Conservatives: If You Could, Would You Eliminate Entitlements? (Iraq, legal, Afghanistan)
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.
I was reading an article on Socail Security today from CATO Institute. It said that as of 2012, more will be paid out of this trust fund, than it receives. It will be defunct by 2029. Something must be done to save it for those in need. I notice Congress started paying into the program in 1984, but they only pay 6% of salary or less. We pay Congress enough that they can take care of their own retirement, IRA's, 401k's, as Ron Paul has vowed to do. Pelosi is worth something like 43 million, she doesn't need this entitlement. If it's not reformed, it simply won't exist.
private sector charities should be doing more since they are taking tax exemptions.
maybe those tax exemptions should go away-especiallly in light of the fact that some churches help provide resources (and listings of government resources) for illegal immigrants against the wishes of american citizens.
they EXACERBATE the problems we are having keeping american citizens employed and wages livable.
that is another issue we shouldn't be ignoring in this country. problems don't go away just because you ignore them.
conservatives understand that entitlements are UNSUSTAINABLE the way that we are going and we need to fix the problem before it "fixes" itself.
Private charities used to do a lot more until the gov't got involved and made it harder on them to do their work.
Define entitlments. Are we talking welfare and ss?
I dont view SS as an entitlment in light of the fact we pay for it through employment taxes.
SSI? For the disabled? Well there is a fair amount of abuse that is true but I also believe we as a society should take care of those clearly unable to work. Handicapped citizens etc.
Now I also view fed money to build walking aprts etc as entitlments via pork. Those things we should cut absolutely. If a community wants a park let them do fund raisers and use volunteer labor. Its amazing how thrifty folks can be when its money out of thier own pockets paying for it all.
I said that when you want to allow people to opt out, its a way of ending it.
You say that isn't true, then you say "Everyone under 25 wouldn't get it"
ENDING social security for future generations.
The Republican hypocrisy on this issue in plain view.
Either say you want to phase it out, or not. There is no in between.
The American people, by numbers larger than 70% want social security and medicare for current, upcoming, and future recipients, and not to change it, period.
So either tell the American people you don't want what they want, or tell them that you are backing away from this, and focusing on other areas of the budget to balance.
When Bush tried to get the Congress to address the issue.
Barney Frank, September 28, 2004
"Thank you for contacting me. I am strongly against the President’s effort to weaken Social Security and I am playing a leading role in Congress in our resistance to these efforts. I am enclosing a copy of an article I wrote in the Boston Globe last fall which gives my general position on the matter. The fact is that if Social Security is credited with every penny that was paid in and will be paid in for it - as it certainly should be - there is no crisis, and there does not even to begin to be any difficulty until forty years or more from now. There is plenty of time for us to make the small adjustments that might need to be made in this system.
Congressman Barney Frank - MA-04 (http://www.house.gov/frank/docs/response-opposed-privatize-ss.html - broken link)
I would have the Gov manage the program, but it would be on the individual for the most part.
When you are born you get an individual SS acount opened in your name. Then you can contribute up to 100K a year TAX FREE until retirement at age 60. All taxes that your employer pays on your behalf (minus a small % so the gov can pay for administration) would go into your account. You cannot withdraw anything from this account before age 60 without paying an UP FRONT 300% penalty on your total balance........no exceptions. A board of SS investment professionals would limit what you can invest in, no high risk investments.
I would have the Gov manage the program, but it would be on the individual for the most part.
When you are born you get an individual SS acount opened in your name. Then you can contribute up to 100K a year TAX FREE until retirement at age 60. All taxes that your employer pays on your behalf (minus a small % so the gov can pay for administration) would go into your account. You cannot withdraw anything from this account before age 60 without paying an UP FRONT 300% penalty on your total balance........no exceptions. A board of SS investment professionals would limit what you can invest in, no high risk investments.
I would prefer the GOV touches or has as little to do with my money as possible. They have clearly demonstrated that they can not be trusted and can not manage money.
I tried to find out today how many receive SSI without paying in - I was unsuccessful. I do find that social security pays for much more than retirement benefits, plus gov't employees have their own system in PERS, which is separate and much more lucrative. At least with PERS, only those that pay in get the pay out. SS recipients have not had a cost of living increase in 2 years. However I understand federal gov't employees get 8% per year.
What if everybody is treated equally, per the Constitution, and SSI is for those that worked most of their life paying into the system. I'd put an equal number of years on it. If you paid in for 10 yrs. you get payments for 10 years plus a set amount of interest. 2 years, the same calculation.
Did you know that U.S. Social Security is the largest gov't program in the world?
It seems to me, we should separate out the retirement plan from Aid To Families with Dependent Children, Unemployment benefits, Disability, and whatever aid illegals are able to sign up for. Illegals should get no benefits, none from the Federal gov't.
That might be a start to reining this in and seeing where we are. Social Security (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.
Location: Currently I physically reside on the 3rd planet from the sun
2,220 posts, read 1,873,055 times
Reputation: 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by mackinac81
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 certainly wouldn't just shut them down overnight but I absolutely would begin transferring these responsibilities to the private sector.
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.