Would you be in favor of elimination or significantly reducing entitlement programs along with a tax increase to reduce our deficit?
I’m not expecting to get social security or medicare, and my parents are already dead, so yeah, let’s make sure your parents don’t get any.
Sure knock yourself out and reform the entitlements if accompanied by near term expansionary fiscal policy. The entitlements are a long term issue not one today. Try to cut deficits now and you will throw the economy back into a recession/depression similar to the late 1930s and similar to the failed austerity programs ongoing in Europe currently. Personally I’m not in favor of government spending on anything that is not clearly a public good (education, infrastructure, some aspects of healthcare, military, etc). Social safety nets fall in that category but reform is certainly reasonable given the rising costs of healthcare. I think Social Security is a “good” program and it is definitely solvent for the foreseeable future, leaving Medicare and Medicaid as the elephants in the room. It is the obsessive focus some people have on slashing government spending and raising taxes now that is unequivocally a bad idea in my opinion. Worry about the economy now, not the deficit.
I really wish we could find some way to abolish social security in its present form. I think some kind of “forced saving” such as mandatory payroll deductions placed into CDs/savings that just roll over would be beneficial to those who cannot save for themselves. Even at just a couple % interest compounded over 40 years would be a lot of money. Get rid of the SS ponzi scheme/trust fund BS. Medicare isn’t going anywhere, but we need to find a way to contain costs. Obamacare completely failed at containing health care costs.
For the hundredth time, social security is NOT a f*cking entitlement program! Stop watching so much Fox News! Social Security is an overly generous and poorly designed Pension Program! If you and your spouse never worked a day in your life; you won’t be receiving social security benefits. It’s so annoying when people call social security an entitlement program, especially financial professionals who should know better!
For the hundredth time, Zesty. You’re wrong. The phrase “Entitlement programs” was created so that conservatives can say “cut entitlements,” which sounds like you’re taking away things from greedy people who don’t deserve them, rather than say “cut medicare and social security,” which would get them thrown out of office at the very next election. Social safety net programs also get lumped in with Entitlements, but the country is more divided on whether to keep these. The fact that you have to pass certain conditions to qualify for social security doesn’t change the fact that it’s an entitlement. You have to have under a certain income to qualify for welfare. You have to have had a job and be looking for a new job to qualify for unemployment. But these are also in the firing line as entitlements, and even all put together, they are quite a bit smaller than the social security and medicare entitlements.
Try to take Social Security away and see if people think they’re entitled to it or not. You’re remarkably incorrect Zesty.
@bchadwick and sweep, I’m surprised at the level of ignorance here. Using your flawed logic then your companies 401(k) program is an entitlement program. An entitlement program is one that is a right across a population reference point; i.e. once you hit 65 you can get medicare (i.e. you don’t have to pay anything to receive Medicare). Social Security is a pension plan, i.e. annuity product, where you pay a certain amount of money to receive guaranteed payments upon retirement. If you haven’t paid into social security you’re not receiving a dime (unless you’re receiving benefits of a dead spouse who did pay in). If you don’t understand this fundamental difference well, let’s just say I’m sorry for anyone that comes to you for financial advice!
Zesty–seriously, just look it up. Anywhere.
TkPk_CFA Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Zesty–seriously, just look it up. > > Anywhere. From dictionary.com: Main Entry: entitlement program Part of Speech: n Definition: a government program guaranteeing certain benefits to a segment of the population; the right to benefits offered by a government, esp. as compensation From Auburn University’s Glossary of Political Economic Terms: Entitlement program The kind of government program that provides individuals with personal financial benefits (or sometimes special government-provided goods or services) to which an indefinite (but usually rather large) number of potential beneficiaries have a legal right (enforceable in court, if necessary) whenever they meet eligibility conditions that are specified by the standing law that authorizes the program. The beneficiaries of entitlement programs are normally individual citizens or residents, but sometimes organizations such as business corporations, local governments, or even political parties may have similar special “entitlements” under certain programs. The most important examples of entitlement programs at the federal level in the United States would include Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, most Veterans’ Administration programs, federal employee and military retirement plans, unemployment compensation, food stamps, and agricultural price support programs.
@higg, Auburn University, come on. But seriously, fine, if we want to say that SS is technically classified as one fine, I concede. But SS is fundamentally different and I don’t see how SS is different from a pension program at the state level? Why aren’t GM pensions called entitlement programs? Please answer these questions? 1. Is a GM pension an entitlement program? 2. How is a GM pension different from SS? Thanks
Auburn says, “number of potential beneficiaries have a legal right (enforceable in court, if necessary) whenever they meet eligibility conditions that are specified by the standing law that authorizes the program.” If you reach eligibility requirements for SS, age 65, and haven’t paid into SS, you’re not getting a dime. Auburn’s definition doesn’t make sense.
Nobody is saying that an entitlement program means everyone in the country gets paid. You’re right–if you haven’t paid into SS, you’re not getting a dime. Because you’re not ENTITLED to. That doesn’t mean that social security isn’t an entitlement program. You just have to let go of your own definition that an entitlement means everybody gets it. Fine, you don’t like Auburn’s definition (gosh-dang southerners)…how about the Congressional Budget Office? entitlement: A legal obligation of the federal government to make payments to a person, group of people, business, unit of government, or similar entity that meets the eligibility criteria set in law and for which the budget authority is not provided in advance in an appropriation act. Spending for entitlement programs is controlled through those programs’ eligibility criteria and benefit or payment rules. The best-known entitlements are the government’s major benefit programs, such as Social Security and Medicare.
TkPk, I agree, technically it is classified as one, I can argue with Auburn (hicks) but I’m not going to sit here and argue with the CBO. I’m just saying, if you look at Medicaid, Medicare, and SS. One is definitely not like the other. @Bcahd, I take back my rant aimed at you.
Zesty Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @higg, Auburn University, come on. They are the reigning BCS champion and the dude who put together the glossary earned his MA and PhD from Stanford. He also taught at Yale earlier in his career.
higgmond Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Zesty Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > @higg, Auburn University, come on. > > They are the reigning BCS champion and the dude > who put together the glossary earned his MA and > PhD from Stanford. He also taught at Yale earlier > in his career. The guy sounds legit. Zesty, I understand your logic but I believe you are overthinking this one.
@higg, Auburn has won one BCS bowl; I’ll bet you money that they won’t repeat.
Correction I think they won the Sugar bowl back a few years ago.
Zesty Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @higg, Auburn has won one BCS bowl; I’ll bet you > money that they won’t repeat. Only a diehard Auburn fan or really stupid money would bet on Auburn to repeat, and I am neither. They probably lose 3 games this year. Auburn did win the Sugar in 2005, but it was not the BCS title game. Thanks to Reggie Bush, there is no 2005 BCS Champion.
So, back to the original question: ManMythLegend Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Would you be in favor of elimination or > significantly reducing entitlement programs along > with a tax increase to reduce our deficit? Yup. It won’t be pleasant, but last I checked, this was basically the only feasible option.