
This is why you loose credibility. Medicare is a program taxpayers contributed into.
Taxpayers have not contributed but a small fraction of Medicare costs. The overwhelming majority is unfunded, and boomers who are starting Medicare today are expected to take out 3 times more from the system than they have ever paid in.

Anyone who complains about deficits should understand this.


Quote:
Medicaid is for the poor.

They are not comparable. To lump them together only shows a lack of knowledge or just a childish antic to stir the pot.
I said nothing about Medicaid, nor did I lump it together with Medicare.

What was that you were saying again, about "credibility " ?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2011, 11:17 AM
 
Location: Neither here nor there
14,810 posts, read 16,179,208 times
Reputation: 33001
No, as a conservative I would not eliminate them. I would hamstring Congress so they could not spend the excess contributions on other things. However, that is like locking the barn door after the horse is stolen.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2011, 11:23 AM
 
Location: PA
5,562 posts, read 5,673,464 times
Reputation: 1962
Quote:
Originally Posted by mackinac81 View Post
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

We dont even need to discuss this because they will elimate themselves becuase their will be no money for the future generations.
The FEDERAL government knows it.
But I would prefer we give YOUNG people the OPTION TO OPT OUT!
Social Security should not be part generational government dependancy.
I can see keeping Medicare and Medicaid around but government shouldnt be in charge of medical services.
Or for constitutional reasons try it in states and have the TAXES for it!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2011, 11:30 AM
 
24,834 posts, read 37,276,103 times
Reputation: 11538
Quote:
Originally Posted by LibertyandJusticeforAll View Post
We dont even need to discuss this because they will elimate themselves becuase their will be no money for the future generations.
The FEDERAL government knows it.
But I would prefer we give YOUNG people the OPTION TO OPT OUT!
Social Security should not be part generational government dependancy.
I can see keeping Medicare and Medicaid around but government shouldnt be in charge of medical services.
Or for constitutional reasons try it in states and have the TAXES for it!
I am 41 and did opt out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2011, 11:51 AM
 
Location: Orange county, CA
415 posts, read 614,780 times
Reputation: 865
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaznjohn View Post
Yes. Private sector charities, churches, and other organizations can help the needy much more efficiently than the government.
You mean the same churches who don't do charity work at all? I quit going to church because in UT and SoCal at least, the church is a wicked cool country club (Mormons excluded from this analysis, and no I'm not a Mormon). When I lived in UT probably half the non-LDS churches did not even have a food pantry at all. They were too busy being snot-nosed country clubs for the middle class with a side order of Jesus. The last one I went to was busy planning foreign missions in exotic locales (come on, these are not missionary trips, they are vacations) for two weeks and bickering over buying strobe lights and a fog machine. So much for WWJD!

Here in OC, I see all the time churches that state plainly that the poor and the indigent are not welcome there and that if they are caught loitering the cops will be called. Also, don't park your car there if you are homeless but still own a car--these nice Bible believers will have your car towed as they stick their nose up at you. As a result the homeless hang out in the library parking lot, on the benches outside bars, shopping malls and clubs, and in the parking lots of schools and libraries.

If the entitlements were taken away, I'm doubtful that the evangelicals here would open up at all. Maybe the Mormons (out here in SoCal they are just as worthless as their evangelical counterparts) or the Buddhists or an occasional Catholic parish. There is no way that these folks will all of a sudden leave their sanctuaries open or even open up their parking lots, let alone (god forbid) start a food pantry for the poor. That would just be inviting "those people" in.

One of the big driving factors in my becoming non-religious was the church. They just don't care. And I really don't think that if you take away the government they will step up. No freaking way. They don't want the riffraff at their doorstep. That would be too much like what Jesus did.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2011, 11:58 AM
 
1,019 posts, read 588,737 times
Reputation: 270
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Enough View Post
This is why you loose credibility. Medicare is a program taxpayers contributed into.

Medicaid is for the poor.

They are not comparable. To lump them together only shows a lack of knowledge or just a childish antic to stir the pot.
Don't lump 'em, dump 'em!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2011, 12:04 PM
 
1,019 posts, read 588,737 times
Reputation: 270
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cunucu Beach View Post
No, as a conservative I would not eliminate them. I would hamstring Congress so they could not spend the excess contributions on other things. However, that is like locking the barn door after the horse is stolen.
Doesn't sound like a conservative to me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2011, 12:14 PM
 
Location: Wasilla, Alaska
17,823 posts, read 23,400,833 times
Reputation: 6541
Quote:
Originally Posted by LaTrang View Post
Doesn't sound like a conservative to me.
I agree. Anyone who advocates for any federal social programs cannot be a conservative, and is most certainly not fiscally responsible.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2011, 12:41 PM
 
58,749 posts, read 27,080,924 times
Reputation: 14186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch View Post
There are no fiscal conservatives that support MediCare/MedicAid. Anyone who supports any unconstitutional federal social program cannot be, by definition, a fiscal conservative.
Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi View Post
i agree, and yet, ask a bunch of tea party conservatives what they think about our biggest unfunded entitlement, and you will get no response.
Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi View Post
Taxpayers have not contributed but a small fraction of Medicare costs. The overwhelming majority is unfunded, and boomers who are starting Medicare today are expected to take out 3 times more from the system than they have ever paid in.

Anyone who complains about deficits should understand this.




I said nothing about Medicaid, nor did I lump it together with Medicare.

What was that you were saying again, about "credibility " ?

Read your own posts. glithch posted, "There are no fiscal conservatives that support MediCare/MedicAid.

Then YOU posted in response to his post,, "i agree".

I'll let the other posters decide on credibility.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:45 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top