Apr 27, 2012 -- 10:35AM, Girlchristian wrote:

Apr 27, 2012 -- 10:27AM, Bodean wrote:

Apr 27, 2012 -- 9:42AM, Girlchristian wrote:

Sure it is and that also needs to be fixed, but I'm not like you and other conservatives that think we should cut all social and federal programs completely and just let people fend for themselves even if that means they're dying on the streets. There has to be a balance of good spending and the right collection of taxes.

GC .. I can't believe you stooped to that level! .. I mean .. as if it were true .. which it is not!!

Even I, a Libertarian, who probably comes closest to this false assumption, do not advocate cutting all social federal programs completely while people die in the streets!  That's rediculous, and I know of no one who'd advocate it.

I wasn't talking about you, but I personally know three conservatives that do advocate ending all social programs and when I point out that people would die and especially children their answer is "so what, I shouldn't have to pay for them." We have conservatives on this board that think welfare should be cut off even if that means children would suffer, which is an extreme view. You don't feel that way and I don't, but there are conservatives out there that do.

There's a difference in an "entitlement" .. and a "safety net".

Completely agreee.

I mean ... do we really need to spend 8 Billion on free cell phones for the poor??  [ www.marketwire.com/press-release/Everybo... ]Are cell phones now right up there with Healthcare and Retirement??  And that's just one example ... there are Billions of Dollars more of these types of examples.

No, cell phones aren't needed, but proposals like forced sterilization for welfare recipients  or refusing to give more welfare if a recipient has another child while on welfare (an idea proposed by a conservative here) would be more in line with what I'm talking about.

Put me down as a conservative that believes we should completely cut out every social program and reload.

You can reload Soc Sec #1, Medicare #2, but in a sustainable way.  Do this every year for the next 10 years KNOWING you will cut those 3% per year.

If one of two things would happen all social programs would immediately be cut out or at least priorietized to some functionability:

1.  US loses the Reserve Currency status

2.  Pass into law the debt ceiling will no longer raised and be reduced 5% per year over the next 10 years.

Otherwise, we continue to print and spend and we will wind up there anyway just much MUCH worse off.

LIBS!  GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF THE SAND!

Apr 27, 2012 -- 10:31AM, TENAC wrote:

Apr 27, 2012 -- 10:20AM, Cesmom wrote:

Apr 27, 2012 -- 10:00AM, TENAC wrote:

Liberals dont think.  Period.  End of discussion.

This is as good a place as any to insert this truism:

Revenue is NOT the problem.

SPENDING is the problem, see barrack obama 2008-2012.

Liberals don't think and conservatives do...interesting.  

Spending is definitely a problem, but if you talk to a conservative, it's "cut spending and damn the consequences".  Well we have yet to cut spending, and we are about damned, wouldnt you say? Which consequencs would be worse to continue this spending or cut spending in a huge way?  Rein in the bloated Fed Govt?   Unnecessary wars have accounted for a lot more debt in this country than any kind of entitlement program.  The consequences that would be worse than out of control government spending would be to have kids going to bed hungry as it was in the depression era before the creation of a lot of the safety nets we have now.  Yes, there are people who need to work that don't work, and creating jobs is obviously important, but there will always be a need for social programs.  Should half the population of the US be receiving a govt stipend?  Of course not, but don't act like it's only the poor or lazy who are living off of government stipends.  How about the huge corporations who, not only don't end up paying any taxes, but actually get money back?

www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/1334-which-... 

There will always be those who genuinely need help to survive Always the same people?  No, it shouldn't always be the same people.  The purpose of the safety net should be to get people back on their feet.  If it's not working the way it's intended, it needs to be modified, not eliminated.  There will always be kids who have little hope of a decent future without the benefit of a little 'government intervention'. Totally disagree.  There is evidence everyday of kids coming from nothing to something.  Not everyone can, but most I read about didnt get govt help to do so.   Sure, there are kids coming from nothing to something, but they account for a small percentage.  What about the 90% who come from nothing and end up the same?  To talk to a conservative, you would think this problem is magically going to go away on its own.  Absolutely.

Oh, and you overlook the rich liberals out there who could exist quite well without conservatives. 

Only for a while.  Once they began to see their principle affected, it has a strange effect on liberals.  It makes them conservative.  Warren Buffet is a great example of how this is not true.  

At the end of the day, if obama is reelected and this country continues to find its way to the bottom of the crapper, we will ALL be conservatives.

We are at the point now where the govt (this adminstration particularly) not only LIE to us, but know they are lying and they know WE know they are lying and we are beginning to develop an acceptance to it.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQHuYzaeRww

Tenac,if Liberals dont think,end of discussion, then you must be a moron for wasting your time arguing with them.

Apr 27, 2012 -- 12:33PM, Bodean wrote:

Apr 27, 2012 -- 11:04AM, Cesmom wrote:

Unnecessary wars have accounted for a lot more debt in this country than any kind of entitlement program.  

That's simply not even remotely true. 

www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html

"In 2012, the projected difference between Social Security’s dedicated tax income and expenditures is $165 billion.  For HI, the projected difference between dedicated tax and premium income and expenditures is $38 billion. The  projected general revenue demands of SMI are $217 billion. Thus, the total general funds for Social Security  and Medicare in 2012 are $420 billion, or 2.7 percent of GDP. Redemption of trust fund bonds, interest paid on  those bonds, and transfers from the general funds provide no new net income to the Treasury, which must finance  these payments through  some combination of increased taxation, reductions in other government spending, or additional borrowing from the public."

Cesmom .. that's not total expenditure .. that's total DEFICIT .. just for 2012.

The total cost of Iraq/Afghanistan since 2001 has been 1.3 Trillion, only 800 Billion of which actually went to the war, the balance going into foriegn bases and VA benefits.  S.S. and Medicare Deficits just for 2012 are almost HALF of the entire debt incurred by the wars.

It is what it is.  I don't like wars, you don't like wars ..none of us like the wars .. but the wars are NOT the reason we are sinking like the Titanic.

It just eats at me that Social Security is referred to in the same context as welfare and other government 'handout' programs.  If it were set up correctly in the first place, there wouldn't be a deficit.  The average person pays about $100 grand into Social Security during their lifetime, above and beyond any income taxes we pay.  Not even the poorest worker is immune to paying into Social Security...you pay no matter how little you make.  

The deficit in Social Security is due to mis-management, not too much 'entitlement'.

Apr 27, 2012 -- 1:02PM, Cesmom wrote:

It just eats at me that Social Security is referred to in the same context as welfare and other government 'handout' programs.  If it were set up correctly in the first place, there wouldn't be a deficit.

But that is the problem, they were not set up correctly in the first place.   And they have not been managed correctly, nor have the adjustments to them been based on reality, but instead, have been based on what earns one the most political capital.

GC's post shows the problem.  It's the one place where the "progressive" nature of our system just doesn't work out.  Having the top 10% of earners footing the overwhelming majority of non socail spending programs works out fine, but when you throw in wealth redistribution in the S.S. and Medicare systems, it fails miserably because there is a "threshold" below which you cannot go below.  Thus, 80% of the population is collecting more than they pay in, but the top earners are not paying enough to meet that goal.

The answer to some is uncapp the system so the rich get soaked to fill the gaps.  But really, how long will that go on??  The rich have plenty and don't need to work.  They can pack up their money and move to South American and live happily ever after for several life times.  Where does that leave you??  It leaves you with this undefunded slush trust fund, and borrowing Trillions.

People are going to have to be forced to take a larger responsiblity for their retirement needs.  An individual account, with a mandated minimum pre-tax contribution based on what your expected needs will be.  If it looks like you need to put more in the kitty ... then you will have to make adjustments in your life NOW, to make sure your tomorrow is covered.