close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Entitlement ......?

Discussion in 'The Okie Corral' started by dango, Oct 14, 2012.

  1. My wife currently receives SSI disability. She has had 5 spinal surgeries including a 2-stage fusion and a spinal cord stimulator. Despite this, she actually had to go to court to fight for her disability. The judge, when presented with the incontrovertible medical evidence (which was validated by his medical expert), approved her disability. In fact, the only reason my wife had to go to court was that she was only 41 at the time and the judge wanted to see for himself that she truly met the criteria for disability. I truly applaud the judge's decision to personally evaluate her condition - and wish all cases were subjected to such an evaluation.
     
  2. Z71bill

    Z71bill

    15,843
    2,969
    Feb 19, 2007
    Texas
    The problem is OUT OF CONTROL government spending.

    A BIG part of every entitlement - and I mean all entitlements - social security, medicare & GI bill - were all - at least in part passed into law --

    TO GET VOTES -- so someone could get REELECTED.

    The problem with entitlements is you pass stuff that gives people things - mostly in the future - so it is easy to overspend.

    As a result of all of these past "promises" we are heading into a financial crisis.

    DO THE MATH -

    Even under current spending - if we had to balance the federal budget - EVERY TAXPAYER would see their FEDERAL taxes (income + payroll) increase by 40%.

    The real question is -

    You want to keep the government entitlement checks flowing - and pay 40% more in taxes - or cut back on some of the entitlements.

    If you do a little reading you will quickly figure out that the REAL HEAVY spending - the things that future payments are talked about in TRILLIONS - are the very programs that some here are claiming are NOT really entitlements because - I paid into SS - or I earned theses entitlement benefits.

    All the other (true:upeyes:) welfare is real money too - but it is small potatoes compared to the others.

    The bottom line is - IT DOES NOT MATTER IF THEY ARE earned or deferred compensation - because there is just not enough money in the country to pay for all of the promises.
     
    Last edited: Oct 18, 2012

  3. dherloc

    dherloc X-Nuc

    1,292
    24
    Jan 26, 2009
    Florida
    Since the debate is primarily about which "entitlement" program should be cut...will use 40% as the lets balance it out standard since it was recently brought up.

    Why not a 40% across the board cut for EVERYONE and EVERYTHING that the government spends money on? Mr. Prez...you get a 40% pay cut. Mr. E-1...so do you. Foreign aid...40%. SS recipients...40%. EVERYONE. Road budget...40%. Grants to study fruit fly wing size...40%. Cancer research...40%. Section 8...40%. EVERYTHING. You get the idea.

    No hike in taxes, spending is suddenly under control, and we go from there.

    Lets face it...never going to happen. Greece, here we come!
     
    Last edited: Oct 18, 2012
  4. mgs

    mgs Always Carrying Millennium Member

    3,010
    27
    Dec 21, 1998
    cogan station, pa, usa
    Entitlement (700 billion) has now exceeded spending of the Defense Department (500 billion)....that is a nightmare!
     
  5. certifiedfunds

    certifiedfunds Tewwowist

    54,947
    7,173
    Apr 23, 2008
    Houston
    Welfare spending is well in excess of $700B. It is right near total annual federal revenue of $2.2T.

    Social security and Medicare alone are right about $1T.
     
  6. mgs

    mgs Always Carrying Millennium Member

    3,010
    27
    Dec 21, 1998
    cogan station, pa, usa
    Yikes!!!! Thanks but this has to stop!
     
  7. certifiedfunds

    certifiedfunds Tewwowist

    54,947
    7,173
    Apr 23, 2008
    Houston
    Pretty much every dime of tax revenue is spent on welfare. Debt funds everything else, including DOD
     
  8. nursetim

    nursetim

    15,066
    8,445
    Mar 1, 2006
    liberalville N. M.
    The cuts that would have to be made will never be made as they are too dramatic. We could shut down the government and fold the tents, and it still would not help. Maybe taking the check book away from the politicians and the beurocrats, I don't like them enough to spell their title correctly, but then who do you give it to?

    The answer is, drum roll please. There is no answer. We will default at some point and Argentina's fate will be ours. Oh joy.
     
  9. series1811

    series1811 Enforcerator. CLM

    That illustrates the problem in a very understandable way. A 40 per cent across the board cut in everything is about what it would take to balance the budget and to start to take care of the debt.

    But, most of the federal programs have lobbiest who will start handing out money to Congressmen (and the President) to get their 40 per cent cut removed. And, then we are right back were we started.
     
  10. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/18/opinion/kristof-scotts-story-and-the-election.html?_r=0

    Quote from one of the comments,

    That doesn't match what you said.
     
  11. certifiedfunds

    certifiedfunds Tewwowist

    54,947
    7,173
    Apr 23, 2008
    Houston
    Did you even read the article you quoted? The guy's friend had a good paying job with insurance, and then quit that job to "read books and play poker" making $13,000 per year.

    Then he was diagnosed with prostate cancer.

    Is that what you folks think should happen? Guy quits his job to "read books and play poker" and the taxpayers should pick up his healthcare costs when he gets cancer?

    What idiots.

    Choices have consequences. Quit trying to paper over them with other people's money.
     
    Last edited: Oct 18, 2012
  12. Z71bill

    Z71bill

    15,843
    2,969
    Feb 19, 2007
    Texas
    Actually - in nice round numbers --

    it is 40% increase in taxes -- but 29% cut in spending-- to balance the budget.

    1 trillion deficit
    2.5 trillion tax revenue
    3.5 trillion spending

    1/2.5 = 40% tax increase

    But only 1/3.5 = 29% spending cut.

    Don't you feel better that we only need to cut about 30% instead of 40%? :upeyes:
     
    Last edited: Oct 18, 2012
  13. certifiedfunds

    certifiedfunds Tewwowist

    54,947
    7,173
    Apr 23, 2008
    Houston
    That should be clarified, increase in tax revenue, not tax rates. You know the two aren't the same thing.
     
  14. DanaT

    DanaT Pharaoh

    People don't know that and that is where Romney isn't explaining it. Obama has people believing that the only way to get more revenue is to raise to raise the rate on another group. He wants a bigger of
    The same sized (or smaller) pie. He can't see that a smaller piece of bigger may actually be more pie.

    For those that have a hard time with math. Which is more? A half of a 3lb chicken or a quarter of a 15lb turkey?




    Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine
     
  15. boomhower

    boomhower

    3,323
    2
    Feb 14, 2010
    North Carolina
    It must vary on locality. My area has gotten to be known as the place to go to get a check. They have even started to come from neighboring states. The city keeps building more projects and more and more come. No one works. The side-effect is business has stopped coming. It's gone on so long there is no longer a workforce here. If a company came in and wanted to hire 150 workers for factory jobs they couldn't do it. Out of 15,000 people in this town they could not find 150 people who:

    1. don't have a better job(schools system, city, county, or hospital)
    2. Graduated HS or have GED
    3. Could pass a drug test
    4. Have a clean enough criminal background
    5. Actually want to work.

    It just wouldn't happen. Everyone is happy sitting at home collecting there checks. I deal with these folks everyday. 25 years old with three or four kids collecting checks. I actually had a woman with a three month old baby getting an SSI check because the baby had ADD. How the hell to you diagnose ADD in the three month old? Tell me it isn't a racket for crooked docs/lawyers and I call BS.

    The system is going to break on day and it isn't going to be pretty.
     
  16. ken grant

    ken grant

    1,986
    408
    Apr 3, 2004
    middle ga.
    S.S. was doing great until the Politicians saw how much money was in the fund and decided to dip into it to fund other projects.
     
  17. Z71bill

    Z71bill

    15,843
    2,969
    Feb 19, 2007
    Texas
    I think -

    When status of SS is reported they count the IOU's from the cash borrowed and spent from the general fund as part of the assets available to meet the entitlements.

    So - on one hand the money being taken does not change the point where SS will "run out of money" that the CBO does. They are making the assumption that the government will pay back the government. :cool:

    But of course it does matter - because the federal government will need to (most likely) borrow the money to pay back the SS "trust:upeyes::rofl:" fund from someplace else.

    IMHO even if the cash was not drained off and spent - it would still be an overstatement to say SS was doing great before.

    If this was a company type pension plan it would show as underfunded by TRILLIONS of dollars either way.

    Ponzi scheme would be more accurate description - :dunno:
     
    Last edited: Oct 19, 2012
  18. certifiedfunds

    certifiedfunds Tewwowist

    54,947
    7,173
    Apr 23, 2008
    Houston
    Think about the very premise of SS doing great. Is that really what you consider a positive thing?

    Basically you're saying that the citizens are being taxed at a greater amount than the program is paying out.

    Why is it good ?
     
  19. skippz

    skippz

    478
    0
    May 29, 2006
    East Kentucky
    Same in my neck of the woods... It's actually sad because there are ppl who are truly disabled, and they have so many hoops to jump thru because of the lazy a**es that collect it undeservingly, all the while doing handyman work off the books for cash.
     
  20. .264 magnum

    .264 magnum CLM

    12,920
    524
    Dec 5, 2002
    Dallas TX
    That makes no sense at all to me. Can you explain?