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.
Here's a wrinkle for you, spark plug. What if I was a member of the military for 22 years, defending your stuff, getting paid a pittance, and still paying taxes on what I did earn? How does that figure into your "we all owe the nanny state" view?
Your choice ('distributor cap'? Not clear on this game of insults or whatever it is supposed to be). The 'nanny state' was paying you off of other peoples' taxes, much more than your relatively small portion, right? You also get a nice entitlement (whoops, I mean pension) compared to most everyone else....
Now we get to the crux of your position... First it was yay armed forces, you have to pay for them to defend you, to they are leeches feeding on taxpayers. Head on out to a socialist success story country, oh wait, there aren't any...
Never said anything close to either of those statements - I just said we should pay for what we get.
A significant portion of my family is either in the military or former military. My reference to 'entitlement' is related to what the GOP is starting to call social security - an 'entitlement'. Neither military pension or ss are entitlements.
Never said anything close to either of those statements - I just said we should pay for what we get.
A significant portion of my family is either in the military or former military. My reference to 'entitlement' is related to what the GOP is starting to call social security - an 'entitlement'. Neither military pension or ss are entitlements.
Actually they ARE entitlements. As in "you meet the criteria, you are entitled to the program." Not "You have a sense of entitlement so you get some money."
Quote:
Instead, it seems to have become what you might call a dog whistle, except in reverse. Conservatives aren't using "entitlement reform" as a means of speaking to their base that's invisible to everyone else. Instead, it's progressives who hear "entitlement reform" entirely differently, as if conservatives are saying, "these are welfare programs with handouts to lazy layabouts that don't deserve them."
I have to admit that this puzzles me. Perhaps this is like the Yanni/Lauren dispute or the time that my teen enjoyed finding high pitched noises on Youtube and asking me whether I could hear them, but I cannot "hear" the word "entitlement program" as anything other than a straightforward way of categorizing programs where people who qualify are entitled to the benefits rather then Congress appropriating a given amount of money each year and good luck to you if you are stuck on a wait list.
But it does appear that -- for, well, People Who Are Not Me, "entitlement" is a pejorative. For reasons that aren't entirely clear to me, those who object to the phrase connect it up with a negative sort of behavior, "having a sense of entitlement," meaning expecting success in life that one doesn't deserve, for instance, for instance, a stereotypical young man feeling "entitled" to having the woman of his choice go out on a date with him or feeling "entitled" to a good grade in his college class or a pay raise or promotion regardless of effort.
Never said anything close to either of those statements - I just said we should pay for what we get.
A significant portion of my family is either in the military or former military. My reference to 'entitlement' is related to what the GOP is starting to call social security - an 'entitlement'. Neither military pension or ss are entitlements.
If you read carefully, in my first response, I said that I understand funding of infrastructure. However, a tax cut, letting people keep more of what they earn is not "Free Money", in any sense of the phrase.
Per your statements regarding infrastructure, yes, it must be funded. It is apparent you do not understand how the Federal budget process works. Active and completed projects are funded with prior year appropriations. For example, for a major highway project, the project cost estimates are developed, the bids are received, a prime is chosen, and the funding is obligated. That funding is already in the Federal budget. It is not reliant upon future tax revenues. The assertion that paying less in taxes somehow equates to getting "free" services from government is just incorrect.
I often hear a similar flawed argument regarding local tax issues. I live outside the city limits in an unincorporated part of the county. The large local city recently attempted to annex vast swaths of the unincorporated areas of the county. This was supposedly under the guise of "protecting the military training mission, code enforcement, and delivery of services." The residents in my area were opposed to annexation, because the military training mission is already protected via a number of means that I can elaborate on in great detail, and the city already provides substandard services to existing residents. The whole thing was simply a tax grab. The top priority annexation parcel was predictably the most affluent of the all of the areas to be annexed.
When discussing, supporters of the annexation, all of which were unaffected, and lived outside the areas to be annexed made a similar argument about getting something for nothing, and "free" services. This, like your current argument, was incorrect. We receive zero services from the city that are not paid for. Power: paid for, with additional excise for living outside of the city. Additionally, sales taxes on power bills fund programs within the city that area residents are ineligible to receive. So, someone is indeed receiving "free" stuff. Water/sewer: paid for, with an additional excise for living outside of the city. Emergency services: paid for via property tax revenue. Trash: paid for via private company. Education: paid for (and then some) via property taxes. I also foot the bill for city colleges within the city. Until this year, a large portion of my local ISDs tax revenues were recaptured by the state and diverted to other districts. That would be an example of the "free" stuff you're looking for, BTW. Road infrastructure: Paid for via HOA dues. HOA maintains all roads in my neighborhood. For my commute to work, I travel on interstate highways exclusively. The 1 mile of city street I take from the interstate to my office location was completely renovated via Federal dollars during the most recent Base Realignment and Closure commission, which I contributed to via my Federal income tax. Not getting anything for nothing.
Your position seems to be primarily one of concern over how other people's money is being spent. You may have a future in politics!
mommy and daddy are big time den in EL Paso and EL Paso has a huge population of hispanics - and they mostly vote based on race not issues
Obviously you have a bad case of diarhea of the mouth. You don't have a clue about El Paso to know what you're talking about. You sound exactly like the kind of person who voted for McCain in 2008 and Romney in 2012 based on race, not issues.
Actually they ARE entitlements. As in "you meet the criteria, you are entitled to the program." Not "You have a sense of entitlement so you get some money."
It is true in the legal sense of the word that ss is an entitlement by definition; however, it is also something that has been paid for for many years in advance. The politicians play off the definition intentionally, though. The amount paid into SS is actually fairly in-line with what is paid out - if you ignore medicare. From an article a few years back:
Quote:
For an average-wage-earning, two-income couple turning 65 in 2010, the pay-in, pay-out ratio for Social Security by itself will actually be slightly negative —- the couple will have paid $600,000 in lifetime Social Security taxes and will receive only $579,000 in lifetime Social Security benefits. (Remember, the couple didn’t literally pay out $600,000; that’s the current value of what they paid out over the years, plus an additional 2 percent they may have gotten had it been invested.)
The balance can vary greatly based on work history, earnings, marital status, etc. but it seems dishonest to say that money that has been taken out of your paycheck for decades with the stated intention of supporting you in the retirement years is now labeled as 'entitlement' with a wink at the common parlance definition "the belief that one is inherently deserving of privileges or special treatment." Under the common definition, not regulatory use, how is 90% of the population receiving special treatment by receiving back benefits approximately equal to what they gave up?
Now, medicare - that is the big issue. That is really why ss is going 'bankrupt'. And the reason why? Because insurance companies do their damnedest to insure only 'healthy' and young people. As soon as they become 'old' or unhealthy, they are booted to the government tab. It would be much more 'fair' if a health insurance company had to take on clients at whatever rate was negotiated between them and the client, and then be unable to vary that rate (other than maybe inflation or if you started to smoke, etc) for the life span of that client. They could also not boot that client. The insurance companies would be forced to charge more for the young but the financial drain on the elderly would no longer be shifted to the government. People squawk because it costs them, but really it is just costing them already through deficit spending.
It is true in the legal sense of the word that ss is an entitlement by definition; however, it is also something that has been paid for for many years in advance. The politicians play off the definition intentionally, though. The amount paid into SS is actually fairly in-line with what is paid out - if you ignore medicare. From an article a few years back:
The balance can vary greatly based on work history, earnings, marital status, etc. but it seems dishonest to say that money that has been taken out of your paycheck for decades with the stated intention of supporting you in the retirement years is now labeled as 'entitlement' with a wink at the common parlance definition "the belief that one is inherently deserving of privileges or special treatment." Under the common definition, not regulatory use, how is 90% of the population receiving speciI admial treatment by receiving back benefits approximately equal to what they gave up?
Now, medicare - that is the big issue. That is really why ss is going 'bankrupt'. And the reason why? Because insurance companies do their damnedest to insure only 'healthy' and young people. As soon as they become 'old' or unhealthy, they are booted to the government tab. It would be much more 'fair' if a health insurance company had to take on clients at whatever rate was negotiated between them and the client, and then be unable to vary that rate (other than maybe inflation or if you started to smoke, etc) for the life span of that client. They could also not boot that client. The insurance companies would be forced to charge more for the young but the financial drain on the elderly would no longer be shifted to the government. People squawk because it costs them, but really it is just costing them already through deficit spending.
I agree with your view on the term 'entitlement'.
I disagree with your assessment medicare is the reason SS is going bankrupt. Do you know SS is the largest owner of our national debt? Most people think it is China, but no it's SS. Since it's inception back in the late '30's SS has become a gold mine for the government. They like to spook people by saying it's going bankrupt and make people afraid they are going to do away with the program. Yeah right. I admit the government does a lot of stupid things but killing a golden goose is not going to be one of them.
Health care, medicare - whew, where to start. I can't even begin since it is such a time consuming, complex issue and I don't have time nor the inclination to spend on it right now. I will say they collect medicare out of your salary throughout your lifetime like SS but on a much smaller scale, then you continue to pay for it each month after you are eligible to draw it and you do sign up for it.
I wouldn't attempt to claim I know the answer to our health care dilemma, but I will offer this tidbit for thought. IMO if the government would focus more of it's attention and resources to education, this would help to resolve many of the issues. I did not say solve, but rather help resolve. We are a resourceful country, we should be able to educate physicians and nurses without sending them into debt for the next half of their lives. As it stands now they in turn need revenue to try and re-coup so they send their patients into debt just paying for even a simple service. So, instead of sending our tax dollars to Bumf*ck Egypt, use it to educate our youth who are striving to become useful members of our society so they in turn give back to the society by way of offering medical care at affordable prices.
Cost of hospitalization - dear Lord. It's beyond crazy, it's insane.Sure, I realize equipment costs money, insurance is expensive (another topic for another day - and I'm talking about malpractice suits, etc., some justified, others no, just another avenue for scam artists but overall, it's one of the oh geez, so much to be discussed here), but let's just say the overall overhead is yeah, costly, but to the point it has escalated to now? Inflation is one thing, but hey they have escalated the prices completely out of the ballpark. There is no rhyme or reason hospital costs should be as exorbitant as they are now. It's like they are thinking, ok, people get sick enough to need hospitalization, hey they are going to have to come to us regardless of the cost so let's all stick together and fleece them good. Hell, charging $1,000.00 for an aspirin with a straight face! I know, I exaggerated, but you know what I'm saying. A line should have been drawn on this a long time ago - instead it has been allowed to skyrocket.
Medicine - yep, anther can of worms. I realize research is expensive but the returns can also be monetary beneficial for years. I see corruption in this field of our health care system too. Think about this, if other countries can produce medicine and sell it for a reasonable price, why can't the US? We can research it, manufacture it and sell it for a reasonable profit. So, why not do it? Are we stupid or is it just another case of greed? I think we all know the answer here.
Nope. Visited often as old friends are there. It’s one of the greatest places on earth. I just find it so disheartening that such a proud state allowed itself to be invaded and soon defeated.
Then since you're not from here, I'll excuse the ignorance.
Mexicans have a long history in Texas, since, you know, it used to be Mexico. There have been Mexicans who fought for Texas Independence. To assume that their decedents are "invading" their own land is disrespectful at best. Please, next time save your comments for yourself.
Then since you're not from here, I'll excuse the ignorance.
Mexicans have a long history in Texas, since, you know, it used to be Mexico. There have been Mexicans who fought for Texas Independence. To assume that their decedents are "invading" their own land is disrespectful at best. Please, next time save your comments for yourself.
I fail to see your logic here. Texas has been under the rule of several countries including being it's own republic, but it is now a part of the United States and operating under the US laws.
As to who fought for Texas independence, what does that have to do with illegal immigration? That's like saying a Chinese citizen whose Tennessean forefather fought for Texas independence now has the right to enter our country through illegal means and reside here. Uh no, I don't think so.
btw I'll save you the trouble of asking - I am a born and bred Texan.
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.
